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.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair. It's nice to see you again. I enjoyed working with you on the public safety committee.

Mr. Carr, it's nice to see you again. I did enjoy working both with and against you on natural resource issues during your years as natural resources minister. I also want to recognize your service both in Manitoba and to Canada, and it's nice to see you well and in person.

Far be it from me to be surprised today to agree with an NDP member from Ontario, but I'm just here to speak on behalf of the Alberta constituents I represent. Following up on the point that our colleague from Ontario made and also our Conservative colleague here from Saskatchewan, I think your bill, seven years into the Liberals being in government, is quite a negative commentary on this federal government's track record on negotiating and consulting with prairie provinces. It seems to me that your aspirations and intentions in this legislation, which I know are good, would imply that consultations so far between the various levels of government have been ineffective or lacking.

I guess what I'm curious about is how you sort of reconcile what you clearly have identified as a need for this sort of legislation against a federal government that is, for example, facing lawsuits from all three provincial governments on the carbon tax, on the shipping ban, Bill C-48, the “no more pipeline spills”, and Bill C-69, which will also have major consequences, of course, not just for resources projects but all kinds of other economic development.

On those three issues, the vast majority of prairie representatives who happen to sit federally in the Conservative caucus as well as those prairie provincial representatives say they are among the top threats destroying economic development in their provinces and livelihoods of their citizens and of the people I represent.

It just seems that you are asking for a committee and politicians to create a framework and a mandate, which I presume is going to cost something, to enable a process to occur, which clearly already should be happening, but we are sitting here where we are in reality with the federal government that is being opposed on all kinds of major pieces of legislation and their policy agenda by those very provinces.

Third reading

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny to hear the Conservatives yelling because we are talking about the economy and tourism development, which is so important. They are putting a dark cloud over a region by changing something that was working very well. This is so unbelievable, it just boggles my mind.

I find it especially appalling that they continue to claim that meaningful consultation took place. Every time I heard any of the debates in the House on the previous Bill C-49, which has become Bill C-7, I heard the minister say he had the support of the City of Gatineau and its mayor. The Conservatives are playing with words and doing some fancy footwork with those kinds of comments. They are putting words in people's mouths, words those people never said. In that sense, I feel as though many Canadians are being misled. The Conservatives want to give the impression that they are changing something for the better.

I do not know how the government is going to react. The region is already struggling in terms of the public service breakdown, unless the government would have us believe that the job cuts made in Ottawa will achieve the famous 75:25 ratio that has always been promised to the Outaouais. Cutting jobs in Ottawa does not mean greater balance. That is not job creation.

This is exactly what is happening with this museum. It is a major concern for the economic players in my region and also for Outaouais Tourism. Obviously, when a minister shows up with a cheque for $25 million, people may be a bit embarrassed to speak up about certain topics. What I can say is that this has caused a wave of concern throughout the region.

I encourage people on the other side to do something other than just attend self-congratulatory events. They should go to the museum on a day when tourists are visiting so they can see what brings people to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am not saying that a museum of Canadian history is not important or necessary, or that Canadians would not all be better off learning more about our history, but why change the mandate of a great museum? As my colleague from Pontiac was saying, is this being done simply to turn it into a state propaganda tool? This creates rather serious problems to be sure.

Obviously, the Conservatives were ordered to vote a certain way. This is unfortunate. I have seen this museum grow and flourish. The Conservatives may laugh, but I can tell them that our region is close enough to Parliament to hear them laugh. People will remember. The members on the other side found it very funny to see that they could change a winning formula. We will see whether the new approach works. Meanwhile, as they say, if this causes some tourism and economic problems in a certain region, who cares? What was it that the Prime Minister said? He said, “I couldn't care less.” This is the message the Conservatives are sending out. In 2015, the people of the Outaouais will vote to tell the government: “We couldn't care less.”

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gatineau.

I have the honour and the duty to rise in the House to oppose Bill C-7, which appears directly connected to the Conservatives' plan not only to eliminate history, but also to control it. A Conservative member even said in this House that they were trying to control history.

Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-49, is the Conservatives' latest attempt to rewrite our history by recalibrating the Canadian Museum of Civilization and giving it a new image as the Canadian museum of history.

I am proud of our history, but in this bill, the Conservatives are presenting an incomplete history that is a bit too political to be called history. The bill will narrow the museum's mandate, and I am very concerned that they are doing this to disregard parts of our diverse history, such the experiences of francophones, first nations and women.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an important institution in the Outaouais region, a region that I represent as a member from the RCM of Papineau. The museum received 1.2 million visitors last year and brought in $15 million in revenue. If the change to the museum's mandate is not done right, it could have disastrous effects on the Outaouais region's tourism industry, and therefore on my region as well. The region's economy and many jobs could be in jeopardy.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. It is a tourist draw that helps drive the economy. I cannot stress enough that this institution attracts people to the Outaouais, helps the tourism industry in the RCM of Papineau in particular, and helps stimulate the economy. Imagine losing these gateways to the Outaouais region, these huge museums like the Canadian Museum of Civilization—a museum that brings people from all over the world to the Outaouais. This will make a huge difference to our region if it is not done right.

Despite this obvious fact, the decision to transform the museum was not actually made by the minister's office. It is clear that this is a political decision, since the stakeholders in the Outaouais region were not consulted in this process. When people in my riding in the Outaouais say that this change will affect them, that they were not consulted and that they would have liked to be, I think this cannot be called consultation.

At the same time, the Conservatives will continue to spend millions until 2014 to commemorate the War of 1812, wasting taxpayers' money on pretty showcases, commemorations and ribbon cuttings.

In my riding, Grenville Canal was built as a result of certain events in 1812. However, the canal has been downright abandoned. It is falling apart and is being completely neglected and ignored by the government. However, it does exist and it has a place in our Canadian history. But no, it does not matter. On the other hand, there is always money for Freedom of the Town events held in towns that would have never had them.

In short, lately our history has been rewritten. It is clear that this initiative is part of a wider effort to promote symbols with a more conservative character. In my view, this is an actual scheme to rewrite our Canadian identity, carried out for the express purpose of highlighting militarism and the monarchy. Far be it from me—I really want to emphasize this—to speak against showcasing our military history. I have nothing against our military heroes.

The first time I came to Ottawa was to watch the Governor General present my uncle with the Order of Military Merit. I was a little girl at the time and my uncle took me to the Canadian Museum of Civilization for the first time. I am getting choked up thinking about it.

When most Canadians come to Ottawa for the first time, when they are young, on a school trip for example, they go to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They discover a great many things there. Let us not take that away from future generations of Canadians.

That being said, a history that only celebrates the military, which is what the Conservative government is doing, puts women second. No one ever talks about women in wartime, especially when we are talking about the past. Women are currently serving in Afghanistan, among other places, but when we are talking about history, no one talks about what women went through and how women helped to build the country.

I made this point during the study on the celebrations of the War of 1812 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Frankly, it was clear that I was not alone in saying so.

All these changes also give me the impression that the Conservatives are off-loading some important tasks to our smaller museums, which are accomplishing a lot with the little resources they have. They are fantastic. To illustrate what I mean, I will talk about two museums in my riding.

The Plaisance Heritage Centre is an important and exceptional museum in my riding. It is devoted to the local history of Petite-Nation in the Outaouais. This proud and compelling region needed a museum that showcased its local history. The interpretation centre was founded in 1994 and, like the Canadian Museum of Civilization, it includes a permanent exhibit and temporary exhibits. One of the temporary exhibits on right now is about the importance of rivers in Petite-Nation's history. The exhibit focuses on Champlain and celebrates the 400th anniversary of his voyage on the Ottawa River.

The centre brings a lot of people to the region. Those who were interested in following Champlain's route and who took part in the 400th anniversary activities in the Ottawa-Gatineau region and on the river, came through Plaisance. This is part of how the tourism industry in the Outaouais region works.

The Musée régional d'Argenteuil also sits on the banks of the Ottawa River. It was founded in 1938. It is the second-oldest private museum in Canada and is housed in the Carillon Barracks in Saint-André-d'Argenteuil. It was purchased by the Historical Society of Argenteuil County. Many of the founding members were very well known, in particular Maude Abbott. The region has gained recognition because of them and their dedication.

Unfortunately, small museums are fending for themselves and they do not receive enough help. That is why I find it so unfortunate that this resourcefulness and passion for history is being pitted against a Conservative government that is abandoning history, culture, our economy, our environment and the way of doing things that we pride ourselves on.

I would ask the members of the House one last time to not support this bill, to vote against it. It will have truly damaging effects, not only on my region, but also on the way we self-identify as Canadians. I find that very unfortunate.

Canadian Museum of History Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that we have the opposition parties opposing this bill and the new Canadian museum of history when we have heard so many positive comments.

I happened to have been sitting on the Canadian heritage committee this year before the summer when we had the previous Bill C-49 in front of us. We heard from so many people who were involved in history in Canada.

For example, we heard from Michael Bliss, who is a renowned Canadian historian and award-winning author. He said that it was very exciting that Canada's major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada's history.

The bill is all about that. It is a museum to celebrate Canada's history.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I approach this issue with a fair degree of trepidation, because I think I might find myself somewhere between opposition members and government members. When I read Bill C-7, which was Bill C-49, I cannot find anywhere in the text of the bill the desire to destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization or the new Canadian museum of history.

The mandate I find in the text 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.

In other words, I see what is happening at the Museum of Civilization. I can see that what is happening with the current management is disruptive to individual researchers. I read this in the press. However, I do not find malicious intent in the text of the bill, and that is what we have before us.

I ask my friend for guidance.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the bill earlier this week. It is a pleasure to stand here again and have the opportunity to speak to bill C-7, which was formerly Bill C-49. It represented the creation and the transfer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today.

First, I find Canada's rich history to be absolutely fascinating. For example, the history of Quebec, which was founded in 1608, is Canada's oldest city. Almost half the buildings in the historic district of old Quebec were built before 1850. Today, this 135 hectare area is a UNESCO world heritage site. The history of John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the other Fathers of Confederation negotiations at the Charlottetown, Quebec and London conferences led to the beginning of the Canada we know today. The living history we experience now such as Commander Chris Hadfield's amazing journey comes to mind. Last spring he mesmerized people around the world, me included. There is no doubt his name and his mission will be forever part of our collective Canadian history.

As members can imagine, I am delighted with our government's commitment to provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn more about our history.

We have already outlined initiatives we are taking to ensure Canadians have greater access to our history. I would like to mention just a couple of them.

The second Canada History Week will take place next July and communities throughout the country will celebrate history with local events. As well, we established the Canada history fund to recognize outstanding students and teachers of history.

When I spoke before the House on October 21, I also mentioned these initiatives, as well as others. For example, beginning in 2014, we plan to increase funding for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and the Canadian Encyclopedia. These are great tools that all Canadians can access online. We have also provided support for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017.

I am proud of the efforts of our government and I am proud of how we have worked to promote our Canadian history.

The proposed Canadian museum of history will play a key role in allowing Canadians to learn more and share our country's unique past. In fact, it will be housed on the banks of the Ottawa River in what we all now know as the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This beautiful building was designed by renowned architect Douglas Cardinal, whose incredible work could be a chapter in a story of our cultural heritage.

Mr. Cardinal offered an excellent observation about the Canadian Museum of Civilization's progression into the new Canadian museum of history. He said:

I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it's a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada.

On October 21, I provided a summary of the bill's progression through the House. As I have mentioned, we spent over 20 hours debating the legislation. We discussed it from many different angles: the need for a museum devoted to Canadian history; how it would be financed; as well, as the logistical details and how it would progress to its opening in 2016.

The legislation has received significant study and I am pleased to say that we have progressed to third reading stage.

In fact, when we asked for participation from Canadians across the country and what they thought should happen with the museum, we received over 20,000 pieces of advice from Canadians. This is clear evidence that Canadians are engaged in this process and are quite willing, when given the opportunity, to participate in a dialogue as to the direction the museum should take.

At the same time, I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the new museum. I want to assure the House that we have heard their comments and I would like to briefly address some of them.

The issue of the new museum's independence has been raised on more than one occasion. Rest assured, the Canadian museum of history, like all national museums, indeed, all crown corporations, will operate at arm's-length from the government.

I am so impressed by the people who manage our museums across the country, our small museums in small town communities or our large museums like Pier 21 and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is their commitment and effort that promote Canadian history in our country. These are the people who should be, will be and are responsible for the content in our museums.

Our government is establishing a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history, one focused on the history of our country. Once that is done, it will be the museum's capable board of trustees, its director, its management and all of the employees who will determine how to present our country's history.

I also heard members speak to the important issue of research. Nothing in this bill limits the ability of the new museum to carry out research. It will have exactly the same powers as the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, and research is an essential component of that museum. It will remain and continue to be an essential part of the new museum.

I understand the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have recently developed a joint research strategy. It confirms the essential role research will play in both museums over the next decade. It is available on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's website for anyone who would like to learn more about it.

Let me also reassure the House that the new legislation will not have an impact on international travelling exhibitions. Potentially, we will see them increase to talk across the world about Canada's history. Our government recognizes the importance of these exhibitions from an educational perspective. We also know from a business perspective how much potential revenue they can create, not just for the museum but also for the surrounding region and area. Nothing in the legislation in any way jeopardizes the museum's ability to present these exhibitions, which have been so popular with the Canadian public.

I am particularly pleased that the future Canadian museum of history is negotiating partnership agreements with the institutions across the country that devote themselves to our Canadian history. This is an amazing way to reach out to people across the country. Three of these are already in place, one with the Royal BC Museum, one with Calgary's Glenbow Museum and an agreement was signed just last summer with the Manitoba Museum. I understand that plans are already being made for the current partners to send and receive collections from each other.

Other partnerships will soon follow. The Canadian museum of history will be a must see for the thousands of people who come to this region each and every year. However, its reach will be far greater than that. Partnerships like the ones I have described will allow the Canadian museum of history to work with museums across the country, each and every one. In so doing, we will make our national collections accessible to as many Canadians as possible. Geography will not interfere with our ability to ensure that Canadians see and learn what our history is all about.

The new museum will lead a network that will connect history museums across the country so they can access some of the 3.5 million items that are in the national collection. Like all museums, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has a vast majority of its collection in storage. This will be a wonderful way to provide greater access to our treasured artifacts. Because of space and issues that prevent all of our artifacts from being displayed, it will see those artifacts travel across the country and be displayed not in storage, but in a position where they can viewed, studied and admired.

Before everyone had to travel to the national capital region to appreciate first hand an important part of their heritage. Now they will be able to go to museums much closer, in fact in their own communities. It is an incredible resource and partnership that is being created through this process.

At the same time, there are museums across Canada, in the very communities where we live, including my riding with the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre. There are more than 2,500 of them. They cover different aspects of our history and many have fascinating collections to begin with. We want to ensure that these smaller museums will be able to share their exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and to access the new museum's collection.

With that goal in mind, we have put new support in place to make it easier for them to approach the new Canadian museum of history and access the national collection.

In addition to this, several changes have been made to the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program to assist small Canadian museums.

The exhibition circulation fund would not only support the borrowing of collections from the Canadian museum of history, but would also extend the support to small institutions that were previously ineligible. A requirement that exhibitions must travel outside of the province or territory has been removed in the case of history exhibitions to encourage small institutions to exchange exhibitions with each other. It is a requirement that has long been an issue for smaller museums that would like to deal directly with each other. This new piece of legislation, under the guidance of the Canadian museum of history, would allow that to happen. We have also made sure that the aboriginal heritage component would give priority to exhibits focused on historical events and key figures, and would encourage exhibitions in non-traditional spaces, such as community centres.

To sum up, this new national museum would work with museums across Canada to ensure that as many Canadians as possible have the opportunity to learn about our achievements. In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage is using many of its internal resources to support access to Canadian history. The Canadian Conservation Institute is putting a priority on the conservation of objects related to the road to 2017. Finally, the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Virtual Museum of Canada would dedicate 25% of its annual budget, up to $500,000, to virtual exhibits related to the road to 2017.

That brings me to the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation. As everyone in the House knows, in just a few years, we will celebrate this momentous event. What a perfect time to welcome a new Canadian museum of history. Since Confederation, we have grown as a country and accomplished so many great things. In the lead up to 2017, we will promote the people, places and events that have marked our history.

As the House knows, this year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first Canadian expedition in the Arctic. Next year, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, which led to the founding of Canada. There are also the 200th anniversaries of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. We will also remember the sacrifices of two generations of Canadians during the First and Second World Wars. I look forward to paying tribute to all of our veterans.

In commemorating people and events such as these, we become aware that we stand tall today because of the millions of men and women whose courage, hard work and perseverance helped to establish this great country. They are renowned artists such as filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, painter Emily Carr, singer Céline Dion, pianist Glenn Gould, writer Gabrielle Roy, Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro and many more.

Sports heroes such as Clara Hughes, the only athlete ever to win multiple medals at both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games, and hockey legends Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky are also a part of this celebration. As is our multi-sport champion, Lionel Conacher, who was inducted in the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame in 1955, the Canadian Football Hall of Fame in 1964 and the Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1965. No wonder Canada has a reputation as a leading sports nation.

Distinguished scientists have also made us proud. For example, Frederick Banting, whose discovery of insulin has helped to save countless lives.

Impressive, is it not? It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the incredible people who have made this country what it is.

The upcoming anniversary is tailor-made to learn more about our history, pay tribute to the people who have left their mark on this country and reflect on our legacy. The Canadian museum of history would do just that. It would be based in the national capital region. It would reach out to people across the nation through a network of museums in their own communities. It would entertain us. It would educate us. For many, it would inspire us to learn more about the people, places and events that brought us to where we are today, a free and democratic country envied by many around the world.

There are four specific changes. I would like to reiterate those that are being made within Bill C-7. The first is a change of the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. The second is for the purpose of mandate change in terms of the direction that the new museum would be taking. The third is that the capacity and powers of the museum would remain the same, intact as they are today. The fourth is that there would be no change to the governance structure of the existing structure; no interruption of the corporation's ability to operate; no impact on employees, officers or trustees; and no change in legal responsibilities.

We have before us the opportunity to prepare for 2017. The creation and the renewed mandate of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history puts us in that position. It allows for us not only to celebrate what is historical, obvious and important from a Canadian perspective here in Ottawa, it actually sets the foundation for us to have this historical celebration, a study of our history, a learning opportunity of our history across our country.

There are thousands of museums, smaller museums in smaller communities that were never in a position to access or use the over 3.5 million artifacts, many of them at or currently in storage at the Museum of Civilization. They will be able to travel across this country. When those artifacts and exhibits travel across the country, there is an opportunity to ensure it will be done safely and that each one of those artifacts will be insured by the Government of Canada through the museum.

We have before us the living and breathing opportunity to see where we are going as a country in terms of the celebration of our 150th anniversary. We also see that our historical life, the life of Canada, when put on a road map, is one of envy for the rest of the world.

One of the things I learned during my time at the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was that when studies are done across this country, across this world, on where individuals or families would move if they were to leave their country of origin, of the seven billion people who walk on this earth, one billion said that Canada would be their first choice. With that profound understanding, we should consider ourselves fortunate. With 35 million people living in this country, there are a billion who believe this would be the country to live in if they were to move from their country of origin.

It says to all of us here in the House that this is our opportunity to show the world. The Canadian museum of history is setting the foundation to say to the rest of the world that we are prepared to talk about not only how great our country is now but how our country was built, how our country started and where our country is in terms of its position in the world.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this afternoon. I certainly hope that all members of the House, regardless of their party, regardless of where they sit in the House of Commons, will see there is an opportunity for us to put a renewed focus on our country's history, and that history begins at the Canadian museum of history right here in Ottawa.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-49 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read the second time, considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, reported without amendment and concurred in at report stage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee, reported without amendment, and concurred in at report stage)

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special orders made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-49 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 2

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the key word in your decision was the word “affect”. The fact is that what we are presenting very cautiously but very consistently is the whole reason around what we would like to see reintroduced in the House. I happen to represent and speak to a piece of legislation, Bill C-49, that we would like to have reintroduced in the House. I thank you for your decision and judgment on that and I will continue.

As we have mentioned in past debates, the children's museum will continue to be an integral part of the new museum, as will the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present chapters of our story and our history that are of immense importance, the history of Canada's first peoples.

However, more than just the name of the museum would change; so too would the mandate and the exhibits. Canadians living from coast to coast should be able to benefit from the 3.5 million items currently in the collection at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. That is why we are building and encouraging partnerships between the new Canadian museum of history and over 2,500 museums, including one in my riding of St. Catharines, which just opened up an exhibit regarding 1812 and the role that Sir Isaac Brock and the Niagara region played in the War of 1812.

The partners will have access to the new museum's collection which, as I mentioned, numbers some 3.5 million artifacts. As is the case with most museums, the vast majority of the new museum's collection has been in storage. With that goal in mind, the future Canadian museum of history is signing partnership agreements with a number of museums to establish a nationwide museum network. The agreements being negotiated with the largest institutions that have a mandate to cover the history of Canada will play a key role in moving this collection across the country and making it accessible to more Canadians.

In fact, I would like to update the House that there are currently three such partnership agreements, one with the Royal B.C. Museum, another with the Manitoba Museum and a third with Calgary's Glenbow Museum, and there will be others right across our country.

The Canadian history museum network will enhance the production and the reach of exhibitions focusing on Canadian history. By helping museums throughout Canada provide more opportunities for us to learn about our history, the Canadian museum of history's partnerships with other museums will serve as a tremendous resource in the future.

I would like my colleagues in the House to know that this project has received support from prominent Canadian historians, such as Jack Granatstein, Charlotte Gray, and many others. Michael Bliss, Canadian historian and award-winning author, said that it is very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly focused on Canada's history.

Organizations such as the Canadian Museums Association, Canada's History, and the Historica-Dominion Institute have also expressed their support. Yves Fortier, member of the Historica-Dominion Institute board of directors, said, “...the Historica-Dominion Institute enthusiastically supports the creation of the Canadian museum of history.”

Historians and historical associations across the country see tremendous value in promoting Canadian history, and so does our government. John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, stated, “The Canadian Museums Association welcomes these improvements to one of Canada's flagship national museums.”

We are creating the Canadian museum of history, but it does not stop there. We are also taking other steps to protect and promote Canada's history. For example, we have created the Canada history fund, which will provide awards to outstanding students and teachers of history. As well, we are providing supporting for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017, when Canadians will celebrate this country's 150th birthday.

We are also increasing support for projects like the Memory Project Speakers Bureau, which makes it possible for thousands of young students to meet Canadian veterans and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces right in their own classrooms. This project is a fantastic way for all of us to pay tribute to our veterans and to learn more about this very important part of our country's history and our country's heritage.

Our government will also increase our present funding for reference sources, such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia. These are extremely valuable tools that help teachers in the classroom, and because they are online, they are available to anyone who has an interest in exploring these fascinating entries.

As I mentioned, the Canadian museum of history's partnerships will encourage museums big and small, and from all parts of the country, to share more exhibits and more artifacts from one side of the country to the other. This is not something that people are going to have to come to Ottawa to see; this is something that Ottawa is going to ensure spreads out across this entire country.

Moving exhibits and artifacts does cost money, though, so the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program will now support travel costs associated with moving materials from the Canadian museum of history to local museums right across our country. To ensure more local history circulates, we have also changed the program to support museums that want to circulate history exhibits within their own province or their own territory.

Ours is a fascinating history that dates back long before the first European settlers arrived on these shores. It tells of people from around the world coming here to seek a better life for themselves and for their families, and how, bringing with them different languages, different religions, and different customs, they learned to live together in mutual respect and be an example as a country to the rest of the world. Together our ancestors built a country that is the envy of many people throughout the world. What an incredibly proud heritage we have.

With the approach of Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, we have a golden opportunity to learn more about our past. What a wonderful time to discover the perseverance, innovation, and creativity of great Canadians who have been instrumental in building our communities and our country and to pay tribute to the dedicated men and women who brought distinction to Canada in so many different areas of endeavour.

Over the course of 150 years of nationhood, we have earned an international reputation for excellence in many fields, including the arts, sports, and literature. In fact, I want to congratulate Canadian Alice Munro for recently winning the Nobel prize for literacy. It is just another example of the role that she and other Canadians play and their role in history that we will see in the Canadian museum.

This is a perfect opportunity to celebrate the people, places, and events that have made Canada the incredible country that it is, events such as Canada's first Arctic expedition. This year marks the 100th anniversary. It was 100 years ago that it took place.

In 2015 we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the flag of Canada with our much-loved red maple leaf. As well, over the next few years, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald's, as well as the 175th anniversary of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's birth.

These people and events that helped establish our nation are critical to understanding where we came from and where we are going. In learning more about them, we can discover much about how we got to where we are now: democratic, proud, and free, a strong country that is building on its past to pursue excellence today and to pursue excellence tomorrow.

Our government believes all children in this country—indeed, all people in this country—should have the opportunity to learn about our rich heritage. In so doing, we hope they will be inspired to make their own contributions to this great country.

That is why I am very pleased that our government is investing in the initiatives that I have outlined and is creating the new Canadian museum of history. A new national history museum will allow us to learn more about our past and by doing so inspire us to even greater achievements in the future. As members know, we as a country and as peoples continue to write history.

Bill C-49 was introduced and received first reading last year on November 27. It would make a number of changes to the Museums Act in relation to the current Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation that would allow it to evolve into the Canadian museum of history.

As the bill made its way through the House, there was a great deal of discussion. Although sometimes the opposition is not always thrilled to hear this, in fact it was debated for more than 14 hours in this chamber. During second reading, many members had the opportunity to express any concerns they may have had or to speak about why they consider the Canadian museum of history to be significant.

When the legislation was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the minister at that time, as well as many other individuals and associations and organizations, was invited to speak about the bill.

For example, committee members heard from the Canadian Museum of Civilization, through its president and chief executive officer, Mark O'Neill, and from the Canadian Museums Association, through its executive director and CEO, John McAvity. Anthony Wilson-Smith, the president of the Historica Canada, appeared before the committee as well. These are just a few examples, but there were many others who came to the table at the heritage committee to express their thoughts, their vision, and their belief in why we should move forward with this piece of legislation, but more importantly, with this new piece of history.

It is also important to point out that at report stage last June, Bill C-49 was debated a further six hours, for a total of 20 hours of debate in the House of Commons on our new Canadian museum of history. All the debates that took place during the last session of Parliament are still applicable today, because the bill we want to reinstate is exactly the same.

A good deal of the House's time, energy, and effort has been invested in studying this legislation, and the government sees no further value to be gained in repeating what has been an extensive review so far. For that reason, we ask, respectfully and humbly, that the said bill be deemed, in the current session, as being considered and approved at all stages completed, at the time of prorogation, in the previous session.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define us as Canadian. The establishment of the Canadian museum of history would provide Canadians with the opportunity to learn, appreciate, and understand the richness of Canadian history. I hope all members will join me in supporting the reinstatement of Bill C-49 at third reading. The opening of the Canadian museum of history in 2016 is going to be one of the highlights leading up to 2017.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek agreement from my colleagues to reinstate an important piece of legislation, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

As members of the House may recall, the former Minister of Heritage and Official Languages announced our government's plan to establish this new national museum just over a year ago on October 16, 2012. Our government believes that Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. Yet, Canada does not actually have a national museum that presents a comprehensive narrative of our history.

As Canada approaches its 150th anniversary in 2017, we are approaching a once-in-a-generation opportunity to better understand and examine the defining chapters of our country's history. Canada's history is vast. It is important that all Canadians appreciate the courage of our ancestors, from Samuel de Champlain's mapping of the St. Lawrence River to the last spike at Craigellachie, British Columbia, which marked the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway tracks that took us from east to west and back again. Bill C-49 would retell stories such as those by creating the Canadian museum of history.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of the mandate of the new museum as it is described in the legislation. It states:

The purpose of the Canadian museum of history 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 would also like to provide a brief summary of why we introduced the legislation and why we want to reinstate it. Our government believes that the vast majority of Canadians who have the privilege of visiting our national museums recognize that they are our national treasures. That is why we have opened two new national museums: the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

Canada needs a national institution that will tell the stories of how Canada came to be the prosperous land we now live in. Our country needs an institution that will independently research and explore our history and present it to the over 35 million Canadians in this country. This country needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together as Canadians. Our children need to know more about Canada's past.

That is why we introduced the legislation to create the new Canadian museum of history. The new museum's home would be in what is currently the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Our government would make a $25-million, one-time investment so that the museum could be built to host and hold the new exhibitions that would take place, and also transition to its new mandate with a focus on Canada's history and Canada's identity.

As soon as we hear about the expenditure of funds, all of us wonder where those funds would come from and whether or not the taxpayer would have to pay more for this investment. However, I remind the House that the funds would come from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. The museum itself would also allocate internal resources to the project and it would launch a public fundraising campaign with an initial target of $5 million. These funds would allow the museum of Canadian history to renovate more than half of its permanent exhibition space. The result would be almost 50,000 square feet of space in which to present a comprehensive telling of our country's history. The museum would actually renovate 7,500 square feet on the street-level floor of its main building, and this space would increase its capacity to host travelling exhibitions, for example exhibits from other museums across the country.

As members will hear, and as many of us have heard when we talked about the potential of this museum, it would not just be a museum situated here in Ottawa. The transition of using museums across this country from a historical perspective would be implemented at the same time. It would be to refresh its mandate and orientation so that we could tell the story of this country. As we have mentioned in past debates, the Children's Museum would continue to be an integral part of this new museum—

Business of the House and its Committees

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

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, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as 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. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, if Canadians thought that the Mulroney government was so extraordinary, they would not have reduced it to a two-member caucus at the next election.

The fact remains that the minister is doing what his colleague, the Minister of Heritage, did with Bill C-49. He claims that he is mulling over the issue and that he has been working on the bill for some time. However, he should make the distinction between his work, the work he does behind the scenes, and the business of Parliament. I think that they are three separate things.

Members heard the same thing from the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he claimed that the matter has been a topic of discussion for the past eight months. Perhaps he has been discussing the issue for the past eight months, but members of the House, duly elected by Canadians, have not had the same opportunity. We support the bill being debated in the House. However, as members, we are nevertheless very pleased to be able to have an opportunity to speak.

I think that the minister should make the distinction. Moreover, he should stop saying that the simple act of debating the issue automatically means that victims’ rights are not being respected. In my opinion, that is a disrespectful case to be making, both to colleagues in the House and to me.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 15.

The House resumed from June 17 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 (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in this House today to not only pledge my support for Bill C-49 but also to tell my personal story in relation to my passion for history and why I totally agree with the vision and applaud our minister and his able parliamentary secretary for bringing the bill before this House for debate tonight.

The bill is known best as the bill that would establish the Canadian museum of history. Really, this would not re-create or re-establish an important national museum. In many ways, it would actually reassert its important mandate as a national institution in Canada. It would also extend that national mandate to all the small towns, villages, and cities across this great nation. History does not just belong in the nation's capital. Indeed, it belongs across the country.

In many ways, the bill is about one of the last crown jewels in the collection of important national museums our government has supported across Canada, going back to our support in 2008 for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, being established in Winnipeg, and, in 2010, to our government's reassertion of the importance of Pier 21 as Canada's national Museum of Immigration, in Halifax.

I had the good fortune to visit Pier 21 in its early years, thanks to the vision of the Goldblooms in Halifax, who brought that important institution to our country.

The day after my wedding, in Halifax, my wife and I, dreary-eyed as we might have been, with my parents, took my grandmother, Madge Hall, to Pier 21, where she first stepped into Canada with her husband and infant daughter, Molly, my mother, after World War II. Not only did we experience that museum but we looked up the manifest of the Lusitania, which they boarded to come to Canada and a tremendous new life. I only wish one of those three people was still here to see their grandson sitting in Canada's Parliament.

In many ways, the bill would refocus our national history museum. I will speak to why I think the national network this museum would create is even more important than the rebranding and refocusing of the institution in Ottawa.

It is indeed a travesty that 90% of our historic artifacts and treasures are in storage. It is time to free these important artifacts from the shackles of indifference and dust and to share them with the small towns across Canada, or indeed, the large museums, such as the ROM or the Royal British Columbia Museum, so that they too can feel an attachment to these important artifacts.

However, the converse is perhaps even more important than getting this national artifact network established. It is also important for museums such as Scugog Shores in Port Perry or the Clarington Archives or the Clarke Museum in Clarington or the Lucy Maud Montgomery museum in Uxbridge to share some of their local artifacts with our national institution in Ottawa.

Thanks to the vision behind Bill C-49, and our Minister of Canadian Heritage , we would have visitors to Canada exploring the Canadian museum of history and seeing the artifacts and the history of the small towns and villages in Durham at our national institution in Ottawa. That would be truly remarkable and important. There would be a dedicated permanent space for exhibits from over 2500 museums across this country.

It is also an honour for me to tell a bit of my personal story tonight, and in my first year, to utter only my second Winston Churchill quote. Churchill said, “Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft”.

My friends on this side of the House should really read more history to learn those secrets to try to take our side of the House. The very fact that they have not leaves me resting assured that we are going to maintain this side of the House, because we have followed the edict of one of the world's greatest parliamentarians.

My love of history started when I was an 18-year-old officer cadet crossing the parade square at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. We had a mandate, as young gentlemen and lady cadets of the college, to learn the history of that historic site.

We gazed at the RMC flag, which was designed by the dean of arts, George Stanley, who shared his vision for the nation's flag in 1964 with John Matheson, a distinguished gunner from the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and later the MP for Leeds. John Matheson is still alive and, at 95, is really one of our living veterans who truly tells the history of this great country.

George Stanley at RMC taught generations of historians who are with us today as leading voices. At RMC he taught Desmond Morton and Jack Granatstein.

In many ways, this debate on why Canada needs a national museum of history was started by one of George Stanley's students, Dr. Jack Granatstein, who, in 1998, wrote Who Killed Canadian History? In many ways, in the years since then, Canadian history has been given a new life. In many ways, this bill would give our national history museum a network of history and a life across the country.

It is my pleasure to rise today in full support of Bill C-49. Indeed, it is our government's answer to the question, "Who killed Canadian history?" We may not be able to answer that, but we certainly know who is breathing new life into the subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the point my colleague raised very interesting. Museums change over the decades and Canadian history is important.

However, does he know whether anyone—a museum professional, a present or past director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, historians or university professors—was consulted when Bill C-49 was developed?

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said this was his idea. Does my colleague know whether anyone was consulted when the bill was developed? If not, what does he think is the ideal process for redefining the mandate of a museum as important as the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my government colleague's speech and was interested in two points, on which I have some questions.

He mentioned, for example, some artifacts and documents that in fact constitute our military history. We already have the Canadian War Museum, which was designed to give Canadians and foreign tourists access to that part of history.

I would therefore like to understand the relevance of talking about the museum of history as proposed in Bill C-49 because several aspects noted by the government member are already covered by a number of other museums. When we talk about history, there are several museums for that in various municipalities and cities. In Montreal, for example, the McCord is a very good museum specializing not only in the history of Montreal and Quebec, but also in that of Canada.

I would like to understand the relevance of replacing the Canadian Museum of Civilization with a Canadian history museum, when a number of aspects of our history are already covered by other museums.

The second point, which he discussed to a lesser extent in his speech, but on which I would like to have his opinion, is Canadians' supposed desire to have a museum of Canadian history. I did not receive a single request in that regard before Bill C-49 was introduced. Our members have never received a single request on the subject either. Furthermore, I suspect there was no demand either, except that created by the government's program. I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-49 tonight. Bill C-49 would create the new Canadian museum of history.

The new Canadian museum of history would undoubtedly support our rich national heritage. As Canadians know, our government has supported and will continue to support the preservation of important artistic, historical and scientific objects in Canada.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. Before I get to the main thrust of my speech this evening, allow me just to briefly summarize some of the important aspects of, and some of the rationale for, the creation of this legislation.

The legislation would build on the work that we, as a government, have already been doing and on our reputation here in Canada of having some of the best national and local museums in the entire world. In fact, since 2006, our government has invested an additional $142 million in our national museums. We have also created two new national museums, the museum at Pier 21 in Halifax and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, the creation of the new Canadian museum of history would be an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as 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. One of the aspects I most appreciate is the fact that one of the ways we would be doing this is by enabling content to be shared with and by local museums all across this country.

Certainly the aspect I find to be most important is the fact that there is so much of our history in the collection at the museum now that obviously is not on regular display. There would be an opportunity for some of the other museums in the country to share that content and those displays.

I think of some of the fine museums back in my riding of Wild Rose. There is the Nose Creek Valley Museum in Airdrie. There are some fine museums in the towns of Olds and Didsbury. Banff has a number of fine museums as well, and of course, Canmore has the Museum and Geoscience Centre.

There are a number of those types of museums all across the country that could participate in these kinds of programs to have content shared with their museums, and vice versa. They could share some of the content they may not have on display with the museum here in the national capital region as well. That is one of the key aspects that I had a chance to speak to in more length in the House previously.

I would like to get into some more specifics tonight. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss a very important act, which would benefit the new museum of Canadian history. Since its adoption in 1977, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act has served to encourage and ensure the preservation of Canadian heritage.

This act accomplishes this objective through a number of provisions. First, there is the designation of cultural institutions that have demonstrated the capacity to preserve cultural objects and make them available to the public through things like tax incentives that encourage Canadians to donate or to sell significant objects to designated institutions; and through grants to assist those designated institutions with the purchase of heritage objects; and through export control.

The act controls the export of significant cultural objects and creates the opportunity for our museums, art galleries, libraries and archives to acquire and preserve cultural content for future generations.

The act also contains tax incentives, which encourage Canadians to support our cultural institutions by donating or selling important objects to these organizations. Archeological objects, first nations objects, works of art, military medals, vintage vehicles and even rare fossils and minerals are examples of the types of objects that have been preserved in Canada because of this act.

Objects that are refused export permits can be delayed for up to six months to allow institutions to raise funds and apply for a grant to help purchase them.

Moveable cultural property grants can help museums and other cultural institutions to buy these important cultural and heritage objects. In 2006-07, The Rooms in Newfoundland received a grant to acquire two rare painted caribou skin coats made by the Innu. One was made in the late 18th century and the other in the mid-19th century. Both coats were about to be exported from Canada.

In 2010 the program supported the purchase of the world's largest sample of the Springwater pallasite, which is a rare type of meteorite that crashed to the earth near Biggar, Saskatchewan, in 1931. The Royal Ontario Museum purchased the pallasite with a grant before it too was exported from Canada.

These important objects, and many more, will remain in our heritage institutions as a result of the export controls and the movable cultural property grants program established under this act.

Funds are also available to repatriate important heritage objects to Canada. These objects may have been removed from Canada many years ago but are important to our history. For example, in 2007, the Museum of Northern British Columbia received a grant to repatriate objects from the Dundas collection. This is a significant collection of 19th century ceremonial objects, decorative works and everyday items used by some of the first inhabitants of British Columbia's northwest coast. The collection went to Scotland in 1863 and remained there until it was sold in 2006. Several Canadian museums went to great effort to purchase the collection and return it to Canada.

Another grant was awarded to the University of Alberta library in 2008 to repatriate the Sir Samuel Steele collection. Sir Samuel Steele was one of the most famous members of what is now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His papers, which documented the Red River expedition, the early history of the RCMP, the Klondike gold rush and his participation in the First World War are now accessible to all.

Speaking of World War I, in 2009, an important grant assisted McMaster University with the purchase of a map collection of the western front of World War I between 1914 and 1917. These maps were used by Canadian troops on the Western Front and were critical in the Battle of Vimy Ridge and in subsequent victories at Passchendaele. The significance of this collection continues to grow as we approach the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War.

All of these important objects and collections now have a permanent home in public collections in Canada, where all Canadians have the opportunity to learn from them.

The act also encourages Canadians to donate or sell important cultural objects to Canadian institutions through a special tax incentive. About 260 institutions and public authorities across Canada have been designated under the act and are eligible to offer this incentive. These institutions include not only our national museums and major provincial establishments but also smaller regional organizations that preserve our important heritage and make it available to all Canadians. From the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts to the Moose Jaw Museum and Art Gallery and the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre in Yellowknife, these organizations have the capacity to preserve cultural objects for the long term and make them available to Canadians through exhibitions, research access, loans to other institutions or on their websites.

Objects that are certified as being of outstanding significance and national importance to Canada by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board receive the tax benefit. The review board is an independent tribunal of experts created under the act. It determines the importance of the cultural object and its value. Since 1977, thousands of objects have been certified. In 2012-13 alone, 1,360 objects valued at $72 million were donated or sold to Canadian institutions through this incentive program. As a result, museums, galleries, archives and libraries have enhanced their collections and Canadians have had the opportunity to see, study and learn about objects and works of art that otherwise might have remained out of sight and behind closed doors.

In conclusion, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act has enabled museums, galleries, libraries and archives all across Canada to acquire important objects that tell Canada's story to Canadians and to the world. The act continues to protect important cultural objects in Canada and allows for the return of significant heritage objects to Canada. Its provisions have enhanced our public collections with objects that are of outstanding significance and national importance to Canada.

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 presents our country's treasures to the world. Therefore, I am pleased to support Bill C-49, which would create the museum of Canadian history.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, a bill to create the Canadian museum of history.

The government believes in national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full story of our country. That is why we are making a one-time investment of $25 million to establish the Canadian museum of history. This funding is not new money, but rather comes from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. This new national museum will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about our rich Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history will grow out of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The government is refreshing the mandate and orientation of the museum. Just as schools modernize curriculum in accordance with new events and discoveries, the new Canadian museum of history will present a comprehensive story of this country.

Change is not new to this institution. The Canadian Museum of Civilization began in 1856 with the establishment of a museum by the Geological Survey of Canada. With roots stretching back far into the past, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is one of North America's oldest cultural institutions. As staff of the survey fanned out across the country, they gathered cultural information and artifacts, as well as carried out their main tasks in geology and science.

Ever since its beginnings from a modest collection the museum has been evolving. Indeed, its ability to adapt and evolve is what has made it so successful. Just think, in 1862, the Geological Survey of Canada mounted its first ethnological exhibit, a single display case containing first peoples stone implements, clay pipes and a few fragments of pottery.

Today, the Canadian Museum of Civilization welcomes over 1.6 million visitors on average each year. It houses permanent galleries that explore 20,000 years of human history. Its program of special exhibitions expands on Canadian themes and explores other cultures and civilizations, past and present.

The museum is also a major research institution with staff who are leading experts in Canadian history, archeology, ethnology and culture.

In 1968, and with a new mandate, the National Museum of Man was established as part of a group known as the National Museums of Canada. Nearly 20 years later, in 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It subsequently moved to Gatineau, into the fabulous building designed by Douglas Cardinal. The building itself illustrates the museum's history, with a structure that suggests fluidity and flexibility.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization will take place over the next five years and will provide a number of opportunities to celebrate Canada's history in the lead-up to 2017.

At present, the museum has four permanent exhibition galleries: the Grand Hall, the First Peoples Hall, the Canada Hall and Face to Face: The Canadian Personalities Hall. The new permanent gallery will replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall.

More than 4,000 m² of exhibition space will be renovated to create permanent exhibition space presenting a national historical narrative. This space will feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed.

It will be the place where Canadians can go to retrace their national journey and find national treasures. It will be where they can learn about the people, events and themes that have shaped our country's development and defined the Canadian experience. Including key events and episodes from our past, it will tell some of the greatest Canadian stories.

The museum has carried out a series of consultations, online and in person, to solicit the views of Canadians on the stories, people, themes and events that they want to see in the new museum. More than 20,000 Canadians contributed, expressing what they expect of the museum in general, and particularly in the new Canadian history hall.

Here are some highlights. Canadians want our museums to be comprehensive, frank and fair in our presentation of their history. They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past.

They also want the museum to foster a sense of national pride without ignoring our failings, mistakes and controversies.

They want to see various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways through different eyes.

I am delighted that the new exhibit space will feature national treasures such as explorer Samuel de Champlain’s astrolabe, the last spike from the Canadian Pacific Railway and Maurice Richard's number 9 Habs jersey.

At the same time, the museum's president and CEO has said that the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history, warts and all. That is an important point. Many episodes in our history are critically important, like the internment of Japanese Canadians or the situation of aboriginal people in residential schools. Canadians can learn so much from our history.

At present, there is no mention in the Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression or the conscription crisis. Most important, the Canada Hall does not begin with first peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century. Clearly, this needs to change.

The Museum of Civilization tells the story of human history and identity in Canada. The new Canadian museum of history will be the next phase of that story, helping define us as citizens of Canada and the world.

Why does our government feel that it is so important to focus the interest on Canada's collective history?

In 2017, this country will celebrate its 150th birthday. In the lead-up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate and celebrate our history.

A new national museum devoted to our history will highlight our achievements as a nation and will help Canadians learn more about their rich and diverse history.

I hope that many Canadians will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our country in the newly renovated halls of the Canadian museum of history.

I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support Bill C-49.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very passionate, as usual.

I tried to get an answer from the government but unfortunately did not get one. I will ask my colleague. Perhaps she could give me her opinion. Who does she think should make decisions about a museum's mission and mandate?

As she pointed out today, a minister is the one who came up with this idea. That is fine, in theory. However, he is using his own idea as the basis for a bill that redefines the name and mandate of a museum. Even now, we still do not know who was consulted before Bill C-49 was drafted.

Could my colleague tell us who she thinks should be consulted when a museum's mandate is written?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 provides for changing the mandate and name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. Its temporary exhibits on the cultures of the world have made it a tourist attraction that has economic benefits and creates jobs for the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I will also take this opportunity to note that it is the only museum in the federal capital region that is on the Quebec side.

The museum has a long history. It dates back to 1856, the year when the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada passed a law authorizing the Geological Survey of Canada to establish a geological museum. In 1907, anthropology studies were added to the museum’s mission, and in 1927 it became the National Museum of Canada. The Canadian War Museum, which is affiliated with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has been part of the National Museum of Canada since 1958. In 1968, a corporation known as National Museums of Canada was established and it was made up of four museums: the National Museum of Man, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, the National Gallery of Canada and the National Museum of Science and Technology.

It is the mission of the National Museums of Canada to demonstrate the products of nature and the works of man, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, so as to promote interest therein throughout Canada and to disseminate knowledge thereof. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and in 1990 it became a separate crown corporation. Now, the museum is to become the Canadian Museum of History.

Bill C-49 introduces major amendments to the museum’s mission. The current mission talks about establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest; that sentence is completely omitted in the new mission. At present, the museum’s mission talks about working throughout Canada and internationally, while the proposed new mission refers only to Canadian history and identity.

However, it is important to understand that Canada has been influenced in the past by the rest of the world. I do not think that this new, narrow vision does justice to that fact.

With the amendments in Bill C-49, the museum’s approach would be limited to understanding and appreciating just dates, events, historical figures and objects. This approach, which is completely outdated in the social sciences, leaves out a number of important aspects of a society's development. A study of historical heroes often leaves out women, children, aboriginal peoples and minority groups, not because they did not have an impact on our history or make cultural contributions, but because unfortunately this impact is too often left out in the Conservatives' approach.

All kinds of moments and processes in our country's history could be lost because of this approach.

For example, there is the poor treatment of Polish settlers in the west who, left to their own devices, had to build dugouts to survive the winter; the fact that slavery existed in New France; the evolution of women's rights; and the evolution of the rights of the workers who built our economy. I am not going to be reassured just because the latest news headlines announce the cancellation of an exhibit about underwear.

Bill C-49 proposes eliminating research and collections from the museum’s mission, which is the first paragraph of its mandate. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a museum and a research location with an international reputation, and it deals with more than 20,000 years of Canadian history.

The Conservatives have to stop interfering in our history. No government must exploit federal institutions or history for political gain. Defining the mandate and the content of the museum must be left up to museologists and their interlocutors, with stakeholders such as the first nations.

The decision has been criticized by a number of groups and individuals. My colleague from Hull—Aylmer has already told the House about opposition from the constituents in her riding, where the museum is located. The founding director of the Museum of Civilization, George F. MacDonald, believes that changing the museum’s name and mandate is part of a plan to impose the Conservative brand. The former president and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, condemned the fact that the name “Canadian Museum of Civilization” was being abandoned. He said in his evidence that, in his view, it is the most successful brand name in Canada’s museum sector, a brand that is known and respected throughout the world.

Even though they say they are interested in history, the Conservatives have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists and librarians and destroyed national historic sites, national parks and Library and Archives Canada.

The Conservatives have already laid off 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists. The deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, resigned because of spending scandals and mismanagement. I repeat: mismanagement. If the Conservatives are really interested in history, these cuts and this interference must stop. Researchers’ independence and funding must be restored, and the federal institutions that preserve our history must be protected.

The Conservatives do not care about museums. Just last week, there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen that described the financial problems of the Canada Science and Technology Museum, which is located in Eastern Ottawa and requires critical structural repairs of $3.4 million. The article described, in detail, the space problem at the museum, which is already at 130% capacity, with no room for any new acquisitions.

The museum requires $2.5 million dollars in roof repairs and $845,000 in upgrades to the ventilation system. However, the crown corporation responsible for managing the Canada Science and Technology Museum, as well as the Canada Aviation and Space Museum and the Canada Agricultural Museum, has only $800,000 available to it to repair and update the facilities at the three museums. The National Gallery of Canada had to wait a long time before it received funding to repair its leaking roof.

I hope that the Conservatives will not let our museums deteriorate to that point.

I am opposed to the bill because I believe that maintaining the museum’s current mandate is important. I also fear that the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is internationally acclaimed, will be manipulated by the Conservatives as they attempt to impose upon us their politicized version of our nation’s history.

Museum professionals, including historians, anthropologists, archivists and librarians, must be responsible for determining the contents of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, not politicians.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

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

I would like to focus my remarks on one of the issues that came up during consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The issue was the reference in clause 9(1)(c) of the bill to the authority of the new museum to dispose of items in its collection. The bill lists a number of ways in which the museum could dispose of an item in its collection. It would be able to sell an item, exchange it, give it away, destroy it, or otherwise dispose of it.

During deliberations by the committee, concerns were raised about the inclusion of the word “destroy”. In this section of the bill, I would like to take a closer look at this and see if I can allay any outstanding concerns that anyone might have about why it is desirable, even necessary, for the new museum to have that authority over its collection.

The first thing I must point out is that this clause does not represent any change to the powers all other national museums have, and have always had, under the Museums Act. As it currently stands, all of the institutions covered by the Museums Act have the power to sell, exchange, give away, destroy or otherwise dispose of items in their collections. Therefore, Bill C-49 would seem to give the new Canadian museum of history the same power over its collection that all of the existing national museums, including the Canadian Museum of Civilization, already have. This would be nothing new.

I would like to reassure the House that this power is not only common for any professional museum, but also absolutely necessary, for a number of reasons. As I have indicated, destruction is only one of a number of ways in which a museum may dispose of something in its collection. I should point out that it is actually fairly uncommon for a museum to dispose of anything in its collection through any means. The fact that museums collect and preserve artifacts on behalf of the public is a duty that museum professionals take very seriously. The dedicated professional staff of Canada's national museums take that duty very seriously. However, the authority to dispose of something in their collections, even if seldom used, is a very important option to have.

A museum might determine that an object may no longer be relevant to its mandate. This is most often the case in some museums that were formed many years ago. As the museum evolves, it may be determined that another museum might be a more appropriate place for a particular artifact. In these cases, the object might be given to another institution in the form of an exchange or gift.

As museum collections grow, it falls to museums to ensure that their financial resources are spent wisely. Therefore, in some cases where a museum has duplicates, it only makes sense not to utilize precious resources to maintain a duplicate object. However, duplicates must always be dealt with in an ethical way. That is why the Museums Act always specifies that any revenue that results from disposal must be used to further the museum's collection.

I would also like to address concerns expressed by some members over the authority of the museums to destroy an object in their collections. I would like to cite the code of ethics of the International Council of Museums. The code of ethics states the following:

Each museum should have a policy defining authorised methods for permanently removing an object from the collections through donation, transfer, exchange, sale, repatriation, or destruction...

Therefore, the International Council of Museums acknowledges that a museum may ethically resort to the destruction of an item in its collection.

This same idea is reflected in the ethical guidelines of the Canadian Museums Association. This guide states:

Occasionally, museums may reasonably plan to destroy or alter objects or parts thereof for research or other purposes; however, the museum’s overriding responsibility is for the wise use of the collection material, with the greatest long- term benefit.

Let me stress that any decision to dispose of an item in the museum's collection and the most appropriate means for their disposal, is made on a case-by-case basis by highly professional museum staff. They have the responsibility to manage their collections in a professional, ethical manner. That is what the national museums already do and that is what the new Canadian museum of history would continue to do. The Museum Act does not depart from professional museum practice. It replaces existing professional museum practice. It gives the national museums the authority to act in the same ethical manner as other professional museums.

We may ask ourselves what would lead a museum to destroy something in its collection. Well, it is unusual, but circumstances do arise.

For example, museum professionals refer to something they call “inherent vice”. Sometimes something about an object or the material it is made from makes it self-destruct or renders it unusually difficult to maintain. An artifact can be made from a combination of materials that over time react against each other, such as combinations of leather and metal, or improperly combined mixtures of pigment and other chemicals in a painting.

On that same issue, from time to time a museum, despite its best efforts, may discover that one of its artifacts has been attacked by destructive pests such as moths. In some unfortunate cases, to ensure the safety of other items, the affected artifact, which has often significantly deteriorated, must be destroyed.

Other objects contain dangers to those working in museums. Until the 1970s, many biologically-based artifacts were doused with arsenic, lead, mercury and some organic pesticides, such as DDT, to keep insects and microbes at bay. Arsenic is particularly prevalent in ethnographic collections.

Finally, sometimes in the interests of science and research, a decision may be made to subject an artifact to something called “destructive analysis”. This is done in instances where the information or knowledge to be gained through this type of analysis is greater than simply keeping the object intact. While destructive analysis can often just affect part of an object, it occasionally results in total loss.

Therefore, there are absolutely reasonable circumstances where a museum can, and should, have the authority to destroy something in its collection. However, in no case is this done lightly and decisions are made by professionals who are in the best position to make such choices, professionals such as those employed in our national museums.

Bill C-49 would allow the new Canadian museum of history to operate in the same professional and ethical manner as our other national museums and other professional museums worldwide.

Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. 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.

The House resumed 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 without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just raised a very important point. Bill C-49 has been surrounded by a lack of transparency and consultation throughout this entire process.

I know that my NDP colleagues worked very hard in committee to listen to the witnesses and consult Canadians, but this Conservative government did not accept any of the amendments the NDP suggested in committee.

The Conservative government is lacking transparency and refuses to be accountable to Canadians, which undermines the parliamentary process and the work we are doing here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing the government does not seem to understand is the lack of confidence this side of the House has in the government's decisions, such as those proposed in Bill C-49. All of the Conservatives' decisions are aimed at redefining Canadian culture and symbols. We see rebranding the Canadian Museum of Civilization as the Canadian Museum of History as another step in that direction.

People have spoken about the lack of consultation. Our heritage critic put his finger on the problem when he spoke about the consultations, which were practically non-existent or done simply to get them out of the way. The consultations were done quickly.

Does my colleague feel that our opposition here stems from our lack of confidence in this bill and in the decisions the Conservatives are making about Canadian history and culture, over and above the changes to the mandate and the other options the Conservatives could have chosen for promoting Canadian history?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, the purpose of which is to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

In order to express our strong opposition to this bill, I would like to begin by reminding the House that this initiative is part of the Conservatives' broader plan to promote certain symbols that they cherish: the monarchy, military values, excessive celebrations of long-ago wars, and so on.

It is also important to note that their version of Canadian history does not include the important history of women, first nations and other histories that are also part of our national history.

Indeed, what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to rewrite the Canadian identity. In that regard, I fully agree with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, whose position is as follows:

...[this initiative] fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy...[it] reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda—that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion. This is a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should be run instead according to sound professional standards. Our past should not be a political plaything.

George MacDonald, the first director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has expressed strong opposition to changing the museum's name and mandate. He sees this as part of an attempt to impose the Conservative brand. According to him, no one in the museum community wanted a museum of history rather than a museum of civilization.

Similarly, another former director and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, lamented the loss of the name Canadian Museum of Civilization. He described it as the most successful brand in the Canadian museums sector. He said it was a well-known brand that was respected by everyone. I would add that abandoning the name Canadian Museum of Civilization is as absurd as abandoning the brand Radio-Canada.

In addition to changing the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Bill C-49 contains a number of disturbing amendments to the organization’s mission. For example, the international mandate of the museum will be a thing of the past. Rather than focusing on Canada and the rest of the world as a whole, the museum will concentrate solely on Canadians, thereby stripping the museum of its mandate to share our history with the world.

In fact, this example truly captures the essence of the Conservative brand. Since the Conservatives came into power, Canada has been on a downward spiral in terms of its influence on the world stage: Canada is no longer seeking a seat on the UN Security Council, the international mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada has been gutted and Canada no longer has a shred of credibility when it comes to combating climate change. The list goes on.

Unfortunately, with the Conservative Party at the helm, Canada has become the laughing stock of the international community and is neglecting the important role that culture plays in Canadian diplomacy.

Moreover, Bill C-49 proposes to reorganize the tasks of establishing and maintaining a collection of artifacts for research and posterity. From now on, rather than being based on the work and priorities of museum professionals, research and collections will take a backseat to exhibition planning.

However, the most serious problem with C-49 is that it prescribes a minimalist approach to the museum based on events, experiences, people and objects. This is a decision that would normally be left in the hands of museum professionals and subject to a debate among historians and the academic community.

I find it worrisome and appalling that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is riding roughshod over the choices of museum professionals. To begin with, politics has no business in museums and, secondly, before thinking about lecturing Quebeckers on history, the Conservatives should start by familiarizing themselves with the history of Quebec.

I am thinking particularly of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle, was unable to identify Guy Laliberté, Félix Leclerc and Robert Lepage.

I think it is a shame that exhibitions on different cultures and civilizations will take a backseat in the future. The museum used to focus heavily on transmitting an understanding of various cultures and civilizations. The museum had exhibitions that varied from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Many exhibitions traveled and gave the Canadian Museum of Civilization its international reputation. Moreover, these exhibitions attracted a great many visitors.

By refocusing the museum's mandate on Canada, the number of visitors could drop and we are definitely losing a cultural asset.

As Dr. Lorn 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. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

I note with some concern that the government has announced that there will be activities to solicit support from the private sector. I have nothing against the private sector. However, I am simply concerned that it will dictate the content of exhibits.

In recent years, some things have gotten out of hand in federal museums. I am referring mainly to the Canadian Museum of Nature, where almost all the exhibit halls were sponsored by oil companies after a former executive with Talisman Energy was appointed to the museum's board of directors. It is rather ridiculous. Members will also recall that the Canada Science and Technology Museum changed an exhibit as a result of pressure from a mining company that sponsored it.

In the case of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the historical and archival documentation plays an important role in determining economic rights, particularly of first nations, and it must not be subject to pressure based on commercial interests.

To sum up, private funding can help museum development, but I have difficulty understanding how we can ensure that private sponsors will not influence the content.

While the Conservatives are busy remodelling the Canadian Museum of Civilization so they can spread their propaganda, I lament the fact that they are attacking other important institutions that are guardians of our collective memory. I am thinking in particular of the cuts to Library and Archives Canada, where more than 50% of digitization staff have been laid off. I am also thinking of reductions to document preservation and conservation staff and cuts to inter-library loans, which enabled all Canadians to access their national library's collections.

We could also talk about the $29 million that was cut from Parks Canada in 2012. Parks Canada is an important vehicle for our historical consciousness. That organization manages 167 national historic sites in Canada. More than 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists and curators have lost their jobs as a result of cuts in recent years.

My colleague from Québec eloquently demonstrated the impact of those cuts on Quebec and its regions when we learned that most of the activities of the Quebec City service centre would be consolidated in Ottawa. Laurence Ferland, former president of Université Laval's archaeology students' association, said that, in addition to harming university research in Quebec City, the cuts would undermine the preservation of monuments and the transmission of history.

When I see these cuts hitting institutions responsible for showcasing our heritage, I find it hard to believe the minister when he says he is changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to improve the dissemination of Canadian history.

To summarize, we are strongly opposed to this bill, which seeks to completely alter the Canadian Museum of Civilization for partisan purposes. We demand that the museum's current mandate be maintained. Canadian history must have a showcase and be promoted, but that is what the Canadian Museum of Civilization already does. We do not need to change the act or the museum's purpose to do it.

We also believe that the task of determining the content of the Canadian Museum of Civilization must be left to museology professionals, not politicians.

Lastly, the government must stop making cuts to the source of our historical knowledge, particularly archival research and the protection of historic sites.

Instead of spending large amounts of money to reshape the museum's mandate, the government would have done better to invest in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history, archives and historic sites and support small museum institutions, particularly with a view to Canada's 150th anniversary.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was quite fortunate to take part in the debate on Bill C-49.

We can criticize how much money was spent on changing the name of the museum, a change that no one asked for except the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We can also talk about the changes to the museum's mandate, but I think this is also part of the Conservative trend. I am quite concerned about this trend because it seeks to promote a history of the military that is based on military events, and of the Queen and the monarchy, without any real regard for other aspects of Canada's history.

Last week, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked why we would not promote the history of women in Canada. The parliamentary secretary said, “I have never heard such nonsense”.

You can read it in Hansard. He said it was garbage. I was quite shocked.

Does the Conservative member opposite believe it is important to promote the history of women?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many in this House know that I am passionate about Canadian history, so I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-49, a bill to create a new Canadian museum of history.

The government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians.

However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full story of our country.

That is why we are making a one-time investment of $25 million to establish the Canadian Museum of History. This funding is not new money, but rather comes from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. This new national museum will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about our rich Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history will grow out of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The government is refreshing the mandate and the orientation of the museum. Just as schools modernize the curriculum in accordance with new events and discoveries, the new Canadian museum of history will present a comprehensive story of this country, the best country in the world.

Change is not new to this institution. The history of the Canadian Museum of Civilization began as far back as 1856, with the establishment of a museum by the Geological Survey of Canada. With roots stretching back 157 years, the Museum of Civilization is one of North America's oldest cultural institutions.

As staff of the survey fanned out across the country, they gathered cultural information and artifacts as well as carrying out their main task in geology and science.

Ever since its beginnings from a modest collection the museum has been evolving. Indeed, its ability to adapt and evolve is what has made it so successful.

Just think, in 1862, the Geological Survey of Canada mounted its first ethnological exhibit, a single display case containing first people's stone implements, stone pipes and a few fragments of pottery. Today the Canadian Museum of Civilization welcomes over 1.6 million visitors, on average, each year. It houses permanent galleries that explore 20,000 years of human history. Its program of special exhibitions expands on Canadian themes and explores other cultures and civilizations, past and present.

The museum is also a major research institution, with staff who are leading experts in Canadian history, archeology, ethnology and culture.

In 1968, and with a new mandate, the National Museum of Man was established as part of a group known as the National Museums of Canada. Almost 20 years later, in 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and it subsequently moved to Gatineau, into the fabulous building designed by the illustrious architect, Douglas Cardinal. The building itself illustrates the history of the museum, with a structure that suggests fluidity and flexibility.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization will take place over the next five years, and will provide a number of opportunities to celebrate Canada's history in the lead-up to 2017.

At present, the museum has four permanent exhibition galleries: the Grand Hall, the First Peoples Hall, the Canada Hall and Face to Face, the Canadian Personalities Hall. The new permanent gallery would replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall.

More than 4,000 square metres, or 43,000 square feet, of exhibition space would be renovated to create a permanent exhibition space presenting a national historical narrative. This space would feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. It would be the place where Canadians could go to retrace their national journey and find national treasures. It would be where Canadians could learn about the people, events and themes that have shaped our country's development and have defined the Canadian experience, including key events and episodes from our past. It would tell some of the greatest Canadian stories.

The museum has carried out a series of consultations, online and in person, to solicit the views of Canadians on the stories, people, themes and events that they want to see in the new museum. More than 20,000 Canadians contributed, expressing what they expect of the museum in general, and particularly in the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights:

Canadians want our museums to be comprehensive, frank and fair about our presentation of their history.

They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past.

They want the museum to foster a sense of national pride, without ignoring our failings, mistakes and controversies.

They want to see various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways through different eyes.

I am delighted that the new exhibit space will feature national treasures such as explorer Samuel de Champlain's astrolabe, my hero, the “last spike” from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Maurice Richard's number nine Habs jersey.

At the same time, the president and CEO of the museum has said that the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history “warts and all”. That is an important point. Many episodes in our history are critically important, such as the internment of Japanese Canadians and the situation of our aboriginal people in residential schools. Canadians can learn so much from our history.

At present, there is no mention in the Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression and the conscription crisis. Most important, the Canada Hall does not begin with first peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century. Clearly, this needs to change.

The Museum of Civilization tells the story of human history and identity in Canada. The new Canadian museum of history will be the next phase of that story, helping define us as citizens of Canada and the world.

Why does our government feel that it is so important to focus the interest on Canada's collective history?

In 2017, the best country in the world will celebrate its sesquicentennial, which is 150 years. In the lead up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate and celebrate our history.

A new national museum devoted to our history will highlight our achievements as a nation and help Canadians learn more about our rich and diverse history.

I hope that as many Canadians as possible will celebrate the sesquicentennial in the freshly renovated exhibition halls of the new Canadian museum of history.

I hope all of my colleagues in the House will lend their support to Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you that I will entertain my colleagues' questions with the same respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him a question. I do not doubt the importance of the history of Canada or the appropriateness of including a little more of it when it comes to teaching history and the associated exhibitions. What I wonder about is how we should proceed. Why are the name and mandate of the most popular museum in Canada being changed? I find this striking, and I am wondering whether this museum will still be the most popular one, with the highest visitation, if the government changes its mandate and name.

What is even more disturbing is that this idea does not actually come from a museologist or a museum director. It was the minister's idea. He undoubtedly has good ideas, but I find it worrisome for a politician to be proposing a new name and a new mandate for the museum.

Does my colleague know whom the minister consulted before drafting Bill C-49? He has said it was his idea, but apart from that, did he consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and museologists?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced a series of new measures to make our history more accessible to all Canadians, particularly our youth.

This announcement exemplifies the government's commitment and dedication to helping Canadians learn more about their history. Following the introduction of Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act, which is designed to change the name and mandate of the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, our government is forging ahead. It is introducing new measures that will help us to achieve our goal of promoting knowledge of Canadian history.

Included in these new measures is the creation of the Canada History Fund, which represents an investment of $12 million. This new fund comprises several elements.

First, the Government of Canada History Awards will be created to honour outstanding secondary school students and teachers who show an interest in Canadian history.

Second, the Speakers Bureau of the Memory Project, administered by the Historica-Dominion Institute, will see its funding doubled to allow thousands of students to meet with veterans and serving soldiers in the classroom.

Third, the Canada History Fund will increase funding to the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes per year between now and 2017.

Fourth, references such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia will receive enhanced financial support to allow for additional Canadian history content. These two invaluable online resources help teachers with their in-class work. This support is important for those initiatives.

For example, this is what Anthony Wilson-Smith, president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, said:

History teaches us how we got to where we are as a country, along with a sense of where we are headed. These new measures give Canadians important new tools to discuss and debate those lessons from our past. We at the Historica–Dominion Institute fully support these important initiatives.

It is clear that the government is honouring its commitment to promote Canada's identity, but that is not all. Starting this year, July 1 to 7 will become Canada History Week.

That week, starting on Canada Day, will be an excellent opportunity for Canadians to explore their country’s history through activities organized at the regional and national levels. We will also provide information on activities organized by history lovers as part of national and regional Canada Day celebrations.

They preserve our heritage, shape our collective memory and stimulate our sense of belonging to Canadian society. However, Canada does not have a national museum offering a detailed narrative of our history. That is why our government is preparing to establish the Canadian museum of history. This future national museum will create partnerships with regional museums to form a network.

The objective is to expand access to the national collection and increase its circulation across the country. In this way, Canadian museums, both large and small, will be able to exchange exhibitions with the Canadian museum of history and access some of the three million artifacts from those collections.

An investment of time and money is obviously required to move exhibitions and artifacts. The third measure announced last week is designed specifically to enhance the capability of certain Department of Canadian Heritage programs to do just that.

The Museums Assistance Program, for example, provides financial support for the work of Canada's museums and museum sector. We will ensure that this program, which facilitates Canadians' access to their heritage and history, plays a greater role.

The Exhibition Circulation Fund, one of the program's five components, assists museums in paying the costs involved in hosting travelling exhibitions. Those exhibitions may come from museums in other provinces or territories or simply from a federal heritage institution such as the Canadian museum of history. For a museum, these expenses usually include packing, transportation and installation costs, special costs associated with security and additional insurance premiums as well as general promotional expenses. As I said, the costs involved in moving exhibitions and artifacts are often too high for small history museums. We will therefore ensure that the Museums Assistance Program enables museums to borrow artifacts from the national collection of the Canadian museum of history to enhance their exhibitions. This activity was not previously funded. In addition, to help the smallest institutions, financial assistance may be provided to cover up to 100% of eligible costs for museums with operating budgets of less than $500,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, do you know there are over 1,700 Canadian museums in this situation? We are also going to make sure that the Museum Assistance Program facilitates the creation and sharing of exhibits about history by eliminating the requirement that exhibits circulate outside their province or territory of origin. This will help to encourage the circulation of historical exhibits to multiple towns in the same province or territory. By expanding eligibility and increasing the percentage of funding granted to small museums, these measures will increase the number of travelling historical exhibitions. Canadians will thus have better access to their history.

In closing, as Canada’s 150th birthday approaches, Canadians deserve a national museum of the history of Canada that will put their treasures on display for the entire world and tell Canadians about their collective history. Canada needs a national institution that tells its story. Canadian museums need to be encouraged and supported in creating a national network that will give all Canadians the opportunity to explore their history. That is what the government of Canada is proposing to us here today.

[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.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing so wrong, I just do not happen to agree. Our government thought about it, and we debated it. We saw the amendment he put forward. We discussed it, and we did not think it was the best direction.

The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor has been sincere in this process all the way through. I know what he is trying to accomplish with the amendment, and I do not doubt it. We do not happen to agree on what it would be called. The majority will win in the House, and the majority has rights. We are going to move forward on the creation of this museum as we designed it.

I am glad the member raised the more substantive amendment brought forward at committee by both the Liberal Party and the leader of the Green Party, which was the idea of enshrining curatorial independence in a specific section with regard to what would be the Canadian museum of history. Quite frankly, it does not make sense. There is nothing wrong with it on the surface, but it does not make sense for this reason.

The Museums Act already enshrines the absolute curatorial independence of all of our museums. Whether it is the Aviation and Space Museum, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights or the Canadian Museum of Immigration, it already guarantees it in the law. If one of Canada's museums is singled out by saying that this will have a special level of curatorial independence above and beyond all the rest, one could perceive that the government has not gone far enough or that Parliament has not gone far enough in protecting the curatorial independence of all the others. Therefore, it is redundant and unnecessary. It is already enshrined in the Museums Act. Having this one museum singled out would look odd legislatively, so it does not make any sense.

The protections are there for good reason. As the minister, I have never once, nor could I, interfered with the decision of a museum to put on an exhibit or not. From time to time, any individual who goes into any one of our museums or galleries looks at a certain display and says, “I think I would have emphasized more of this or less of that or chosen these artifacts instead of those”. Those debates happen all the time, but there is an absolute legal barrier keeping any parliamentarian and/or the minister from telling a museum what it can or cannot do. It is enshrined in law for very good reasons.

We have brilliant museums in this country. They operate independently. They do great work. This new Canadian museum of history will be Canada's biggest and best museum. It will tie all of our local history and local museums in the country together. We will share collections all across the country. They will all be made stronger as a result.

I look forward to passage of Bill C-49 after eight and a half months of consideration. I thank of all my colleagues who have approached this with an open mind. Their vote in support of this will be to the benefit of all of Canada.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to say this is indicative of a tired government is not a strong argument. We want to go through the process. We want to move this bill forward. We want to move ahead with the creation of this new museum, which will benefit every region of the country.

As I just said, we have had eight and a half months of debate. We will have five more hours to debate this bill at third reading in the House of Commons.

The NDP will thus have the opportunity to emphasize that it does not like this bill or this new museum. The Liberal Party will also be able to express its position on the museum and to talk about the amendments it sought in the committee process. It will be able to state clearly what it does not like about the idea of creating a new Canadian Museum of History.

Unlike them, we will express our pride: our pride in Canada's heritage, as well as our pride in this new museum, which will be created as a result of this bill and the $25 million that we will invest in it thanks to partnerships that we are establishing with museums across Canada.

I also want to tell my colleagues that I was in Winnipeg last Friday with the francophone communities, historians, and members of the historical community there and representatives of the Métis community. They were there for the signing of the agreement between the Manitoba Museum and the new Canadian Museum of History that will be created.

They were proud and pleased with this process and this bill. They were delighted with the new partnership that will give them access to this new museum's three million artifacts. They will be able to bring them to Winnipeg and talk about the heritage and history of Winnipeg and the history of Canada.

We are proud of this process. We have had eight and a half months of debate. We will have five more hours to talk about this bill.

The NDP can express its position again. I know that the NDP's position is not popular in Canada. According to that party, we should not be proud of Canada's heritage. We should not move forward with this museum bill. We do not want to have a genuine legacy for Canada's 150th anniversary thanks to this new museum of history. That is the NDP's position. It is not ours.

We are proud to talk about this bill, about the process, the partnership, the investment, the new museum and the new creations that will start once we have passed Bill C-49.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, only in overly bureaucratic, centre-left thinking does it constitute going too fast when we have eight and a half months of debate on legislation that, frankly, is very non-controversial. The legislation itself is only a couple of pages long. It is not complicated. The change to the mandate of the museum is only a couple of sentences long. It is not complicated or difficult to understand.

The members opposite took a position very quickly. As a matter of fact, there was a leak from one of the stakeholders who supports this museum. In his enthusiasm to support the bill, he spoke to a journalist and said what our government was planning on doing, on October 11, 2012. On October 12, we announced it, but before we tabled the bill in Parliament, NDP members had already commented on October 11 that they were against it. They were opposed to the legislation.

It is a bit rich for New Democrats to suggest that we should debate this more and be more thoughtful and substantive with the legislative process as we are now coming to the end of consideration of Bill C-49 when they showed no respect whatsoever at the introduction of this legislation to wait for it to be tabled before they actually took a position. Before chastising others about our approach to Parliament and how we deal with legislation, it would be great if the New Democrats would show some leadership and some example at the introduction of legislation with some open-mindedness in supporting a bill.

The Toronto Star supports this legislation. Here is what it said, showing open-mindedness. They say, “Oh, wow, the Toronto Star”. The New Democrats like the Toronto Star. It endorsed them in the last election. Here is what the Toronto Star said:

Canada’s history should be celebrated in revamped museum....it was welcome to hear [the government] announce this week....rebrand the Canadian Museum of Civilization....as the Canadian Museum of History....we want to make history come alive, ensure we don’t forget our shared past, and honour our heroes.

People get it who are not Conservative supporters. They understand that this is an institution that will benefit all regions of the country.

Even if New Democrats rejected it before we tabled it, we are happy to go forward now eight and a half months later to have final passage of this bill so we can all move forward and celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in our biggest and best museum.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we not debating the time allocation motion rather than the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher's remarks on Bill C-49?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly the actions that were taken to move forward with Bill C-49 could not have had better testimony than the intervention from the member opposite. Even in this context of a 30-minute question and answer period, he wants to talk about another bill. He does not even want to talk about this legislation.

We are very pleased to have this legislation move forward. It is what we promised to do. On October 12, we tabled Bill C-49, the legislation to create the new Canadian museum of history. Now, more than eight months later, we have had time to debate and discuss this matter. We have had it through all stages of Parliament. We had a thorough conversation about this at the legislative committee process. Amendments were considered and debated. Witnesses have come forward. This has been debated in the media widely.

This legislation has had thorough discussion and debate. We are pleased to see it now move forward so we can have a new Canadian museum of history that will serve all Canadians for generations to come.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stages of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-49—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report and third reading stages 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the said bills.

Motions in Amendment

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today in Canada an entire generation of Canadians are largely unaware of our history. In fact, only 40% of Canadians could pass a citizenship exam that tests the general knowledge of Canadian history. But Canadians want to know more about our shared history. They recognize that a better understanding of our history gives us a better understanding of who we are. It gives us a common purpose and inspires us to rise to our full potential as a people.

That is why last fall we introduced Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. It would be a national institution that tells the story and stories of Canada. This museum would build on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's reputation and popularity to create a new museum that would showcase our achievements as a nation.

The vast majority of Canadians, including museum and historical associations, historians and professors, are thrilled with the change. A few people though, mostly partisan elitists, are concerned. They think that it is too Canada-centric. It is okay to be humble, but the days of government-sponsored self-loathing are gone. Canadians are proud to be humble, so to speak, but we are getting sick and tired of being told by some academic or government official that being Canadian is something that must be apologized for. Our history and our heritage is not something that needs to be swept under the rug.

Of course, our country has only been around under Confederation for almost 150 years and that is nothing in the scheme of things when compared to all of civilization. For that reason there are some people who are worried that changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history would be one giant leap backward, a massive reduction of scope of the subject matter of our national museum. Of course, they missed the fact that it would be the Canadian museum of history and not the museum of Canadian history.

Most people who are worried about it belong to a handful of partisan radicals who actually give credence to the fact that the Prime Minister and his Conservatives are hell-bent on intentionally destroying the country. It makes me feel like this oversight is caused by a slight case of dyslexia. We understand that our history does not begin in 1867, that Canadian history is a shared history and that our present is also shared with the rest of world, the rest of civilization. Canada is made up of peoples and cultures from all around the world.

The name change and mandate change to the museum would not be done at the expense of civilization or all that the current museum has to offer. Let me read the mandate of the new museum according to the legislation:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

There is nothing wrong with understanding all of world history and civilization. In fact, the only way to fully understand Canadian history and its current culture is to better understand world history and civilization, but we think it is high time that we do so from a Canadian perspective. Indeed, I would argue that we cannot fully understand world history and civilization without some sort of perspective by which to examine it. What better perspective than the Canadian perspective?

Before someone gets all upset and calls me ethnocentric, I am not saying that the Canadian perspective is the best perspective. Well maybe I am, but even if we, for the sake of argument, say that all perspectives and all aspects are equal, and even if the Canadian perspective is not the best perspective, it is after all, our perspective.

Now let me address the main criticism to changing and updating the museum. Ironically, this main criticism is a politically motivated criticism. It is ironic because the criticism is that the driving force behind this change is politically motivated, that in some way it is designed to promote the Conservative Party of Canada. It is the same criticism that came with our government's decision to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, as if the Conservative Party fought and won that war all by ourselves.

It is the same criticism that came with restoring “royal” to the air force and navy. The same criticism that came with not just restoring the funds and updating the equipment for the armed forces, but also restoring the respect it deserves; that somehow this is all politically motivated.

Perhaps this argument could hold some water if the Conservative Party really was responsible for all our military victories, our royal heritage and all of Canadian history. That would be quite a coup if we could lay claim to all of Canadian history, but we cannot. Canadian history and all its achievements belong to the Canadian people. The notion that the long overdue acceptance and even embracing of our history, including our nation-building military history, is a Conservative political stunt is not only insulting to this government and the millions of people across the country who elected us but to all Canadians, regardless of political stripe, and to those generations of Canadians who made the great, even epic sacrifices to build this great nation.

These are the stories that need to be told over and over, not just to young and old, new or fifth-generation Canadians. Ours is a story made up of stories worth telling the world and, without a doubt, the world wants to hear it.

Not only is this current museum outdated, it is also out of reach for most Canadians. My mother immigrated to Canada when she was two years old in 1954. Please do not do the math; I assure members she is only 30 years old. In the almost 60 years that she has been in the country she has never been to Ottawa. She has never been to that magnificent museum across the river. This will be even more tragic once that museum goes through its transformation. Thanks to the partnership program included in its mandate, the museum could now come to her. The new museum would sign partnership agreements with museums large and small all across the country. As partners, these local museums would have access to the new museum's collection, allowing them to provide greater opportunities for Canadians to learn more about our history.

In committee we were told by some experts that this move to bring the museum to the country would be a mistake because some artifacts are just too important for the general public. We were told that a focus on updating exhibits is not important, even though the current Canada Hall exhibit ends in the 1970s and only starts with the European contact with North America. However, they said that as long as a handful of academics could do their research in some back hall, all would be well.

We are told that this updating of the exhibits and sharing them with the rest of the country was “popularizing” history. Of course history is not caused by a few famous individuals but is the interplay of every human being who has ever lived.

Wolfe and Montcalm were not the only people on the Plains of Abraham. That is exactly why this partnership program would flow in both directions. Not only would local museums like the Galt Museum in Lethbridge would be able to display exhibits from the national museum, but the Galt Museum, the Raymond Museum and the Gem of the West in Coaldale would be able to share their records, stories and artifacts with the rest of the country and even the world by sharing their materials with the Canadian museum of history here in the capital. It is a wonderful idea. It is a unifying, nation-building idea. In that sense, one may be able to say the move is political. However, one cannot say it is partisan.

To be clear, the vast majority of Canadians are happy with this move. The vast majority of museum curators and historical associations are happy with the change. The president of the current Canadian Museum of Civilization is delighted with the decision.

Our government understands that the key to building a better future is found in a better understanding of our past. With the creation of the new Canadian museum of history, we would be building a modern, national infrastructure to help Canadians discover, understand and share our nation's proud history. That is why today I ask all members of this House to support Bill C-49, which would establish the Canadian museum of history.

I would ask my francophone colleagues to speak slowly and clearly if they ask questions in French because I do not have access to the interpretation right now. However, I can understand them if they speak clearly and slowly.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-49. Motions Nos. 1 to 15 will be grouped for debated and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

The House proceeded to the 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 (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie asked a question to which he did not receive a very precise reply.

When he asked whether there had been any consultations, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice replied that consultations were continuing.

Does that mean that no consultations were held before the bill was drafted? This happened, for instance, with Bill C-49, when the minister made the decision first and then consulted people about what should be done after the fact.

Canadian Heritage

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

I will report the bill to the House.

That concludes the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49.

Mr. Nantel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Shall Bill C-49 carry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 29, 2013, on 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, we are now doing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49.

We have with us two individuals from the Department of Canadian Heritage. From the heritage group, we have with us Cynthia White-Thornley, executive director, and Judith Marsh, senior policy analyst. They are here for our questions, if we have any, but they won't be making a presentation. They're here only if they're needed for some clarification.

As you all know, when we go through clause-by-clause, we usually skip the first clause, which is the short title, and we move that to the end.

In front of you, you should have Bill C-49, as well as a package of amendments. Does everybody have the package of amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sorry, Mr. Brown. That'll have to be a closing comment because it's 7:30 and we're out of time.

I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses. Thank you for appearing and contributing to our study of Bill C-49. Thank you to all of you for sitting through our previous testimony as well. It's been a long night for you, so thanks for your input.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, everyone.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to the promotion of Canadian history. What we are opposed to is the fact that Bill C-49 is limiting the museum's mandate to a large extent. Seeing as how two former museum directors have substantial concerns about this bill, I think we need to give the issue some thought. I also think that we need more than two hours to discuss this.

I would like to talk about research. Currently, the museum archeologists decide what their research will focus on, but things will be reorganized. I am a bit concerned about the future of research at this museum. Will it be based strictly on the needs of upcoming exhibits, or will the archeologists—and I am talking about archeologists because I am one myself—still be able to conduct basic research?

I would also like to point out that three ethnologist positions are still vacant at the museum and that the person currently in charge of ethnological collections is a war historian.

I see here a similarity with what happened at Library and Archives Canada, where many people have lost their job and where it is now difficult for employees to do research on site. In the first place, they have to contend with a staff shortage and, in the second place, their personnel is made up of people who are not specialists, but rather generalists. I note an underlying problem in the area of research, especially seeing as how the new mission set out under Bill C-49 does not include the word “research”.

Mr. Turk, do you agree with me?

[James L. Turk]

—in the sense that if we take everyone in this room at their word, we're all in favour of a stronger museum that helps us better understand, appreciate, and be critically aware of our history. If that is in fact what everyone in this committee believes, you have a unique opportunity because Bill C-49 adds zero to the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, but takes a lot away from it.

It can be fixed easily by changing the mandate provision in the bill, because it takes away the brand, as Mr. Rabinovitch said, and it takes away the money. The cost of the vast amounts of reconstruction is going to be far more than $25 million.

In terms of the sharing, which I assume is why some of our colleagues from the museum community are supportive of the bill, there is literally nothing in the current Museums Act that would preclude precisely what is being promised under the new bill.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

I should explain, Mr. Chairman, that changes don't happen simply overnight. They evolve in the operation of an institution over a period of time. Why a mandate, and a mandate expression in law, is so important is that it acts as the direct guideline to the administrators of the institution as to what they're supposed to do.

I wish I could count on multiple fingers the number of times that I and my colleagues over 11 years would go back to read the mandate paragraph in the 1990 bill, and how many times we would cite it to each other as we decided on the internal allocation of money for positions in one area or positions in another area.

This is a long way of saying that the wording of Bill C-49 will have a very direct impact on how the senior managers see their authority, their priorities, and their role. It's important that it's not just words, but that it is the law stating what you're supposed to do.

Unlike my colleague, Mr. McAvity, having worked in these large institutions and having had to justify every penny to the Auditor General when they come through for their special investigations every five years, you have to be able to point to the law to explain what you're doing and why. As well, the Treasury Board reviews your plans, and the Department of Heritage reviews your plans each year. You have to be able to justify: where does the law say that this is your mandate, that this is your objective?

So the way these words are chosen—and this is for all members of the committee—is really important. It's not window dressing. “Critical understanding” is an academic expression meaning the ability to criticize, the ability to engage with knowledge and challenge it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Absolutely. We will come back to this, as the removal of the words “critical understanding” is clearly a major issue.

I have a question for Mr. McAvity or Ms. Evenden.

Ms. Evenden, you referred to subclause 9(1)(i) of Bill C-49, which reads as follows: “establish and foster liaison with other organizations that have a purpose similar [...]”. That's extremely important to you.

I'm once again wondering about the following. I understand that anyone with an interest in history, civilization, museums and that duty to remember will be happy about this point. But this was already included in the Museums Act. Right?

[John McAvity]

Sir, we are completely supportive of Bill C-49, and we are certainly aware of the comments of a number of other people who have been supportive of the legislation as well.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question by the member.

I certainly agree with the way you have put the problem. I also grew up in the 1950s. I can still see Davy Crockett and I had a coon skin cap. And I certainly know that the Americans won the War of 1812 because of what took place in 1815 outside a certain battle of New Orleans, and can sing that song as well.

But those problems of mass media representation are not going to be overcome by simply renaming a museum. Mass media representation, the type of popularized telling of stories, telling of tales as done through Hollywood, is something that can only be competed against through having significant cultural activities and cultural industries: Canadian filmmaking, British filmmaking, other filmmaking.

Where does the Museum of Civilization and proposed museum of history fit into this? As it now stands, the Museum of Civilization does a very, very extensive job of portraying Canadian history. My calculation is that 75%, some three quarters, of all of the public exhibition areas are given to Canadian history. There are exhibitions on Sir John A. Macdonald, on D'Arcy McGee. There is nothing to say that these cannot be improved and I think it is laudable that they be improved, and the installations dating back to 1989 and 1990 can be improved. But fundamentally, does Bill C-49 improve it? My advice to you would be that it does not. The bill as currently constructed takes away from that broader mandate of understanding the world and being engaged with the world.

One of the proudest things I was involved in was opening an exhibition in the centre of Beijing at the time of the international Olympics, followed shortly thereafter with the opening of four exhibitions in Brazil showing aspects of Canadian life, Canadian artifacts, what we were accomplishing in Canada. That is a central part of the mandate of the Museum of Civilization.

So I don't know how the circle should get squared. I do believe as currently constructed, the legislation reduces and eliminates rather than enhances the ability of museums to contribute to solving the problem that you and I grew up with.

[Dr. Lorne Holyoak, President, Canadian Anthropology Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Anthropology Society, an organization that represents professional and academic anthropologists throughout Canada.

I do have prepared remarks, but on the walk over here today I was thinking about the bill and an image popped into my mind, a picture of my uncle back in the thirties on the farm in Saskatchewan with a sedan he had converted into a pickup truck so that we could haul boulders out of the fields. I thought that is what Bill C-49 is. Unfortunately, it's more than that. You're taking a Rolls-Royce and you're chopping the roof and tearing out the back seats so that you can turn it into a pickup truck. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

I'd like to start my remarks by noting that we are also concerned about the consultation process as it has gone forward to this point. We feel there was a lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History.

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations. The museum's representatives did not undertake to provide participants with a synthesis of comments, a formal response to their concerns, or any specific indication as to how the museum would seek to integrate the received feedback in the research or implementation of the new exhibits. Only a minority of professional practitioners of the historical disciplines was invited to participate in these meetings.

I'm pretty confident that everyone in this room has had the privilege of appreciating the Canadian Museum of Civilization, this national monument to the cultural heritage and living present of all who have peopled these lands, most notably the first nations, Inuit, and Métis, as curated, researched, and shared publicly by a cadre of expert and dedicated scholars for more than a century. This history can be traced to the founding of the anthropology division of the Geological Survey of Canada in 1910. In those early years, and later as the National Museum of Canada and then the National Museum of Man, the focus and collections remained predominantly focused on Canadian aboriginal peoples. As established in 1990, and still in effect today, the vision of the then-renamed Canadian Museum of Civilization was expressed in the mandate of the Museums Act:

to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation 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.

In this process, the museum was empowered to undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.

On this basis the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dedicated to publicly supported scholarship on core issues in the Canadian and the human experience, and is internationally renowned for its work. Upon a substantive research basis, public exhibitions, both permanent and temporary, have been rigorously created to be offered, critiqued, and constantly renewed as a trust to the Canadian people. This work has been largely, but not exclusively, anthropological in character and has depended on the sustained and sometimes lifelong work of specialist curators in ethnology, cultural studies, archeology, and history.

However, in May 2012 the Canadian Museum of Civilization's administrative structure was readjusted to no longer include a vice-president for Research and Collections. Research and Collections is now placed under the former vice-president, who is now a director general of Exhibitions and Programs. Furthermore, the current executive of the museum includes no member with research or collections expertise. It is unclear what the future of research will be at the museum, despite the substantive need for research both in itself and as the basis for exhibitions and programs of quality.

Bill C-49 provides a new and significantly reduced purpose: “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”. It also has a narrower empowerment to “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology”. This language renders even research within the reduced mandate optional. It would be possible under this language for there to be no research undertaken within the museum itself, and it appears planned that research may become an adjunct to exhibitions, once they are decided upon, rather than the informed and critical basis from which they arise.

Some of the consequences are immediately clear. The First Peoples Hall, a signature creation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, is 10 years old. It cannot maintain or renew itself, and it requires continuing research and collaboration to ensure that it is current with contemporary aboriginal life and engages with emerging issues regarding the past and present of Canada's first peoples.

This anticipated new Museum of Canadian History will, according to Dr. Mark O'Neill, include “aspects of the aboriginal experience” but shift toward other still-unspecified Canadian historical themes. Here a very considerable amount of research and enhancements of collections will be required, as this has not been hitherto a focus of the museum. The museum's collections are currently, depending on definition, 70% to 80% aboriginal, as has been the established curatorial expertise of the museum. Elements of material culture cannot simply be borrowed from other collections and placed on display. There are major issues of cost, access, time, research, and vision.

Apparently, there will be a one-time-only provision of $25 million for the transformation of the museum, but this will not be new money. These funds are designated for a renovation of half of the museum's 100,000 square feet and other costs. Given current costs to meet curatorial standards at this level of roughly $1,000 per square foot, this generates an underfunding of at least 50%.

The plan for the museum is due to culminate at the time of the 150th anniversary of Confederation and presents a view of Canadian history as “settler history”. In the words of Mark O'Neill, “Canada's history from the fur trade to the Northwest Rebellion to Confederation, through two world wars and the quiet revolution to Canada in the world will come to life”.

So Canada's history started with the fur trade. The frame has clearly and decisively shifted. The frame now is the imported imaginings of the modern European nation state and its transplantation to a new territory. This history enshrines a much-diminished vision, compared with the collaborative one that recognizes our shared occupancy of these lands and the fundamental character of all Canadians as treaty people.

Canada's history truly began long before there was any thought of Canada, and we all benefit from the living legacy of the first nations, Inuit, and Métis fashioning vibrant societies and cultures, and maintaining relationships with their neighbours. Those who arrived later, the French and British as well as successive waves of newer arrivals from all corners of the world, have brought with them an abundance of linkages with larger and new global realities. Canadians are outward-looking and cosmopolitan by their very definition. Canadians deserve a museum that reflects that. The Canadian experience has never been limited in time and space and is intrinsically part of the larger human experience.

We are concerned that the government's decision to transform the CMC into the CMH fits into a pattern of a politically charged heritage policy that has been emerging in the past few years. Alongside the substantial public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative appears to reflect a new use of history to support the government's political agenda, that is, the highlighting of particular features of our past favoured by leading ministers of the current government.

If so, this would be a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should instead be run according to sound professional standards and principles of non-partisanship.

Once again, I applaud the government's initiative to establish a Canadian museum of history. I deplore the government's decision to convert the Canadian Museum of Civilization into a pickup truck.

Thank you.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here today.

By way of personal introduction, I was the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization from 2000 to 2011. During my tenure, the Canadian War Museum was built and the CMC vastly expanded its collections and presentations on Canadian history and on international themes. Prior to this I had been an assistant deputy minister, in the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments. I've always had great pleasure in having the authority from my minister to speak to members of the opposition or any MP, and at that time at least, as a public servant, to take information and report information fairly back to ministers.

Currently I'm not here representing any organization. I am an adjunct professor of cultural policy at Queen's University. I'm also the volunteer chair of Opera Lyra, Ottawa's professional opera company. I publish considerably in various Canadian and international publications. All of that is by way of background to say that I bring a certain amount of knowledge to the table, which I hope is helpful to the members of the committee.

As you know, Bill C-49 is part of an initiative that was announced by Minister Moore. An important part of that initiative has been alluded to by the other presentations so far, and includes funding to enable the Museum of Civilization to develop networks for purposes of better historical exchange. That type of announcement is really part of a much longer debate that has gone on for years regarding the proper role of “the nationals”—the national museums. The general view, certainly amongst museum people, is that the nationals are uniquely positioned to promote linkages and networks, to share materials, to share research and information. And in this respect the announcement by the minister certainly fits beautifully into what could be an important development for the Canadian museum world. The type of initiative that the minister announced could always be administered through the Department of Heritage, it could be administered by individual museums. In any event, I would certainly hope that it's not the last of such announcements.

Allow me to turn now to the substance of the discussion this evening, which is Bill C-49. I confess to finding the substance of Bill C-49 to be deeply confusing. It proposes in clause 2 to abandon the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector. It's a brand that is known and respected throughout the professional world. The Museum of Civilization is a pathfinder in what is now called internationally “museums of society”. One example of its eminence is that a conference was recently convened at the University of Barcelona to feature the experiences of the CMC as a model for the work that the university was doing on behalf of the Catalonian region of Spain. And several other museums of society, notably Quebec City's Musée de la civilisation and Amsterdam's Tropenmuseum, joined with the CMC to present information on how museums can present people, society, and development in a way that is an example of what can be popular, credible, and informative, and contribute to national understanding.

The Museum of Civilization is described throughout the global tourism industry as one of Canada's must-see landmarks. It actually receives a three-star billing from the Guide Vert Michelin; Parliament Hill receives only two stars. Clearly, the people from Guide Vert Michelin weren't here an hour ago; they would change their mind. The same applies to Frommer's guides, Lonely Planet...and on it goes. They are just three examples.

Visitor recognition of the name and style and content of the CMC is enviable. It's one of this country's bright spots in showing itself. Foreign diplomats make this point repeatedly, and they use the museum as a key orientation point for new staff who arrive, and also for visiting dignitaries.

If the Museum of Civilization stands out as such a great product, why would anyone want to change its brand? Think like a business person. General Motors, even in its worst days, did not abandon the brand of Cadillac and Chevrolet.

The challenge from a marketing standpoint is to extend a brand. New products can be added, an old brand can be relied upon to win attention and trust. If the government believes that the area of history should be given more attention in titling, then why not simply retitle the museum as the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.

CMHC, it has a ring—

[James L. Turk, Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 68,000 academic staff at 124 universities and colleges across the country.

We're deeply troubled by Bill C-49. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a great museum, the most popular in the country and arguably the best. It's certainly one I'm proud to take every visitor who comes to Ottawa to see. The proposed Canadian Museum of History will be something less. Not only does Bill C-49 ensure a lesser institution, the process of consultation has been disappointing at best.

The CAUT, our organization, raised some concerns initially and was very pleased that the CEO, Mark O'Neill; the vice-president of research and exhibitions, Jean-Marc Blais; and the director of archeology and research, Dr. David Morrison, willingly agreed to meet with us. They did spend more than an hour talking with us and indicated that there would be an opportunity for consultation; this was back in October. In February Monsieur Blais was in touch again to say that there would be a process of consultation involving us, and we've never heard a thing since.

The Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Archaeological Association, and the Canadian Anthropology Society wrote a letter on the same matter to Mr. O'Neill on May 6, 2013, and I'd be happy to give the clerk a copy:

On behalf of our respective associations, we write to express our serious concern regarding the lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History. Unless redressed through significant and meaningful consultation with the professional heritage community, we fear this lack of engagement will critically compromise both the quality and credibility of the new museum.

I mention the concern about consultation because there are serious flaws in the bill, and I'd like to just address a few of those. I'd be happy to expand in the question period that follows.

The first is the change in the purpose of the museum. The current mandate, since 1990, of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is quite clear and quite impressive. I'll just quote a relevant section:

to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation 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.

That has been replaced by a much shorter mandate that may superficially sound similar but is fundamentally different. The relevant section of the proposed mandate in Bill C-49 says:

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.

Unlike the proposed change, the CMC mandate makes clear that it is a knowledge-generating organization, like all great museums. The proposed mandate for the Canadian museum of history eliminates all reference, for example, to maintaining a collection for research and posterity.

It removes paragraph 9(1)(f) from the act that established the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is particularly troubling. The part that has been removed reads:

undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.

To our mind, these changes clearly indicate that the research and knowledge advancement function of the museum is under threat. The removal of “critical understanding” and replacing it with “understanding” is one concern. Promoting critical understanding of history is an essential goal of any great museum. Providing visitors with critical understanding of history means offering them an opportunity to consider different points of view, the opportunity to critically analyze the past, and to re-examine traditional viewpoints, rather than simply venerating national heroes.

Another indication that the research and knowledge-generating role of the museum is being replaced with it becoming a display site is the elimination of the position of vice-president of research and it being combined into the job of vice-president, exhibitions.

A second concern of ours is the limited perspective of history. The new act will replace the museum's emphasis on human cultural achievements and human behaviour with “...events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity...”.

It's a troubling emphasis on dates, heroes, and objects, an approach that historians have moved well beyond. The great man/great woman version of history risks leaving out the experience of the vast majority of Canadians. The stories and experiences of ordinary people and events that don't fit into the political biography model will be marginalized, just as they currently have been celebrated in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Other concerns are the elimination or marginalization of the history and culture of first nations people, and of issues of colonization, industrialization, gender relations, migration, environmental transformation, and so forth.

This refocusing and rebranding will involve the gutting of the Canada Hall, a remarkable permanent exhibition of Canadian social history. What's curious is that the Canada Hall cost over $50 million to create, and yet the total budget for the transformation of the new museum is only $25 million. So how they are going to recreate the vast social history that's currently reflected in the museum, as well as doing other things, is totally beyond us, especially when that $25 million is not just for that, but lots of other things as well.

Minister Moore, for example, recently indicated that the $25 million was also going to include the cost of agreements to establish a nationwide museum artifact lending network, which he described as having more than three million items in its collection, 90% of which are in vaults. I'm quoting: “We need to get these items out of storage.... We need to get them moving around the country.” But this betrays a fundamental ignorance of the museum materials. The vast majority of these artifacts are things like bone fragments and are not exhibit-worthy; they are research materials. Collectively, they are extremely important to our understanding of Canada's past, but not for their value as exhibition pieces.

Our third concern, and the final one I'll mention in my opening remarks, is about whether this is going to result in a partisan representation of history. All of what's happening in regard to the transformation of the Museum of Civilization into a Canadian museum of history is in the context of the broader undercutting of the role of Canadian heritage institutions. Here I speak of Library and Archives Canada, which we've spoken about on many occasions, which has a national campaign called Canada's Past Matters; the cuts to archeology and heritage sites as a result of the cuts to Parks Canada; the closure of federal departmental libraries; the reduction of public access to libraries; the elimination of the inter-library loan system at our National Library; and the elimination of granting programs for local and regional archives. All of these are part of a context that gives us concern about what's happening

The decision to transform the Canadian Museum of Civilization seems part of a pattern that suggests the government's interest in using history to serve its own political agenda. In our view, we'd speak out as strongly to any government appearing to do this.

The celebration of the War of 1812 was the transformation of a rather tawdry series of skirmishes into some defining characteristic of Canada's history. The rewriting of the study guide for people who want to become new citizens, which was done by this government a few years ago—this is what it looks like now—is a celebration of heroes, warriors, with pictures of warrior events, and there is even a picture, on the aboriginal page, of a former Governor General of Canada who portrayed himself as an Indian. It's the sudden interest in the Franklin exhibition, and the diversion of resources to an already decimated Parks Canada archeology budget to focus on finding this wreckage. It's the glorification of the monarchy and the War of....

The context for all of this gives us grave concern.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization has been a remarkable contribution to the history and people of this country, and internationally as well, and for it to be transformed into something that will not retain its fundamental research and knowledge-generating function and that will not have the resources to maintain the broader social history of our country is something we lament.

We urge you to revise the mandate for this institution, as reflected in Bill C-49, into something that continues the tradition of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Thank you.

[Kirstin Evenden, Vice-President, Canadian Museums Association]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49 today.

Many countries have national museums devoted to their history and heritage. There are numerous examples we could cite today. I will mention a couple of them. There is the fascinating Te Papa museum in Wellington, New Zealand, which features first nations history and culture, as well as the heritage of that country. There is the Smithsonian in Washington, another well-known example, which embraces a broad approach to presenting United States history, from grand achievements all the way through to everyday Americans.

We're confident at the Canadian Museums Association that the new Canadian Museum of History will paint a similarly broad picture of this diverse and complex country.

Canadian history is many things. It's major events, it's sometimes war, and it's sometimes major and significant historical figures, such as prime ministers and monarchs, but it is also about those things that relate to the everyday, the small-h history that we all know and live ourselves.

In this history of the everyday and the extraordinary, the new Canadian Museum of History will really a place where Canadians could explore all of these diverse aspects of who we are and what we want to become, starting initially by exploring first nations issues, from both contemporary and historical perspectives, and indeed, contemporary events that relate to historical circumstances. Sometimes these events are important but challenging, such as, for example, an internment camp in Minto, New Brunswick, the FLQ crisis, or the Winnipeg riots.

These are all aspects of who we are and where we've come from, and knowing history contributes to the quality of life in this country and supports the rich creative and scientific achievements of our nation. Our history is therefore multi-dimensional, whether expressed and preserved through artifacts, art, documents, or science, and it's vital that this rich heritage be properly presented in this museum. It's a place where we will all connect with each other through these stories.

We note clause 9 in particular, which gives clarity to the powers and capacity of the new Canadian Museum of History and details its mandate in terms of collections, research, and preservation. We note paragraph 9(1)(i), which outlines the creation of opportunities to work with other partner museums across Canada.

Again, as someone who has lived in three Canadian provinces in this country and has worked in all three, I certainly think that the national museum will really be an encouraging partner with all of these regions to again further historical research across the country. These regional stories that can become a part of this network will certainly contribute to talking about who we are and where we want to go.

Over and above the legislation, we're very pleased with the proposals within this section and the intentions of the new museum to move forward. The creation of a network between museums across the country is indeed timely and was outlined by the president and CEO of the museum just last week before 250 museum colleagues from across the country at our annual meeting of the CMA in Whitehorse, Yukon.

In a time of budget restraints, sharing resources is more important than ever. This is a terrific opportunity to more easily exhibit our country's history, not only in museums across Canada through partnerships, which will be extremely beneficial to the entire country, but also here in Ottawa as a national showpiece. It will provide a platform to easily distribute the large amounts of often unseen artifacts of importance that are currently in storage.

In addition, the partnership role to be assumed by the Canadian Museum of History will provide positive guidance to other institutions across Canada.

Finally, the plans call for a special gallery to be created at the new museum, where other museums can provide exhibits from their local communities representing where history really happened, providing a national platform for telling our regional stories. Over 2,800 museums across Canada tell our country's collective story. Connecting them through a major national institution will greatly benefit museums and the Canadians who they serve and who visit them. This may well be a role model for other national museums, which cannot work in isolation from other aspects of the cultural fabric of our country.

We wish to thank the members of the committee for their time and consideration on this matter.

Merci beaucoup.

[John McAvity]

The Canadian Museums Association or CMA is delighted to be here to provide our advice and commentary on Bill C-49. We are the national not-for-profit association for museums, art galleries, and related institutions across Canada. We have almost 2,000 members located in every province and territory of this country, all of which are dedicated to preserving Canada's cultural heritage and presenting it to the public. Together, these museums welcome close to 60 million visitors per year. They range from large metropolitan art galleries to small community volunteer-run centres.

CMA strongly supports Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act. The mandate and roles expressed in this legislation are consistent with the roles of museums in society.

I would like to introduce Kirstin Evenden, who comes from Calgary. She is the former director of the Glenbow Museum and is now the vice-president of the Canadian Museums Association.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Monsieur Nantel has moved a motion that we extend our study of Bill C-49 by holding two more, two-hour meetings.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Turmel.

Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison, thank you for being here today.

As you can see, here with us we have some eminent individuals. These people are very interested in the issue. As a result, I feel that receiving five witnesses after your presentation and that of the minister, is not enough. I would therefore like to introduce the following motion:

That the current study be extended by two meetings to allow the Committee to hear from more witnesses.

This basically means adding two meetings to the study of Bill C-49 in order to hear from more witnesses. I would like us to make a decision as soon as possible.

I have a question for you about what you said with respect to the museum's ability to expand...

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. O'Neill was quite clear that he sees the minister at events that we're all at. Go figure: they might actually talk to each other at an event where they come across each other.

Mr. O'Neill is not here to discuss his datebook. Could we bring it back to BillC-49 just for 30 seconds. If they have no more question for Mr. O'Neill with respect to Bill C-49 then let's move on. We have a lot of questions for the president and we could get some value out of this.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I would bring it on to Bill C-49—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash, you've got to bring it back to Bill C-49.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash, as I said before we do want to try to stay on Bill C-49. You have actually two minutes left.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. O'Neill.

We didn't ask him to bring his datebook with him. The line of questioning is almost ridiculous. Obviously we are here on Bill C-49, and if they want to bring him back to talk to about his datebook, they can do that at a different time. Our time is limited, so let's ask him about Bill C-49, Mr. Chair. It's truly unfair to ask him what his datebook has included over the last five years that Minister Moore has been the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Calandra has made a point of order. When we invite witnesses we generally do want to focus on the subject matter on which we invited them. We allow a bit of latitude, but if you could bring it back to Bill C-49—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I wonder if you could get the member opposite under control.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we could try to be specific on Bill C-49 that would be helpful.

I know the last time the president was here members had an opportunity to talk about all kinds of different things, but the opposition decided to use up his time by trying to pass motions. Right now we have an opportunity on Bill C-49. Let's do that. If we want to have the president back on other things later, we can do that as well.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he's here to speak about the bill that's before us. I don't think he was advised to do his research and homework on other topics. He's here specifically on Bill C-49—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. O'Neill, there seem to be some misconceptions about this bill, certainly on the other side of the table at least. I want to take a moment to clarify a few points with you. Certainly, when we had the Minister here earlier, he was very clear that many of the decisions about the museum and its contents and its curatorial decisions would obviously remain in your hands at the museum. But the opposition seems to be inferring that there will be some interference with the independence of the museum. That's certainly what their inference is.

I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about Bill C-49 and if it will still allow the Canadian Museum of History, as it will be called, to maintain its curatorial independence, and if you could indicate if that would be the same independence currently enjoyed by the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as it's currently called. Also, perhaps you could even point to the sections or parts of the bill that explain that particular point.

[Mark O'Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Bill C-49 and the proposed establishment of the Canadian Museum of History.

I believe the proposed changes will strengthen our institution and greatly enhance its contribution to the public life of this country in some very significant and constructive ways.

At the outset, however, I would like to talk about some of the things that won't change, and that have been the subject of some debate and discussion in the media and elsewhere.

First, the proposed Canadian Museum of History would continue to present outstanding temporary exhibitions that illuminate world history and cultures. They will remain part of our mandate and an important part of our programming.

In fact, we are currently working with our colleagues in Greece on the production of a major exhibition about that country's ancient history. This exhibition, “From Agamemnon to Alexander the Great”, will feature over 500 exceptional artifacts and will be launched at the Royal Ontario Museum, our partner next year, and will travel to Ottawa, Chicago, and then Washington.

Second, we will maintain the ever popular Canadian Children's Museum.

Third, our First Peoples Hall and Grand Hall will continue to explore the historical achievements and contemporary contributions of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are the finest exhibitions of their kind in Canada and so they shall remain as integral parts of the new museum should the legislation be passed into law.

Finally, we will continue building our national collection, and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years.

I would like to turn now to the engagement process we used to solicit public input.

It began last October. We engaged with Canadians across the country and invited them to think about their history and how it should be told in their Canadian Museum of History.

We set up an interactive website and designed an online survey. We organized roundtable discussions in nine cities from St. John's to Vancouver. We set up an interactive kiosk in public places across the country. We held meetings with school students and other groups. And we had questions placed on an independent opinion survey. Over 24,000 people became directly engaged in the project, either in person or online.

The results are detailed in a report that will be released shortly, but I am very happy to share with you, the members of this committee, some of what we have heard from Canadians.

Canadians told us that visiting museums and historic sites, and encountering real artifacts are by far their favourite ways of connecting with history. Many stress the unique role that museums play in educating children and youth, and in providing shared learning opportunities for family and friends.

Canadians have said that they trust museums more than any other source of historical information and that they value museums for the way they allow them to interact with each other and their common history.

Yet, Mr. Chair, we've never had a museum that tells the pan-Canadian story from earliest time to present day. The Museum of Civilization has indeed been trying to fill that void and has been doing so despite a very different legislative mandate. Its central purpose, as described in the Museums Act, is to enhance understanding of cultural achievements and human behaviour—not Canadian history and identity.

Nevertheless, since at least 2005 and on the heels of the overwhelming success of our sister institution, the Canadian War Museum, the museum has been working to broaden and deepen its focus on Canadian history. It has been trying to do a better job of telling the story of this country and its people from the pan-Canadian perspective. It has been working to share that story with as many Canadians as possible.

Currently, the museum is a key centre for historical research and scholarship through its artifacts, exhibitions, and its other programming. The museum explores many aspects of our country's past and disseminates the results of that research in many forms across the country, such as print publications and other forms of research. All of this will continue under the new mandate.

The museum’s work and achievements are impressive. But it has serious shortcomings, which are most evident in our largest permanent gallery, the Canada Hall.

The Canada Hall was not designed to be a narrative history exhibition. Inspired to some extent by the success of the streetscape of the Epcot Center in Florida, the museum staff designed the hall to offer a vision of Canada's social and economic history that moved temporally and geographically from 1000 A.D. in the Atlantic provinces to the present day in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

While that approach makes for an interesting and informative visit, it can't help but produce a disjointed and narrow picture of our country's dynamic past. In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely independently. Whole categories of endeavour—politics, sport, culture, our contributions to the world—are poorly covered or not covered at all. Women's history is at best peripheral. The journey through time ends in the 1970s, so almost half a century of our history is left unexplored.

As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you'll find no mention of the Quiet Revolution or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how, or when the colony joined Confederation. You'll see re-creations of grain elevators and oil rigs, but you won't learn about the phenomenon called western alienation.

Although modules on the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada have been added very recently, Confederation itself is reduced to a multimedia timeline. You'll find no mention in Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the conscription crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall is its starting point. If you've been there, you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall.

This is something we intend to correct. Canadians made it very clear to us during the public engagement process that the voices and the experiences of First Peoples must have a place in any narrative of Canadian history. We want to focus more of our attention on the telling of Canada's story in all its richness and complexity. And we believe the task is best accomplished under a new mandate and a new name—a name that better reflects what we aspire to become.

Here is the vision we have for the new Canadian Museum of History.

It will feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. The new permanent gallery will replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall. It will be a place where Canadians can go to retrace their national journey and encounter their national treasures. It's where they can go to learn about the people, events, and themes that shaped our country's development and defined the Canadian experience. It will underpin our national identity. It will include seminal events and episodes from our past, and some of the greatest Canadian stories never told.

We are also establishing a network of history museums across the country. Members of this network will have a permanent gallery devoted to the presentation of their exhibitions. Those exhibitions will complement and enhance our national narrative by adding regional content and perspectives. The new gallery will also broaden the reach and the profile of the contributing institutions, and members of this network will have better access to the national collection to enhance their own work.

During the public engagement process, Canadians told us what they expect of those exhibitions and the museum in general, especially the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights.

Canadians want us to be comprehensive, frank, and fair in our presentation of their history. They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past. We were urged to foster a sense of national pride without ignoring our failings, mistakes, and controversies. Canadians want us to present various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways when seen through different eyes. They want us to connect with them on a personal level. They want to see themselves and their neighbours reflected in the museum—whatever their heritage, whenever they joined the Canadian family, and wherever in this country they live. They have told us quite clearly not to ignore the world beyond our borders.

Those comments, suggestions, and pleadings will inform our every decision going forward. The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum, led by Dr. David Morrison. This team is made up of researchers, curators, and museologists working in close collaboration with advisory committees composed of historians and experts from across Canada.

Creating a new gallery is going to be a major challenge. Our experts will first have to develop a comprehensive and cohesive storyline, which they have begun to do. They will have to identify the themes, events, and artifacts that merit inclusion in the gallery. They'll have to make some difficult choices and grapple with some very contentious issues, and they'll have to do it all in full knowledge that their every decision will be scrutinized by scholars, lay people, advocacy groups, the media, and politicians from coast to coast to coast. But our professional staff are the best in the country at what they do, and they're certainly up to the challenge.

Mr. Chair, the call for a national history museum is hardly recent. Over 60 years ago, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences stated in its final report, “On the necessity for an historical museum, we can hardly speak too strongly.” In 2003, the Government of Canada announced a $50-million plan to convert the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa into the Canadian History Centre.

Mr. Chair, should Bill C-49 be passed into law, the corporation will create a museum worthy of Canadians' support and deserving of their pride.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

I would be happy to answer them.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Maybe offline they can ask Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Moore what movies they like and what they like on their hot dogs. But if we could talk about Bill C-49, that would be a real change.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have the minister for a short period of time. We're talking about Bill C-49, not Mr. O'Neill's e-mail address.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash, we're on Bill C-49.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, it's an important point. This is one thing we envision as well, that not just will local museums be able to draw down items from the national museum and host them locally; local museums can also take some of their collections and move them to other parts of the country, or to the national museum as well.

So the idea of a partnership isn't just stuff moving from the national museum to locally, but stuff locally moving up nationally, or moving to other parts of the country.

I've had the privilege—it's been an incredible privilege, I can tell you—to visit all kinds of museums across this country. We have thousands of museums across the country, I can tell you. I've gone through them in painstaking detail—sometimes with lots of boredom on the face of my wife as I go through some of these things—and aggravating some of the people who are with me by how much time I like to spend in museums. But the truth is that when you go to museums around the country, you realize there are some incredible gems out there. There are some incredible things and stories that should be told.

I think I told this committee this story about one of the catalysts that drew me to this idea of networking all of our museums together. It was when I visited the museum in Midway, British Columbia.

If you haven't been to Midway, it's a very small town. And it is where it sounds like: midway across the border between Alberta and the Pacific Ocean, on the southern border of British Columbia. It's a small little town, with a population of I think 2,500 persons. They have a small little museum there, and I went in. Against the back wall they had this display by the Japanese Canadians of Midway, British Columbia. It's a small association. This was a display of people of Japanese descent who still live in the south Okanagan, who decided, after having been displaced and put in internment camps in the Second World War, to stay in the south Okanagan and make lives for themselves.

There are all kinds of items there that talk about the hardships they faced, the racism they went through, the difficulties in establishing themselves, the pride they now feel in having gone through all that, and the successful lives they've made for themselves and their families.

It's not a big display, but it's very impactful. I looked at it and I thought, “This is really quite something.” I left the museum, and when I signed the guest book I was saddened to see that I was about the sixtieth person to visit that museum in the last two months. I thought, “What a waste. This is a great story to tell.” As I went on with the rest of my road trip, I thought to myself that there had to be some way....

I know that the Canadian Museums Association advocates for local museums, but they don't really have the capacity to do these things. I thought about it: what can we do so that people in other parts of the country can see this display and understand its impact, and maybe host something in an exchange? Maybe a national museum should see this display. Japanese internment is spoken about in the Canadian War Museum, but it's not talked about in that kind of personal way, with individual stories of people who talk about what they went through, how they came out the other end, and how they ended up being very successful and proud Canadians in spite of the suffering they went through. It's a great story.

So I started thinking about it, and where we arrived at is where we are today. I'm very proud of that. From those early moments of thinking about how we can tie these institutions together, here we are. We're now at—hopefully soon—report stage of Bill C-49 to create the Canadian Museum of History.

That little museum in Midway, British Columbia, can be a partner now. That little collection I saw those couple of years ago can now be hosted at the national museum, and those Japanese Canadians who are telling their story in the south Okanagan might now have the opportunity to share that story with other Canadians.

That's what we're doing.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank my colleagues.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act, and to respond to questions you may have. Accompanying me today are Daniel Jean, Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage and Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Heritage.

I will keep my remarks brief to allow as much time as possible for discussion and to answer your questions on the bill.

Bill C-49 is a very short bill. It's not a tough read, of course. It spells out the mandate for the proposed Canadian Museum of History. The mandate is very simple and clear. It reads:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

That's what the bill says. There is nothing ideological about this. It's actually quite straightforward.

In 2017, we will be celebrating Canada's 150^th birthday. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to celebrate all that Canada has accomplished, to look back at 150 years of history, to be thankful for our past, and to think ahead to the next 150 years.

We have in Canada today, sadly, an entire generation of Canadians who are largely illiterate about Canada's history. It's the truth. With the proposed Canadian Museum of History we are going to start building the national infrastructure that I think this country so desperately needs, so that we can tell our stories one to another so that Canadians can better understand our local histories and our shared histories.

I feel that we've had a constructive debate on this legislation in the House. Some members of Parliament have raised some concerns about what this museum could lead to, and I just want to respond to a couple of the specific concerns that I know were raised in the House by Mr. Simms and Mr. Nantel.

First, let me quote from the Museums Act, particularly on the issue that has been raised that the museum could be interfered with by the government, the minister, or, frankly, any member of Parliament. The Museums Act is very clear. It spells out in a straightforward way the independence of all of our museums, including this museum. Section 27 spells out the independence of our museums when it states: “No directive shall be given to a museum...with respect to cultural activities, including...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and...research”.

Section 27 of the Museums Act is very clear, it's straightforward, and it dispels any false accusations that this bill or the creation of this museum would be in any way a politicization of Canada's history, because it's the law.

In fact, I am pleased by the widespread, non-partisan support this project has received from historians and historical associations across the country.

I want to say that I'm very pleased with the broad-based support that the proposal of creating a Canadian museum of history has received. Of course, no support for a proposal is ever unanimous, as I said to Mr. Simms in the House.

I remember the debate when the Liberals, at a time of recession, made the decision to create the Canadian War Museum. That was a very controversial decision, and it turns out that today the Canadian War Museum is indeed one of the best museums in this country. It has, as its only peers in the world, Les Invalides in Paris, and the Imperial War Museum in London. It's a fantastic museum that I think all Canadians, regardless of ideology, believe in.

That museum was launched with a great deal of difficulty and if you look at the proposal that we have here to create a Canadian museum of history and the broad-based support this museum has received, I think it's important that this be pointed out. This museum has been supported, for example, by Douglas Cardinal, the original architect of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It's supported by the Mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson. It's supported by the Mayor of Gatineau, Monsieur Bureau.

This project also has the support of celebrated historians from across the country, including award-winning historian and author, Michael Bliss, who had this to say about this bill. He said:

it is very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history, thanks to this government for making the museum possible.

Jack Granatstein, of course the former chair of the Museum of Civilization, supports this legislation and the creation of this museum. He said:

This move is exactly what I thought should happen. I'm delighted the government and the museum are doing it.

John McAvity, who is going to be with you later this afternoon, also supports this because he recognizes the value of this large national institution, the largest museum in all of Canada, and the value of creating a pan-Canadian network of all of Canada's museums, which can teach and disseminate information about Canada's history and share resources and collections and move items around the country.

This will be of benefit not only for this great institution here in the national capital but also for every museum across the country, as they could potentially become official partners of the museum, thereby allowing them access to the 3.5 million items that are in the collection of this museum, of which more than 90% are in storage and to which no Canadian now has access.

The Historica-Dominion Institute is also supporting this—which, by the way, is also one of the great organizations across this country, working with and reaching out to children across this country—and recognizes its value as well. The Ontario Museum Association has come out in support of it—also, by the way, important historians who are not Conservative and probably would chastise me or anybody for suggesting that they might in any way be Conservative.

For example, as I noted in the House, John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament and a biographer of Pierre Trudeau, has come out in support of this legislation, congratulating the government for supporting this initiative, as has Richard Gwyn, who is a biographer of both John A. Macdonald and Pierre Trudeau.

Deborah Morrison, the head of Canada's national history society, has said, “the potential for the new Museum to help create a national framework for our history is compelling. And the time is right.”

I agree with her. I have to say as well that I was very pleased, when we had the second reading vote in the House of Commons, that an independent member of Parliament, one of our colleagues from Thunder Bay, supported this legislation, as did Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. They support this legislation, as do, by the way, New Democrats on the provincial scene in British Columbia.

I'm also pleased to say that this past weekend I spoke at the national meeting of the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in Vancouver. As part of my lunchtime speech to more than a thousand delegates, I presented this project, which was entirely well received; there were no complaints. When I met with the executive of the FCM in a closed-door meeting before my speech, there was unanimous support for this from mayors across the country—from Mayor Nenshi of Calgary, from Gregor Robertson of Vancouver, a former MLA in British Columbia who sees the big value of this project and what it would mean for the city of Vancouver and, indeed, for all of this country.

This is a proposal that we've put forward as we go toward Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. It has broad-based support from Canadians of all kinds of ideologies and all kinds of backgrounds—and, by the way, of non-ideologies, just people who are passionate about the teaching and the learning of Canada's history, who think that we deserve to have our own Smithsonian; that we deserve to have a large national museum about which we can be incredibly proud. We do have that in the Museum of Civilization, but we can do so much better with a new Canadian museum of history, by tying all of our institutions across this country together as we head towards our 150th birthday and celebrate the incredible stories of Canada's history gone by.

Many of you have been in the House and have heard me speak in the House on the details of the reforms we are putting forward. There is $25 million to do the changes of half the floor space in the existing museum. The Children's Museum, which is in the museum itself, will stay as it is. The Canada Hall will be reformed, in the back. The First Peoples exhibit, which is award-winning and spectacular, will stay as it is.

We're reforming the floor space as well, because it hasn't been updated in over 20 years. As a matter of fact, in the Canada Hall there is virtually no representation of aboriginal Canadians whatsoever, and that needs to be updated and improved.

We can do better; we should do better. We're heading towards our 150th birthday. We have great stories as a country to tell. I think we ought to do a service to them.

I would close by saying to my colleagues that I understand that there are some concerns about this. Maybe this will be a circumstance of “hear me now, believe me later”, but I'm here to tell you that this is a project that has broad-based support across the country; it's self-evident in the votes we've had in Parliament and in those who have publicly come out to endorse this project. It's time for this country to think big and to do something bigger than just the obvious stuff and to have great national institutions that bind us together.

As I said to Scott, those are the great moments. I'll say this: in the sweep of Canada's history, the best of the NDP has been seen when they have supported national projects that they thought were national in scope and national in consequence; for example in the support of medicare. That was a national idea, an idea that was good for the entire country and that they advocated, and they went beyond partisanship and reached out to get support. Of course, it was a Liberal federal government that did it, but it was a national idea that they worked with others to get done, because they believed in it.

This is equally true with the Liberal Party; they have had some national projects and national efforts. And Conservative governments in the past, we've had ours as well. Along with the other institutions that we have in this country, I think this museum will be a part of the fabric of what we're trying to do: to strengthen the fabric that binds this country together.

When you think about it, Canada is the second largest country in the world in size, but in terms of population we're the 34th largest country in the world. What unites us as a country? It is language, the arts, culture, a shared sense of history, an understanding of one another, an understanding of our grievances, of the difficulties of the past and how we got over them and how we still struggle, our shared sense of identity.

In a massive country like this, that has historically been divided—English and French, east and west, north and south, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, labour and business, Protestant and Catholic in the early days—we've been able to overcome these divisions through the sweep of Canada's history because we've had a better understanding over time about what it is that we can accomplish.

We are moving forward as a government with this. We're very proud of this project. I deeply and sincerely thank all those who have come on board across this country, from all kinds of different political and ideological backgrounds, to support this effort. I would urge my colleagues on this committee, and indeed all members of this House, to look at it that way. That's how I presented this.

My colleagues know that I presented and discussed this legislation with them. I talked to my colleague, the heritage critic from the NDP, before we tabled this legislation. I told you about this idea. I showed you the legislation. I showed you what we had in mind. I showed it as well to the Liberal critic. I showed it to Elizabeth May, as the leader of the Green Party in the House. It's one of the reasons that she's supporting this bill. I want to work with other members of Parliament to get this project right.

I'll turn it back to you, Chair, and to colleagues for questions about this project. I would urge you all to give this serious thought, to support this institution, to support this effort to build this network, this pan-Canadian network, of great history institutions that will keep this country united and better educated, with a better understanding about our past, so that we can stay united going forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 29, we are studying Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

I'm very pleased to have as our first witness the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

Welcome, Minister.

As well, we have representatives from the Department of Heritage, whom I'll have you introduce, if you like.

Without further ado, I'll turn the floor over to you, Minister, for your opening remarks.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Please bring the names of your witnesses on Monday. I would suggest getting them in to the clerk even before that, if you want. We will discuss witnesses on Monday. On Wednesday we will have Minister Moore and representatives from the Museum of Civilization for two hours. On Monday, June 10, we will hear from witnesses, and on Wednesday, June 12, we will do clause-by-clause for Bill C-49.

Is that clear to everybody?

Madame Boutin-Sweet.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Excuse me. I have a question. Monday we'll have the witnesses for Bill C-49, right?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes. I know how crushed my colleagues across will be, but maybe we could delay some of the study on history and deal with the bill that was referred to us. I'm not sure what the opposition have in mind with respect to timing on this, but perhaps Monday we could come in with a list of potential witnesses specific to Bill C-49.

I know the minister said he would be available next Wednesday, and he will bring with him Mr. O'Neill of the Museum of Civilization. They will be available for the full two hours. If that meets with the approval of everyone, then we could perhaps have another meeting on the Monday and move to clause-by-clause on the following Wednesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Believe it or not, I was just getting to that. Since Bill C-49 just passed, I thought maybe we should discuss how we want to handle that as a committee.

Mr. Calandra, do you want to speak to that?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Since we just passed Bill C-49, I wonder if we could talk about that.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The Canadian Museum of History Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I confess that I find myself somewhat surprised that a speaking slot has opened up at this hour. I found out a few moments ago. I have been enjoying this debate, and at this hour of night, I hope I will be forgiven for trying to cheer everybody up by telling a short story about my daughter.

We were watching Canada: A People's History. The last episode, I hate to say, involved me. CBC decided that I was a good thread to describe the origins of the environmental movement. My daughter had been watching this program in school. Thank goodness for the CBC and the great programming that tells Canadians about our history.

As the last episode ended, she turned to me—she was in grade four at the time—and said, “Congratulations, Mommy, you're the first”. I said, “I'm the first what?” She said, “You're the first person who could ever watch herself on Canada: A People's History, because everybody else is dead”.

I just thought the hour called for some levity.

I find myself standing here having read Bill C-49 carefully, having listened to the debates, and particularly having heard what I regard as a very sincere, well-meaning presentation by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, for whom this is clearly a vision he cares about deeply. I think he has persuaded the Prime Minister to allow him to do something that I have come to believe is in the interest of Canada.

That is not without trepidation. It is not without sharing a lot of the skepticism of my colleagues on other opposition benches, but I come to this. We have had this museum, in one shape or another, since 1856. It has not remained static, and it will not stay the museum of history in another few generations. If we go back to 1856, it was for the displays of the Geological Survey of Canada. It was a hodgepodge, I can imagine, and by 1968, it was decided to split it into two things. We still have the Museum of Nature, of course, on Metcalfe Street. That was one part of it. The other part became known as, and all of my women colleagues in the House should brace themselves, the National Museum of Man.

By 1986, it was seen that the National Museum of Man was probably a gender-loaded term. They did not mean to call it that. One of my friends, who is currently a parliamentarian here, quipped that when they name this thing again, please, God, let us not call it the mausoleum of man. Let us inject the history and contribution of Canadian women.

In any case, in 1986, the name Museum of Man changed to Museum of Civilization and the inspired and entirely magnificent building on the other side of the river, built by architect Douglas Cardinal, was given to Canadians.

I remember well, because I was living in Ottawa at the time, that they were racing to the finish line to be ready for opening. It was such a nip and tuck effort that they called on Canadian senators to show up and help Douglas Cardinal fit the bits of marble to the curvy bits. It is all curvy. My dear friend, now retired, Senator Mira Spivak, was one of those who showed up and was on her knees until after 11 o'clock at night finishing work at the museum. Given current events, some people might suspect that it was the last time senators actually worked. In any case, it was a great opening.

I love the Grand Hall. I hate the idea that anything about it will change. I love the fact that the great silkscreen of ancient forests that we see in the Museum of Civilization today is actually a silkscreen photograph of Windy Bay in Gwaii Haanas, now part of Gwaii Haanas National Park. I would love it not to change at all, but change is not a bad thing if we can use the additional money to make sure that exhibits that are now in storage get out to people across Canada.

I see this as a way of invigorating our understanding of history. I have great concerns that the current administration is trying to re-mould our own iconography, how we see ourselves, and get rid of our notion of peacekeeping and see ourselves as a warrior nation. I share these concerns, but I have gone to section 26 of the Museums Act, and I see that the role of a curator and the way a museum is run is separate from political interference. We will have to watchdog this as it goes forward. I am not denying that, but I want the records of the debates in Parliament in accepting the museum of history to reflect that at least someone on the opposition benches was prepared to take a leap of faith, prepared to go with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and say, “Yes, okay. Let us modernize. Let us update. We will have a museum of Canadian history”.

It hardly sounds like we are updating when we are going back to our history, but let us imagine for a moment that we can. Let us imagine that we tell the stories of the women of Canada and their contributions, and of the new Canadians we celebrate at Pier 21, at the museum in Halifax. Let us exchange exhibits with Pier 21 in Halifax.

Let us ensure we tell the stories of the contributions of people whose stories are unsung and untold, and of the role that Canada has had in the world in the past. I hope we will reclaim it by once again being the best country we can be, by re-engaging with the world on climate negotiations, on drought negotiations, on all the things we have done historically for worldwide development and so on.

This legislation does include international exhibits. It does not say we are going to be insular and parochial. Let us try to see if we can accept the idea of a Canadian museum of history with an infusion of funds that allows our history to be real to our kids, and not just the kids who come to Ottawa to see the Museum of Civilization.

I remember when the Museum of Civilization opened. As I said, I went to the opening, but beyond that, initially the exhibits were panned. People were outraged that we had Disneyfied—I think that is what some of the commentators said—the collections by making them too touchy-feely, too hands on, too kid-focused.

Change will happen to the way we share our heritage. Change will happen to the way we tell our stories. If we engage ourselves with this effort in good faith, we will tell our stories more honestly. We will reflect more of the read Canadian mosaic and identity.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long 20 seconds.

I am happy to join in the debate this evening on 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.

In plain language, it is a bill to change the name and mandate of Canada's most popular and successful museum for reasons that make the Conservatives happy, but has others wondering if we will sacrifice a world renowned museum in order to celebrate some sterilized 1950s version of Canada in its place.

In addition to that, we know that while the government is changing the name of the museum, it is financially starving and constraining those individuals who do the work the museum is built upon. If it sounds ironic, it is because it is.

At the heart of this debate is a basic contradiction. The government claims it is interested in the country's history and wants to celebrate it and make the public more aware of it. However, the same government has undermined research into our history more than any other government.

With respect to the bill, the government is not listening to the historians, archeologists, archivists, anthropologists and ethnologists, the experts on our history who make it their life's work. Sadly, this is consistent behaviour for a government that seems to value its opinion more than fact and goes out of its way to starve and silence those who prefer the benefit of strong empirical evidence.

We see that across all manner of legislation and this is merely another in a long stream. When it comes to silencing, dismissing and starving critics, we could be talking about environmental research, the census or even the work of the NRC.

It is part of a larger pattern of behaviour to reshape Canada in dangerous and limiting ways. Certainly we have heard from professionals, researchers and experts that budget cuts combined with the federal government's consistent meddling in their affairs in research will have lingering negative effects on their work and the research that ultimately helps us understand our history better.

It would seem the Conservatives want to have their version of Canada become the official history of our country, which would certainly amount to official revisionism. Revisionism is a dangerous thing that can happen when a government does not like the portrayal of its country and sets about meddling in history to suit its sensibilities.

Not understanding our history or whitewashing it to reflect governing party values is revolutionary in exactly the wrong way, and we have certainly heard a lot about whitewashing this past month.

It reeks of anti-intellectualism and reminds me more of the actions of tin pot dictators than it does of modern western democracy. Last week my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, gave a strong speech showing how the government was playing fast and loose with Parks Canada, which maintains many historic sites, including some that are certified “historic” by UNESCO, which is the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture.

He explained how the government had laid off more than 80% of the archeologists and curators, those who take care of historic sites and preserve our precious artifacts. Now there are only about 10 archaeologists working for Parks Canada across the country, for all of our national parks, national historic sites and world heritage sites.

The member also gave a frank and clear warning that world heritage site status was not a given and UNESCO could revoke that status at any time.

I would hope the government had been listening to the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, but will keep my expectation in check at the same time.

Tonight, the government has the gall to tell us that it wants to promote history when the facts are, through indiscriminate budget cuts, it is actually walking away from fragile historic sites across the country. For example, it is planning to remove carefully preserved artifacts from Parks Canada's regional facilities in Quebec City, only to put them in storage in Ottawa. It is unbelievable. That makes our history less accessible and can never be considered promoting it.

Sadly, this is in keeping with the actions of a government that continually says one thing but does another.

The Conservatives say they are interested in history, but at the same time they have set about weakening and destroying every single federal public institution responsible for protecting our history. They have cut deep into Parks Canada, which is responsible for protecting our 167 national historic sites as well as Canada's world heritage. They hobbled Library and Archives Canada as well. In fact, the guardian of Canada's archives for 140 years, both as the National Archives and as the National Library, whose experts, archivists, professional librarians and others are recognized and admired around the world for their work, did not escape indiscriminate cuts. Now those wonderful exhibition halls are closed and those people find themselves out of work. For a government that says it promotes jobs and the economy, that is not the way to go.

We have to be clear and understand that this is a government that cut millions of dollars from research and the preservation of Canadian history. This is a government that laid off hundreds of archivists, librarians, digitization experts, historians and professionals at Library and Archives Canada. This is a government that destroyed programs like the national archival development program, which supported small communities all over Canada to create their own local community archives, allowing Library and Archives Canada to accomplish an essential part of its mandate. This is a government that almost put a complete stop to the acquisition of historic documents and artifacts by cutting the Library and Archives Canada $1 million budget to $12,000 a year. Yes, members heard it right. The Conservative government cut the budget of Library and Archives Canada from $1 million to just $12,000. Unbelievable.

This is a government that has allowed irreplaceable manuscripts and relics of our history to slip through our fingers and be purchased by auction houses and speculators, and then be exported to shady warehouses in the United States.

When the Conservatives claim they want to promote history, we can be excused if we meet that claim with a good degree of cynicism. When they want to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, they should be reminded that it has existed in one form or another for almost 150 years. In fact, some of the collection existed before Confederation.

The museum's mandate is “…to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation 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.”

Now this has to change and the focus would be on Canadian history.

One should not mess with success in that way. The Louvre has not been rebranded to promote more art from France. The British Museum has been going strong for hundreds of years. These are just examples. My point is that a museum requires continuity to gain credibility and become well known. That is what has happened to the Museum of Civilization, and the government is not willing to admit that a rebrand would amount to a new start and building a new reputation from the ground up. This is because of a notion that we do not celebrate our history enough.

Canada Hall will be gutted to make way for this. The fact is, arguably, the hall contains the most impressive display of Canadian history in the world. We will also be walking away from a commitment to maintain a collection of objects for research and posterity, which is absolutely shocking.

Many of these proposed changes indicate an interest in adopting a simpler story of Canadian history. However, critics worry that there is a risk of excluding different experiences from Canada's past that may not fit into an unchallenging narrative. That is not the Canada most people see or want to see. A country's greatness comes in some ways from the acknowledgement of its warts. The colonization of first nations or the regrettable treatment of ethnic minorities are not items that should be forgotten or marginalized.

We are supposed to learn from our history, but there is no guarantee that is what we will do. In fact, most of the renovations are shrouded in secrecy and we are being asked to give this our stamp of approval, which is something New Democrats are not prepared to do.

In closing, let us not change what works. Let us acknowledge the Museum of Civilization as a great achievement that celebrates Canadian history as it is and be proud of our achievement and contribution to the great museums of the world.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

It is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act. Our government recognizes the vital role that museums play in our cultural landscape. We have supported them consistently even during the period of economic uncertainty the world has just been through. During that difficult period, some governments chose to make severe cuts in their support for culture, but we chose another path. Our government is one of the few in the world to have refused to withdraw its support for arts and culture during the global recession. Instead, we chose to maintain our support and even increase it, in some cases.

Since 2006, our government has invested an additional $142 million in our national museums. Additionally, the House should know that, since 2006, our government has made key investments in the museum sector. That includes the creation of two new national museums, the Canadian Human Rights Museum, which is very important for the people in my riding and for all Canadians, and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, as well as increased funding for summer work placements for students in small and medium-sized museums.

We are fortunate to have more than 2,500 museums of all sizes across the country that enable Canadians to discover our history. Our government is committed to ensuring that the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments continue to work together to enhance Canadians' appreciation for their history and heritage.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian Museum of History will make it possible to encourage such linkages, reinforce existing partnerships and create new ones within the network of Canadian museums. in order to share our heritage.

Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, said that co-operation with this new museum will make it possible for local museums to offer special exhibitions and initiatives to their visitors that they would not have been able to offer before.

Creation of the Canadian Museum of History and support for Canadian museums are the government's priorities. Surveys have shown that 91% of Canadians think that museums provide a precious learning experience and teach us about our shared heritage. Canadians are convinced that Canada's governments should help protect and preserve Canada's heritage. More than 83% of Canadians feel that museums are the most reliable source of historical information.

With regard to the national economy, members should be aware that Canadian museums welcome close to 30 million visitors a year. The 13 million Canadians who visit museums across the country every year make a significant contribution of $78 billion to Canada's tourism industry.

Canadians believe that museums provide an opportunity to learn, and they are interested in Canada's social and cultural history.

We are well aware that various museums across the country focus on specific aspects of Canadian history and that they are in the best position to do just that. However, at the national level, Canada does not have a museum that provides a detailed account of our history. For these reasons, the government is introducing a bill to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history, a hallmark of Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history seeks to improve the knowledge, understanding and appreciation that Canadians have for events, experiences, people and things that have shaped and that reflect the history and identity of Canada, as well as Canadians' knowledge of world history and culture.

The government will invest $25 million in existing funding to allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to renovate nearly half of its permanent exhibition space by 2017. The new museum will also hold fundraising activities to solicit the support of the private sector.

Through existing resources and new partnerships with other Canadian museums, the new museum will also launch a series of large, travelling, temporary exhibits that focus on Canada's history.

The new Canadian museum of history opened a dialogue with Canadians on the country's history and the transformation process through a dedicated website and consultations in nine Canadian cities. Over 20,000 Canadians participated.

Clearly, the Canadian museum of history will be an excellent resource for promoting Canada's history and heritage. We are pleased that the House supports the amendments to the Museums Act so that we can offer another opportunity to celebrate Canada's heritage.

For us, the key element is this: while other countries have made cuts to culture, our government has protected funding for all of our museums; however, the opposition voted against those measures. That is a shame.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the public trust. When we are dealing with sensitive issues like the telling of our story and the mandate of a museum, which has been the most popular and well-attended museum in the national capital region with professionals who worked there for years and years to build up its reputation not just in Canada but internationally, it suggests that if the Conservatives are to make these changes, they better have some good reasons which would benefit all Canadians.

I bring up these issues because we see time and time again a government that lacks transparency and has no commitment to accountability. I mean, the Conservatives have lost $3.1 billion. It has fallen away somewhere and they cannot seem to find it.

I also want to talk about the way in which the bill came about. I see some hon. members across the way shaking their heads because they do not like the truth about how they spin Canadians.

We in the heritage committee were sent on a journey to study how best to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. We interviewed countless Canadians. They said many interesting things, but never did they say that we needed to change the name of the Museum of Civilization. No one came to us and said, “Folks, you really do this. There's a real problem here”. No one ever said that, not once.

However, we did hear from many people who came before our committee from small archives and museums across the country. They said that if the government did not do something to help them out, that their archives and museums were on the verge of dying. Their curatorial workers are getting older, and the average age is well into the fifties, but because of deep cuts that the Conservative government has made to cultural industries in our country, and its contempt for the independence of third party agencies, fewer young people are going into this sector.

Now the Conservatives are telling Canadians that they are going to share this vast treasure trove of historical artifacts with all the little museums and archives across the country, but none of them have the capacity to receive that stuff. Not only that, there is no cost attached to the bill. This from the prudently fiscal government, but, oh yes, it lost $3.1 billion. I do not know if I mentioned that.

However, all of a sudden, out of thin air, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that he found $25 million in the Department of Heritage to spend on this museum. He said that it was not coming from any other program and no other program was going to suffer. However, he does not tell us where the heck the money was in the first place. Not one time have we actually had accountability and transparency on Bill C-49.

When we start to talk about bills, especially ones that change the narrative or at least try to describe it in a different way, we want to consult with Canadians. That is what the heritage committee is supposed to do and, in fact, we did. Then, the minister, while riding his motorcycle, had a vision. His vision was to change the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization. Then he doubled back, maybe he popped a wheelie, drove back to Ottawa and announced that the government was changing the name of the Museum of Civilization. He announced how much money the government would spend on it. Then, after that, he proceeded to public consultation. I know I am still kind of new here, but that is a little on the backward side.

The entire $25 million one-time contribution comes directly out of the Canadian Heritage budget, but the minister has refused to explain where exactly the money comes from or what heritage programs will lose funds to finance the contribution.

This is the game of deception the government is now famous for. The Conservatives cannot find $3.1 billion. It is lost. No one can say where it is.

This is a government that guts environmental protection of our lakes, rivers and streams but spends millions on a fake lake in Toronto. It refused to support the NDP's national housing strategy, but spent millions on gazebos in Muskoka to help re-elect one of its vulnerable ministers.

In fact, the minister responsible for housing told Canadians that the issue of affordable housing had been solved, since interest rates are at historic lows and Canadians can now buy houses. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality of life for folks who live in Toronto, who live in my riding of Davenport, who struggle day in and day out to afford their apartments, their homes. Families cannot find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors are barely hanging on in their homes, and young people are facing an incredibly unstable future without access to full-time, stable jobs.

The government decided the change the name of the museum at a cost of $500,000. It added about $400,000 more for its bogus consultation, which happened after the fact. That is why I call it bogus. It had already made its decision. It already knew exactly what it was doing. The plan was in the minister's motorcycle satchel.

This is how things are supposed to work in the House of Commons when it is not dominated by the anti-democratic reflexes of the government. We consult Canadians. We craft legislation based on the consultation. We table legislation in the House, debate it and finally, if the legislation passes, earmark the money and spend it on the program.

The government says it is going to spend $25 million to narrow the mandate and change the name of the Museum of Civilization. It says that the money is just lying around. Where was it all this time? It spent almost $1 million on a party and a consultation process, but the consultation came after the decision had already been made. This is an insult to Canadians. However, this is what we have come to expect from Conservatives.

In Davenport, for example, and this is on the point of consultation and transparency, people are only too familiar with this lack of consultation. For 50 years after a nuclear fuel processing facility had been operating in the riding, no one who lives near it knew what was going on there. The company's operating licence, however, clearly stated that it must keep the residents informed. It did not, and the government is okay with that.

That is why Conservatives have refused my request, on behalf of the community, to reopen the licence to give residents their lawful opportunity to participate in the process of public information.

Cultural communities and citizens of varied backgrounds came to us at the heritage committee. They talked about their stories and their concern about a dominant culture in which there is no space for them to talk about their issues and their history.

With its one-sided and triumphalist approach, the museum of history could run the risk of presenting a monolithic vision of Canadian history, unrepresentative of its diversity. This is particularly of concern to me. More than half of all residents of Toronto were not born in Canada. Their stories, their struggles, their triumphs, their hopes and their fears are the lifeblood that courses through the veins of Toronto. Immigrants' stories are heroic stories.

Recently I had the honour of being present at a ceremony marking 60 years of Portuguese immigration to Canada. The history of the Portuguese in Canada, particularly, in Toronto, is incredible. It is built on hard work, fidelity to family, love of home country, and a deep faith and commitment to Canada. It is a story of the collective achievements of a community, many members of which came to Canada with very little and contributed so much.

Will this story be told in Canada's museum of history? Will the great stories of Canada's multinational, multi-ethnic immigrant community have a place there? Will it be up to the whim of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and his buddies on the board?

There are many stories and many parts of our history that many Canadians have little trust the government would be interested in presenting at this history museum.

The fact that we are even discussing whether the Conservatives would be interested in them underlines the real problem of independence. We know already that the Conservatives have tried time and again to interfere with the independence of cultural agencies.

We have great stories. We have troubling stories too. We have stories of the history of feminism in Canada, for example. We have the tragic story of the Komagata Maru. We have the On to Ottawa Trek. We have the story of Norman Bethune, for example; the Riel rebellion; the story of co-operatives in Canada, which is a phenomenal story; and of course, the story of the first peoples of Canada.

There is concern, not just here on this side of the House but across the country, that the government has a very narrow vision of what is Canadian history and that the Conservatives want to prescribe in this new museum a vision of Canadian history that is not the full picture. That is the concern. There is very little the Conservatives have said during this debate to allay the fears of many.

Some people may think that some of these concerns about telling the stories of new Canadians and immigrants are misplaced. However, when we look at the Conservative record on immigration, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about. While the New Democrats want to reunite more families in Canada, the Conservatives' radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning this country into a less welcoming place, making it even harder for families to reunite in Canada with overseas spouses, children, parents and grandparents.

Here is what the Conservatives are asking families to face: waits as long as nine years to reunite with loved ones; a misguided two-year freeze on reunification applications for parents and grandparents; and arbitrary rejection of visitors' visas, with no chance for appeal, preventing many family members from attending weddings and even funerals. Meanwhile, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants to address Canada's long-term economic needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages.

This is no way to build our country or our communities. If we want to grow a 21st century economy, we will need to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. Making family reunification a central priority in our immigration system is one of the ways to go.

This is part of the context in which we are debating this bill. If we do not have a sense that the Conservative government will play a hands-off role in cultural agencies, and if we do not have a sense that it understands the importance of families and family reunification in our immigration system, how can we trust them to allow the full story of who we are as a country to come out in this new formulation of the Museum of Civilization?

The bill would closely follow the Conservative attempt to interfere with history as taught in classrooms, clearly interfering in provincial jurisdiction. We have heard these comments tonight about the apparent lack of attention to history in Canadian schools. Sometimes some of these members should perhaps consider running provincially, because that is a provincial jurisdiction.

This spring, Conservatives on the heritage committee attempted to study history in provincial classroom curricula, focusing on battles in military history.

We understand the need for a balanced rendering of history devoid of any political interference. Too often, though, we have seen the current government reach into cultural institutions and attempt to compromise their independence. In fact, the Conservative cabinet, if Bill C-60 passes, will attempt to dictate rates of pay for non-unionized workers and terms for collective agreements at many cultural agencies, including the CBC and the Museum of Civilization, or as it will soon be called, the museum of Canadian history.

For the Conservatives, it is always a race to the bottom, though, on the environment, on ethics, on transparency in government and, most importantly, on wages.

The government is ideologically committed to pushing wages down, breaking unions and privatizing key cultural institutions. This ideology fails the people of Canada and Toronto and urban workers in cities across the country. Almost 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot find full-time, stable employment. They work part time, freelance, on contract or are self-employed. They have no access to benefits, workplace pensions or job security.

Our cultural institutions are not only the repository, the incubator and the teller of our shared stories. They contribute enormously to our local and national economy, providing employment to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. In fact, the arts and culture sector contributes between $60 billion and $80 billion of GDP to the Canadian economy. However, when key employers, such as the CBC and the NFB, are cut to the bone, life gets much harder for workers in the cultural sector.

We need to frame this debate in the context of other cuts that have happened to cultural agencies. When the government talks about its interest in sharing Canadian history, a community of librarians and archivists right across the country scratch their heads.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have incessantly targeted Library and Archives Canada, a federal institution and the keeper of our collective memory. They have imposed modifications and irreversible consequences on our knowledge and perception of Canadian history, firing half of Library and Archives Canada digitization staff, cutting staff in charge of document preservation and conservation and eliminating the interlibrary loan program, which provides access for all Canadians to their national library collections.

These are the kinds of cuts that underline the fact that the Conservative government has done the most to prevent access to Canadian history since the $450 million cut to the CBC by the Liberal Party in the nineties.

We need to focus on maintaining the independence of these agencies. We need to stop wasting taxpayers' money. We need to introduce much more transparency so that Canadians understand where the money is coming from and how it is spent and that their history is not going to be dictated by ministers of the Conservative government.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand before you and Canadians on behalf of the people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto, to represent them in this debate on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

It bears saying that the last week or so in the House has been quite a time. We cannot really divorce the context from the bill. We have a government that is in the middle of the biggest scandal in Canadian politics since the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Legislation that touches on Canadian history in the context of a government that has consistently sought to compromise the independence of third party cultural agencies raises questions of whether it has the trust of Canadians, the trust of the House, notwithstanding the vote. We know it has the vote.

However, we are talking about vital cultural institutions. We are talking about how Canadians tell their stories. We are talking about how Canadians see themselves in their stories. We are talking about access to the breadth, width and depth of the Canadian story. It is a story that is unfathomable, but in fact the question remains here, in the context of what has been going on in the House, what kind of trust Canadian people have in the government to pursue an agenda that has consistently included attempts to rebrand Canadian history in the image of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservatives are spending taxpayer dollars advertising on Hockey Night in Canada for programs that do not even exist. There is just a nice blue logo that connects that ad to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Canadians are no fools. They can see through this and they are concerned. It is a brand that is in tatters today. Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, Bruce Carson, Arthur Porter, not to mention the guru—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-49, Canadian Museum of History Act.

We are all aware of the key role that culture plays in the life of our communities and in the lives of all Canadians.

The arts, culture and museums contribute to our quality of life, strengthen our identity and support our economy.

In Canada, culture is diverse, multi-faceted, thriving and reflective of Canadians and their country's geography.

Canada, the second-largest country in the world and 34th in terms of population, is united by its history, its official languages, its films and music, its sports and the ability to share common cultural experiences.

The Government of Canada recognizes the key role played by museums in the cultural community. Our support for museums remained unwavering despite the period of global economic uncertainty that we experienced. Over the course of this difficult time, a number of governments throughout the world all but took away their support for culture. We took another path. Our cultural community continues to receive the stable funding it requires.

Moreover, our government has increased funding for the Canada Council by 20%, the biggest increase in decades.

Our government knows that investing in culture and heritage is crucial to maintaining a strong economy.

We are here today to talk about the establishment of the Canadian museum of history.

Canadians, although spread out across an immense and awe-inspiring land, are united through their ability to share their stories. Our stories are many and varied, and they are worth telling.

A museum dedicated to our history will showcase these people, places and achievements that unite us.

The country needs a national museum that will tell the stories that make Canada what it is and that will carry out research and explore our history. Current and future generations need to be better acquainted with Canada's past in order to better shape its future.

Moreover, there are many people who are in agreement with us. Mr. Michael, a reputed Canadian historian and author, remarked that the new museum is a tremendous opportunity for our local and provincial historical societies and for our national organizations.

A nation's history is also shaped by its culture, and Canadians value their culture.

In a recent public opinion survey commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage, nine out of 10 Canadians said they believe that the arts and culture contribute to the quality of life of their community.

Canadians are generous when it comes to culture, which is further testament to the importance that they place on it.

In 2010, Canadians dedicated $108 million and 97 million volunteer hours to arts and culture. Arts and culture, in addition to our museums, are at the centre of Canadians' lives.

Over 90% of Canadians agree that cultural experiences are an important way of bringing together people who are from different cultures and who speak different languages.

In 2012-2013, Canadian Heritage arts programs supported 781 projects that benefited 687 communities. Millions of Canadians across the country enjoyed access to cultural experiences.

I should also point out that 87% of Canadians believe that culture is a key part of their identity—what it means to be Canadian—and how they express this.

To illustrate what culture contributes to the economy, I remind members that culture accounts for approximately $46 billion of the gross domestic product, which is almost 4% of GDP, and 630,000 jobs. The arts non-profit sector alone creates approximately 22 full-time jobs for every million dollars invested.

Our culture is vibrant, original, diverse, and international in scope. It attracts investment. It attracts talented artists and tourists.

The Canadian market is relatively small and the competition created by products from the United States and other countries is very strong.

All the more reason to encourage creativity and innovation—two major drivers of prosperity—which contribute to the success of arts and culture.

Throughout Canada, cultural ambassadors, and innovative and creative industries contribute to the success and dissemination of our homegrown culture. The book industry is a prime example. Canadian publishers generate revenue of over $2 billion annually and employ approximately 9,000 people. Over 300 Canadian publishing houses can be found in approximately 80 cities across Canada.

We are familiar with the remarkable creativity present in Canada's musical scene. Counted among these artists are, of course, Paul Anka, Diana Krall, Arcade Fire, Celine Dion and Coeur de Pirate. There are also a whole host of artists from various backgrounds who bring to life our festivals, continue to be creative, and record highly successful songs.

Canada is ranked third in the world when it comes to exporting musical talent. Every year, the Canadian music industry generates revenue of approximately $3 billion through the sale of the music of recording artists, various productions, commercial radio, and performing rights.

What can be said of our film industry? This year, there were Oscar nominations for Rebelle by Kim Nguyen, a screening at the Cannes film Festival of Chloé Robichaud's Sarah préfère la course, and the list goes on. Our films are viewed and enjoyed worldwide. In 2011 and 2012, the Canadian film and television industry's production volume reached $5.9 billion and generated approximately 132,500 direct and indirect jobs across Canada.

Every year, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the organizations within its purview invest over $2 billion in arts, culture and heritage. Our government has protected this investment because arts, culture and heritage are important to Canadians, their quality of life, their communities, and to the health of our economy.

In closing, I would like to remind members that Canada's history is crucial to our identity, that it must be recounted, defended and celebrated. That is why we are proposing the establishment of the new Canadian Museum of History. I therefore call on members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of Bill C-49.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canadian Museum of History Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-49 which will establish the new Canadian museum of history.

It will come as no surprise to Canadians that our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value that 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.

This government cannot overstate the important role that Canada's national museums play in preserving and sharing the Canadian story. Museums reach out in a myriad of ways to all communities across this great country, through travelling exhibitions, publications and online programming. Indeed, the digital age has expanded the reach of heritage institutions in this country and around the world. It has made it possible for us to share our stories in a way that was never imagined.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

The Canadian museum of history, like all our national museums, will reach out to Canadians and share our history through new digital initiatives. However, this is only one aspect of the Government of Canada's approach to capitalizing on the digital aid in service of Canada's history and heritage.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw to the attention of hon. members another important tool that the government has established to preserve and share our history, the Virtual Museum of Canada. The Virtual Museum of Canada was created as a result of the close partnership between Canada's museum community and the Department of Canadian Heritage. At the leading edge of this initiative is the Canadian Heritage Information Network, a special operating agency of the department.

The Canadian Heritage Information Network is a national centre of expertise in the use of digital technologies by museums, and it has been assisting our heritage community in taking full advantage of new digital technologies. The network and virtual museum are well-known and recognized as models by heritage communities in Canada and abroad.

The Virtual Museum of Canada receives millions of visits annually, from over 200 countries. It includes a detailed directory of more than 3,000 heritage institutions. That directory also allows Canadians and tourists to better understand and access these valuable repositories of our history.The Virtual Museum of Canada is also home to Artifacts Canada's inventory of almost four million objects and nearly one million images that showcase museum collections nationwide.

The Virtual Museum of Canada is also a highly interactive learning tool and resource for Canada's schools, teachers and students. Its teacher centre brings museums into the classroom. It offers teachers access to museum collections in the form of digital learning resources created by educators and museum professionals. It offers them a secure and customizable space to create and share lesson plans with each other and to interact with students. The teacher centre currently has over 3,000 registered users, students and teachers, and provides access to over 1,700 learning objects.

One example of a learning object collection is the one produced by the Royal Ontario Museum called “Shaping Canada: our voices and stories”. It provides teachers with the opportunity to demonstrate, by examining key artifacts, so we gain insight into Canada's collective history. At the end of the day, the Virtual Museum of Canada is essentially Canada's national online museum. It is designed to enable museums to work together in the development of an important and visible online presence. As its name suggests, the Virtual Museum of Canada is currently home to over 700 virtual exhibits, promoting the content of Canada's museums.

Connected with those exhibitions are more than 150 interactive resources, including “History matters”, which presents a series of audio and video podcasts, as well as short engaging stories of historical relevance. Both of these programs invite the viewer to say why history matters to them.

This is an absolutely fascinating aspect of the Virtual Museum of Canada. I urge all members to take a peek at it, at virtualmuseum.ca.

The range of virtual exhibits available for viewing, free of charge, of course, to everyone visiting the site, is extraordinary. The stories they tell us about our history are important, but they are not always easy. One example is "The Beginning of a New Era: the Quiet Revolution" , produced by the Musée québécois de culture populaire de Trois-Rivières. This fascinating online exhibit chronicles the in-depth political, social and cultural transformation that took place in less than a decade in Quebec, in the 1960s.

A further example is the exhibit presented by the Air Force Heritage Museum, in Winnipeg, entitled "For Valour: Canadian Airmen and the Victoria Cross" . This exhibit tells the amazing story of seven Canadian airmen who were awarded the Commonwealth's highest decoration, the Victoria Cross. It allows the viewers to imagine themselves flying in a bomber at 20,000 feet in total darkness, only to have their aircraft strafed and rendered inoperable by enemy fire. In the midst of this experience, we learn about the bravery and sacrifice of individual Canadians who earned our nation's highest honour. This story is even more compelling as we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I.

I could go on with more fascinating examples of stories of our history that are brought to life through Canada's museum and the Virtual Museum of Canada. I would encourage everyone here to explore them online, as millions already do.

The point I would like to make in closing is that the Virtual Museum of Canada shows that there is not just one way to preserve and share Canada's history with Canadians. The Canadian museum of history will be an important addition to that toolkit. It will provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this new museum and to support Canada's history. Let us pass this bill as expeditiously as possible. I am sure that my friend, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, will have more to say on this subject after a few questions and responses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight here in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. Our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value that they hold for all Canadians.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, we have an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. As a country, we have evolved considerably over the last century and a half, particularly with regard to culture.

In June 1951, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, better known as the Massey commission, recognized that the development of Canada's culture was challenged by three key factors: a small population scattered over a massive amount of land; our relative youth as a nation; and a robust cultural presence from our neighbours to the south. Sixty years later, we are still taking steps to fulfill the Massey commission's mission to do “what can make our country great, and what can make it one”.

An important step in meeting this challenge would be the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

Do members know that there are some 2,500 museums in communities across Canada? Most of us have museums in our ridings. In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, there is a museum or a local heritage building that displays our stories in almost every single community. Some museums are large and many are small, but most are run solely by volunteers, who are the lifeblood of our cultural institutions. No matter the size, I am sure that every member of this House would agree that our museums are crucial guardians of our heritage.

As a government, we know that museums play a vital role in our society. They protect our rich and diverse heritage and make it accessible to both Canadians and visitors from around the world. Along with the artists who commit are experiences to memory through any number of artistic media, digital media, music, books, visual art, those who care for collections that tell the story of our past are vital to helping us to understand who we are. These collections also hold the keys that will unlock the significance of events taking place today, for future generations.

There is no question the Canadian public also understands the importance of museums. A 2011 study by Léger Marketing found that 90% of Canadians believe that museums provide a valuable learning experience about our collective heritage, while 78% feel that learning more about Canada's history would help strengthen their attachment to Canada.

Our museums are an important economic driver in this country by attracting tens of thousands of tourists in all regions of the country. Museums contribute significantly to our $78.8-billion tourism industry.

The Government of Canada recognizes the vital role that museums play as part of our cultural landscape. We have a strong record of supporting museums, even in a period of global economic uncertainty. In these challenging times, some governments have made decisions to heavily cut their support for culture. This government is one of the few in the world that did not cut funding for arts and culture during the global recession. That is something that this government and all of us on this side of the House are very proud of.

Bill C-49 is another demonstration of the value that our government places on the museum sector.

Since 2007, the government has increased funding by $4.6 million annually for student summer internships, more than doubling the number of youth able to explore museum careers. Many of the young people who are working in museums today will choose careers in museology and in doing so, become the custodians of our collective past.

In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, I know of a young man who was hired to catalogue a collection from the Gananoque museum. He is looking forward to a career in the museum industry and I know he has taken a great deal of interest in the artifacts that we have there.

As part of the government's economic action plan 2009, we added an additional $60 million over two years to stimulate the economy by investing in cultural infrastructure through the Canada cultural spaces fund.

I know that in eastern Ontario we contributed some money to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, which is the operator of Upper Canada Village. I actually used to be the chair of that agency before I was elected to this place.

In the discovery centre funded with the aid of this fund, people can see much of the celebration and commemoration of the War of 1812. The November 1813 Battle of Chrysler's Farm will be re-enacted this summer at Upper Canada Village. There were many of these re-enactments last summer across eastern Ontario and in the Niagara region to commemorate that important war, which was the fight for Canada.

With respect to the bill, there is additional funding as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that museums across the country upgrade their exhibits and preserve their collections so that they are accessible for future generations. Canadians want and need to know more about our collective past in order to understand the united, strong and free country that we are today.

An important step in upholding our cultural heritage is the creation of the Canadian museum of history. The time is right to highlight our history because less than four years from now we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. Ours stories are vast and they need to be shared. That is why the government is building on the reputation and popularity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. As it transitions to become our national museum of history, it would give Canadians the opportunity to discover, appreciate and understand our collective past.

In establishing the Canadian museum of history, we would be taking an iconic institution in the national capital region and making it a nationwide network that would enhance the production and reach of exhibitions focusing on Canadian history.

The network would also benefit smaller institutions that, once they comply with a series of criteria, would become affiliates that would be able to borrow or co-operate on collections, programs and exhibits. As partners and affiliates, local museums would have access to important pieces of the nation's museum collection, which includes some three million items.

In a spirit of partnership, our national museums would develop a temporary exhibit space to welcome collections from its partners in the various regions of Canada.

This country deserves to have a national institution serving as its history's hub. We deserve to have a Canadian museum of history.

The government's one-time investment of $25 million would allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin a progressive transformation that would be completed over the next four years. The museum would also launch a $5-million fundraising campaign to support its new mandate.

I assure all of my hon. colleagues that the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, would remain an integral part of the new museum.

On the road to 2017, let us continue to celebrate everything that makes Canada the united, strong and free country that we are today. We have many wonderful museums showcasing specific aspects of our history. Our government wants to help them work together to weave a national narrative that is educational, entertaining and enlightening. The network of history museums being established under the leadership of the Canadian museum of history would help accomplish this. 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 presents our country's treasures to the world.

This is a very important bill. Many people in my riding are looking forward to it. I have already had discussions with some of our local museums and they are anxiously awaiting this bill to be passed and are looking forward to the opening of the Canadian museum of history so that they can have the opportunity to partner with the museum.

There are some displays at the Arthur Child Heritage Museum in Gananoque this summer. There was a travelling display of the War of 1812 in Ottawa at the National War Museum. I had the opportunity to take my young son to see that before it closed down. My oldest son, who is 12 years old, took a great deal of interest in many of the events that went on last year to commemorate the War of 1812. However, when I took him to see the display, which so enlightened us as to the different aspects of that important part of Canadian history, it demonstrated to me that showing off our national history helps people understand what our Canada is about today.

Therefore, I encourage all members to pass this bill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with my good friend, the member for Leeds—Grenville.

I am delighted to rise to speak to Bill C-49, which will create the new Canadian museum of history. In my remarks tonight, I would like to focus on why it is so important to have a national museum dedicated to Canadian history.

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.

We have all heard the statistics. Canadians lack knowledge of our history and wish that they knew more about it. Although more than 75% of Canadians feel that learning Canadian history strengthens their attachment to the country, fewer than 50% are able to pass a basic citizenship exam that tests general knowledge of Canada, and only 26% of youth aged 18 to 24 know the year of Confederation. Only 37% know that the Battle of Vimy Ridge was fought in World War I, and only 76% of Canadians are embarrassed about the lack of knowledge Canadians have about their history. Something obviously has to change. Our children deserve and should know more about the long and complex history of this great nation.

The establishment of the Canadian museum of history will give Canadians the opportunity to learn, appreciate and feel proud of the richness of Canada's history. The museum will chronicle our country's national achievements. It will explore the major themes, events and people of our national experience by bringing history to life and providing the public with a strong sense of Canadian identity.

Our government believes that it has a solemn responsibility to wisely manage the money Canadians send to us. That is why we chose not to build a new national museum from the ground up but rather to build on the reputation and popularity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to create a national museum of history that will showcase the national achievements that have shaped this great country.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is set to begin a progressive transformation that will be completed over the next five years and will lead up to Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. The Canadian Museum of History will 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 story and presents our country's treasures to the world.

Members might ask what this transformation involves. The government investment will allow the museum to undertake the renovation of almost half its permanent exhibition space. The result will be more than 43,000 square feet of permanent exhibition space, due to open in 2016, presenting a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada to Canadians and to the world.

It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First People's Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum.

To complement the government's investment and to ensure that Canadians in all regions have new opportunities to learn about Canada's history, the new museum will sign agreements with several museums across the country to travel exhibitions outside the national capital region, to share expertise and to lend artifacts and other material from its collection to enhance their local exhibitions and educational programs.

To quote Michael Bliss, a Canadian historian and award-winning author, this new museum is a “terrific opportunity” for our local and provincial historical societies as well as our national organizations.

Understanding that not all Canadian museums have the ability to accept large travelling exhibitions, the new museum also plans to work with those institutions to develop travelling exhibitions tailored specifically to their needs. These institutions will also be able to borrow artifacts from the new museum.

The new Canadian Museum of History will not only open its collections to museums across the country but will also provide a showcase for Canadian museums. To increase its capacity to host travelling exhibitions created by museums across this country, the museum will renovate 7,500 square feet on the street level floor of its main building to create a new temporary exhibition gallery. These exhibitions will help the Canadian museum of history to tell a truly national story and connect the treasures that are scattered in local museums across the country to our national narrative.

Between now and 2017, the museum is planning a series of temporary exhibitions that will highlight its new mandate and will build excitement about the changes in its programming.

In terms of how Canada's history is presented, some have wondered if there is a move afoot to present our history in a way that favours a partisan approach. I would remind everyone that the Canadian museum of history will remain a federal crown corporation and will continue to operate at arm's length from the government. The board of trustees and the management of the museum are responsible for determining exactly how the museum will present Canadian history.

Our government has established a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history. That is true. Having done that, we will leave it up to the capable management of the museum to make its decisions about the implementation of that mandate.

I would like to note that the museum reached out to Canadians, in person and online, to seek their opinions and ideas. The Canadian Museum of Civilization even launched an online forum located at myhistory.ca. The museum also carried out a series of cross-country consultations that gave Canadians the opportunity to give their opinions on the personalities, events and milestones that truly tell the Canadian story. In total, more than 20,000 Canadians contributed their ideas to the website, panel discussions and round tables all across Canada. We are delighted by this level of engagement. By the time we celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, Canadians will have a new museum dedicated to the history of this country. It will be a celebration of our history and the achievements and accomplishments that have shaped this great land.

This is a great opportunity for young and not so young Canadians alike to have a better sense of and get a better share in our history. We will be able to share the collection gathered at the museum here in Ottawa with other museums across the country, whether they be large museums that can benefit from large exhibitions or some of the smaller museums in smaller communities, like those in my riding of Wild Rose or in Kenora, as my friend from Kenora has just pointed out. Lots of communities across this country will have an opportunity to have the exhibitions travel to their parts of the country so that they can experience them first-hand. Of course, we will see some of the great pieces in some of the museums across the country come to the National capital region to be shared with people here. It is a great opportunity for all Canadians. It is a great opportunity for many of the museums across this country, whether they be large or small.

It is also a great opportunity to see the stories of our Canadian history told. We have a very rich history. Look at some of the amazing feats of soldiers, in particular, in World War I and World War II. I believe that some of those battles were the coming of age of this country. I have had the opportunity to visit some of the places where those battles took place. That is certainly not an opportunity all Canadians have. I wish they did.

Museums that will benefit from the travelling exhibitions are the places where Canadians can learn about these significant parts of our Canadian history. It is a great opportunity for Canadians and for all museums across the country to share our Canadian history.

I will conclude by encouraging all members of the House to join me in supporting this worthwhile and responsible piece of legislation. I will quote John McAvity, the executive director of the Canadian Museums Association. He said that “the renaming of the Museum of Civilization...is essential”, the it “is good news”, and that “it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage [and] to their history”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I see the government moving forward with significant changes to the museum. It is one thing to simply rebrand and change the name. I know the government is in tough times financially. It has the largest deficit in history, which it is having a hard time bringing down, and we have the 150th anniversary of our nation coming up. Perhaps it has decided it cannot build a new monument to recognize that point in time in history, so the best thing to do is to take some kind of institution that already exists, which is our magnificent Museum of Civilization, and rebrand it.

From what I can determine from Bill C-49, that is mostly what the bill would accomplish.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the page, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, with whom I am very pleased to do so.

If one looks into the depths of the bill, we are moving away from proudly having a Museum of Civilization, which had a mandate of not only showcasing to Canadians. Thousands upon thousands visit the Capital every year to go to the museum, which was built by, I am very proud to say, Mr. Cardinal, an internationally renowned architect. It is a masterpiece of architecture renowned worldwide. The good news is, I think he is being continually engaged, and I hope he is, to ensure that any changes to this monument are in keeping with the incredible design he put in place.

Apart from changing the name from the Museum of Civilization to the museum of Canadian history, we need to delve more into exactly what the government is up to. There are changes in the legislation that change its mandate. The mandate right now includes doing research. I think it is in clause 8 that this mandate to do research has been removed to become the museum of Canadian history. This raises the question of who then will do the research in these displays.

If we look in more detail at exactly what the proposal is, and I refer back to the speech by the minister about his intent in this legislation, apparently there will be a major fundraising exercise. There was a reassurance given to Canadians that they did not have to worry because not one more cent of taxpayer money would be spent on this monumental exercise toward the celebration of 150 years of Canada and that we would be move toward partnerships. What that raises for me is in the language. We saw that word “streamline” in all of the budgets and throne speeches of the government.

The Conservatives have two favourite words. One is “streamline”, which basically means fast-track and get rid of any legislation that might slow things down. The other word is “partnerships”. It appears that the new way of recording history in Canada and displaying it is going to be in partnerships. With whom? Will that be the way we will now do partnerships with our university institutions, so that, increasingly, research in our country has to move from basic research to applied research and they have to partner with major corporations?

Why is this of grave concern? There has been a lot of talk by the minister, and by the other Conservative members lauding the bill, that it will be a whole new way of doing business and there will be greater linkage with the small local museums of our country. There seems to be a short memory of what the government has done to the small local museums. I sat in the House when the government went through and erased the support to all the small local museums in our country.

Therefore, that leaves us with who can partner and who will be able to take advantage of these mechanisms. My understanding is there is some kind of a mechanism where monies can be transferred back. I stand to be corrected, but it seems to be that the mechanism whereby we will have these exchanges back and forth is if museums have enough money to put upfront to begin with, they too can display our national treasures and then they eventually they will be paid them.

However, if they are small museums whose funds are cut, how will they put up the dollars? More important, these are our national treasures. I know that from going to many of the events in the Art Gallery of Alberta, a lot of money was put into it and donated and given by various levels of government to ensure we could now borrow art internationally. The museums have to ensure their facilities are properly humidified and so forth.

Therefore, there is not a lot of clarity in here about exactly who will be paying for the transportation, displaying and packaging up again and sending back to the Archives of Canada, which raises another issue. Who exactly is going to undertake this research. Now the newly called Canadian museum of Canadian history will not do the research and Archives Canada will no longer do the research. Who exactly will do this research? Is it the people with whom the museum of Canadian history will partner? Will we have the Suncor Energy display of the history of environmental protection in Canada? Who knows who will be displaying the history of first peoples in Canada?

I am a bit concerned about the remaking of the Canada Hall. People always ask how I like Ottawa and I say, “How would I know?” I tell them I never get to see Ottawa because I am always working hard for them. However, the last time I went to the Museum of Civilization, which I still like to call it, I remember I went specifically to the display of Dr. Yee. He was a Chinese herbologist who was a personal friend of my father's. Sadly, Alberta did not say it wanted Dr. Yee's herbal shop. To its credit, the Canadian Museum of Civilization took that, and it is displayed in the museum. Every chance I get, I go up and see Dr. Yee's shop and I think about my father and his relationship with this wonderful man.

Is that going to be gone? What is going to happen to this collection of information? Are we starting at zero? Who is going to make this decision?

Have we been making new appointments to the board? With the establishment of the new museum of Canadian history, are we going to have a clean slate for the board? We know where those appointees are coming from in the current government. Perhaps we will wait until after the next election and have failed candidates and have them appointed. I do not know.

I have a personal friend in Edmonton who is a textile conservationist and she used to be on the Canadian Museums Association board. She has a lot of valuable expertise. I look forward to following up with her and finding out what she thinks about these changes, especially on the removal of the research dollars.

Here is another interesting fact. The website for the Museum of Civilization no longer exists. I went to website to see what the Museum of Civilization offered and all the sites were gone. I did find one remaining site, and that was for visitors. When people visit the museum, they can put up their review and 256 people found it excellent. People already think it is an incredible experience. Interestingly, in the comments they filed, most of them appreciated the aboriginal display.

It raises a lot of really important questions. Of course many of us are very saddened, and I know those who work for Canada Post are going to be saddened. Apparently, we are expunging the Canadian Postal Museum. Why? I do not know.

As I understand, there was $25 million spent on rebranding and consultation after the fact when the government had already been decided what the name would be. I had hoped to share the very interesting process that went on when there actually was the in-depth consultation with Canadians about renaming the Museum of Man to the Museum of Civilization, but I will save that for questions.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill tonight is history. I think we should look back on our own history for a moment in this debate on this important initiative.

More than 60 years ago, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, the Massey commission, issued the most significant cultural report in Canadian history. That commission was chaired by Vincent Massey, then-Chancellor of the University of Toronto, who later became Canada's first Canadian-born governor general. I would just mention in passing, he is my mother's second cousin.

The terms of reference for that commission stated that “it is desirable that the Canadian people should know as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions; and about their national life and common achievements”. That report also noted that Canada lacked two essential institutions, a national library and a national historical museum. The National Library of Canada was created in 1953.

Today, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-49, a bill that will finally fulfill the dream to create the Canadian museum of history.

Why does the government consider it important to increase Canadians' knowledge of the history of Canada? Polls indicate that 92% of Canadians say that they are interested in Canadian social and cultural history, and yet only 40% of Canadians could pass a citizenship exam that tests general knowledge of Canadian history. This gap is troubling and puzzling.

Canada has a long and rich history. Our land has been continuously inhabited for more than 10,000 years. The Vikings visited our shores more than 1,000 years ago, and successive waves of immigrants endured the harsh environments of this huge land and made this country their home.

People continue to choose to make Canada their home. We are a nation of immigrants. Discovery and adventure are in our genes. We have an unlimited number of stories to be told, events to celebrate, people to admire. These stories tell us who we are, and how we came to be so blessed. They also guide us on how important our values are, the ones that help us accomplish so much.

Canadian history is not short. Canadian history is not boring. It is as interesting as any other national history in the world, and even more so. It is full of courage and romance. It expresses struggle and sacrifice. We should take pride in and celebrate it.

In four years, we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. This is a time to focus on people, places and achievements that bring us together as Canadians, an occasion to celebrate and take pride in all that makes Canada unique, an opportunity to explore and celebrate Canadian history. That is why the Massey commission called for a national museum in 1951, and that is why the government is creating one with this bill.

This government understands that our museums are uniquely positioned to make Canadian history come alive for all Canadians. That is why we have, despite a period of global economic uncertainty, maintained support for our national museums, continued to support Canadian museums through the museums assistance program, increasing funding by $4.6 million annually for student summer internships, and doubled the financial capacity of the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program.

This program would allow the 3.5 million artifacts in the national collection to be shared with the hundreds of museums across Canada, so all Canadians can experience their history and their culture. Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, says that local museums would now be able to “offer their visitors distinctive exhibits and initiatives that would otherwise not be available”, thanks to the partnership with this new museum.

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. This national museum would be a focal point for Canadian history, with more than 43,000 square feet of permanent exhibition space presenting a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada.

In addition, 7,500 square feet of the museum would be reserved to showcase Canadian history exhibitions developed by other Canadian museums.

As the members opposite well know, the museum has already held a series of consultations with Canadians online and across Canada. More than 2,500 people took part in round tables and targeted discussions and more 16,000 people voiced their opinion online on a wide variety of topics regarding the exhibits and artifacts that would be on display in the museum.

Contrary to what the opposition claims, this would be a museum for Canadians, about Canadians and developed by Canadians. This is an exciting non-partisan project supported by Canadians of all political parties. To quote John McAvity, Executive Director of the Canadian Museums Association, “The federal government is sending a strong message that museums play an important role in our society.”

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. It would help us better understand that our history is living and shed light on why there are 30 million people around the world at least who would like to come to Canada to settle and begin anew.

Canadians deserve a national museum and infrastructure that tells our stories. I am proud of this initiative. I am particularly proud of the fact that we would achieve so much by making a relatively modest investment in the expertise and experience of the Canadian Museum of Civilization while using existing resources to create the new museum.

The Canadian museum of history would be a birthday gift to the citizens of Canada, a gift that would continue to contribute to our nation's legacy for decades to come.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member across the way and that he is a committed parliamentarian. He takes his job seriously. However, it strikes me that the process that was used to arrive at this place with Bill C-49 is something less than democratic.

In other words, we had a committee that looked at many of the issues of Canada's 150th birthday. We invited countless witnesses, spent countless taxpayers' dollars and countless months on this study. However, not once do we hear about the rebranding, the renaming and the costs attached to a project to do that at the Museum of Civilization.

Suddenly this announcement was made after the study was done. Apparently it came to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages in a moment of inspiration while he was riding his motorcycle.

I wonder if the member, as the representative for Don Valley West, thinks that is how democracy should proceed in the House of Commons?

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, a bill which would create the new Canadian museum of history.

The road to Canada's 150th birthday offers Canadians from coast to coast to coast an opportunity to celebrate our history and the achievements that define who we are as Canadians. This government is determined to make the most of these opportunities to celebrate our history, and our national museums play a key role in that undertaking.

Museums are considered by the public to be highly trustworthy sources of information about history and can provide valuable learning opportunities for Canadians. However, our museums are also major economic drivers, attracting tens of thousands of tourists in all regions and in both large and small communities, contributing to the $78-billion tourism industry. A single blockbuster exhibition can generate more than $30 million in incremental tourism revenues for the surrounding region.

This government has created two new national museums in the past four years, both outside of the national capital region. They are the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in Winnipeg, and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, in Halifax. This has marked the first time in 40 years that a new national museum was created and the first time that a national museum had been located outside the national capital region.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was to have mentioned that I am splitting my time with the member for Oakville.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value that 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. Mark O'Neill, president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation said “The Canadian Museum of History will inspire...a greater understanding” of our Canadian identity. “Canadians, as well as visitors from around the world”, will gain “a deeper appreciation of Canada's unique and fascinating national journey”.

However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full narrative of our nation's history. That is the reason my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, announced that the Government of Canada would establish the Canadian museum of history, a national museum that would provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn about and appreciate the richness of Canadian history.

For Canada, 2012 was an eventful year. We celebrated the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the bicentennial of the War of 1812, and her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. This year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Arctic Expedition. In 2014, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War.

I know the opposition members are asking why this government feels it is important to focus the interest of Canadians on our collective history. In 2017, this country will celebrate its 150th birthday. In the lead-up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate, and celebrate the wealth of our collective history. The statistics are concerning. Only four Canadian provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, require a credit in Canadian history to be mandatory for graduation. There are 82% of young Canadians surveyed who could not pass a basic Canadian history exam. This is not acceptable.

Let us begin the celebration of the 150th birthday of our country by reminding the citizens of this great nation of the events, people and achievements that make this country unique. Let us remind Canadians and the world that the following are all Canadian inventions: the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell; the electron microscope, James Hillier and Albert Prebus; the snowblower, Arthur Sicard; the snowmobile, Armand Bombardier; the Canadarm, Spar Aerospace; and insulin, Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

Let us inform Canadians in the world about the Hudson's Bay Company, the Bluenose, the Empress of Ireland, the Franklin Expedition and the Canadian Arctic Expedition. Let us celebrate the Battle of Vimy Ridge; the Falcon of Malta, Buzz Beurling; and World War I flying aces Billy Bishop and Billy Barker. Let us reflect on the accomplishments of pianist Glenn Gould; poet Pauline Johnson; Mary Two-Axe Earley, who fought to have her aboriginal rights restored; and John Peters Humphrey, who wrote the original draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Let us remember that this land has been continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, in Alberta, a World Heritage site, was being used while the pyramids were still under construction. Anthony Island, another World Heritage site, was first inhabited thousands of years ago. L'Anse aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, contains the ruins of a north settlement dating from the 11th century. Ours is not a short history.

It is perhaps time that we paused to reflect on what has made this country what it is today. The Canadian Museum of Civilization sought the opinions of Canadians, both online and in nine cities across the country, on the personalities, events and milestones that truly tell the Canadian story. The fact that close to 20,000 Canadians responded speaks to the importance of this new museum.

The Canadian museum of history will 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 presents our country's treasures to the world.

In conclusion, I hope that as many Canadians as possible will take the opportunity to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, in the freshly renovated exhibition halls of the new Canadian museum of history, a museum that highlights the national achievements and accomplishments that have shaped this great nation.

Let me again quote Mr. O'Neill, who said, “There has been no place that Canadians can point to and say this is where we can go to discover who we are as Canadians. This is a place where we can see how we, as Canadians, got to where we are now. Starting today, Canada will have a place like that”.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on 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.

The primary purpose of this bill, in the heritage minister's words, is to refocus and reposition the mandate of the present Canadian Museum of Civilization. Thus, the Conservatives want to eliminate the museum's functions of creating and maintaining a collection of objects for research and for posterity. They want to change the museum's orientation and only focus on Canadians, rather than covering both Canada and the rest of the world. Finally, they want to 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.”

When the government announced its intention to close the Canadian Museum of Civilization and create the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, I feared this reform would be just like the others the Conservatives have given us: it would look inward, manipulate the facts, use history for partisan purposes and avoid consultation when implementing broad reforms.

When I saw the bill, many of my fears were realized. This bill reflects exactly what we have been criticizing the Conservatives about for years. This action may well lead to more missteps and cost overruns at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Before I go any further, I must make it clear that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is not being redesigned in answer to a need expressed by the general population or by the people in the field. No problem has been decried by anyone at all. No, this is all a simplistic initiative from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who chooses self-promotion over the interests of the Canadian people. Instead of doing something about the flagrant needs for funding in arts and culture, the Conservatives have chosen to take $25 million from the operational budget of Canadian Heritage, just to showcase the minister's whims.

This decision was made in the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage without any transparent or open consultation. In fact, the Conservatives refuse to reveal just which stakeholders they consulted, what the consultation process involved, and what the findings were.

It seems that no stakeholders in the Outaouais were consulted. Not even the mayor of Gatineau, the city where the current Museum of Civilization is located, was approached by the government for his input on the issue. Thus, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not think it useful to contact the people most closely affected by this reform.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada, with 1.2 million visitors per year, and $15 million in annual revenue, some of that coming from admission fees. Its exhibitions present the whole world and attract everyone's interest; they enable us to keep learning all the time.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage did not take account of these facts, did not engage the community in his plans, and is trying to write the end of this success story. The whole country is proud of the museum's success and its fame is world-wide. The haste with which the government has started this process may spoil this success and limit its impact.

I also think we should question the Conservatives' perspective on history and the way they want to utilize it, as well as the mandate they would give to the museum. This vision clearly reflects the inward-looking attitude typical of this government. Rather than opening up the museum to the history of all civilizations, the government prefers to use this institution as a tool to promote militarism, glorify the monarchy and rewrite history for partisan purposes.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to impose a linear view of history that is miles away from current educational practices, which tend to focus more on understanding and critical analysis.

In their efforts to deform or reform Canadian history, control history classes—which should be managed by the provinces—and promote militarism and the monarchy, the Conservatives are proving that they are completely out of touch with reality and the concerns of Canadians. They should leave it up to the real experts in the field to determine what direction to take in order to ensure a proper understanding of our history, rather than imposing a narrow, partisan view of history.

As a final point, implementing this bill and other Conservative actions on heritage matters deserve our attention. While the minister wants to spend $25 million on self-promotion, the government has cut $29 million from Parks Canada budgets.

Over 80% of Parks Canada archeologists and curators have lost their jobs. The number of professionals working in conservation dropped from 33 to eight. This means that about 20 or so people will be responsible for managing 30 million artifacts in the Parks Canada collection.

How can the minister stand up in this House and speak so highly of Canadian history, when his government's decisions are undermining the conservation of Canadian heritage and the protection of our historic sites?

As the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, James L. Turk, pointed out: “If the government is genuinely committed to Canadian history, it should restore funding to Library and Archives Canada...” The government should restore its support for regional and local archives, and restore funding to protect and enhance Canada's historic sites.

On the contrary, by spending $25 million of Heritage Canada's budget, even more money will be taken away from other funding areas. This situation is completely unacceptable.

To conclude, Bill C-49 is a huge mistake. By making new budget cuts to credits that have already been granted, the government will jeopardize heritage so it can move ahead with creating the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. This decision is purely ideological and does not take into account the reality of the situation or the real and immediate heritage protection needs.

I therefore urge members to reject Bill C-49. Let us make an outward-looking museum, an outward-looking history and an outward-looking population a priority.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member actually read any part of the bill before her. First of all, she talked about curatorial independence. Obviously, subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act actually guarantees that in legislation. We are not touching that.

If we look at Bill C-49, what part of paragraphs 9(1)(a) through 9(1)(p) does she disagree with? How do they differ from the act that currently governs the civilization museum? If we look at paragraph 9(1)(e), it talks about travelling exhibits, both in Canada and internationally. Paragraph 9(1)(i) establishes and fosters liaisons with other organizations that have purposes similar to its own. Paragraph 9(1)(j) talks about staff working with other museums across the country. In paragraph 9(1)(k) it goes further and talks about how we can work with other museums to get these collections out there.

I am not sure she has actually read the bill. She talks about all the things she does not like in the bill, but they are actually already protected by both the Museum Act and this proposed act. What specifically in the new bill does she not like that was in the previous act?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

As an archaeologist, I really wanted to be able to talk about the proposed changes to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Bill C-49.

There are major differences between an anthropological museum and a history museum. Either the Conservatives do not understand this difference or they want to give the museum a much narrower mandate to better manipulate the institution, or both.

Bill C-49 introduces major amendments to the museum's mandate. The current mandate talks about establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest. That sentence is completely missing from the new mandate. The museum's current mandate talks about working throughout Canada and abroad. The new proposed mandate only deals with Canadian history and identity.

It is important to understand that Canada is and was influenced in the past by the rest of the world. I see that this new narrower vision does not do justice to that.

According to the amendments proposed by Bill C-49, the museum's approach would be limited to understanding and appreciating just dates, events, historical figures and objects. This approach, which is completely outdated in the social sciences, leaves out a number of important aspects of a society's development. A study of historical heroes often leaves out women, children, aboriginal peoples and minority groups, not because they did not have an impact on our history or make cultural contributions. No, it is because unfortunately this impact is too often left out in the Conservatives' approach.

All kinds of moments and processes in our country's history could be lost because of this approach. For example, the development of the Lachine canal in Montreal and its role in the industrial revolution in the rest of Canada; the poor treatment of Polish settlers in the west who, left to their own devices, had to build dugouts to survive the winter; the fact that slavery existed in New France; the evolution of women's rights; and the evolution of the rights of the workers who built our economy.

Allow me to use a few archaeological examples to illustrate my remarks. Artifacts, in and of themselves, are interesting, but they only reveal a portion of the important information. The context in which the artifact is discovered is just as important.

In Mobile, Alabama, in the early 18th century, the lives of the colonists from New France were very difficult. Yet in a carpenter's house, archaeologists found a cup made of fine porcelain, an object rarely associated with a worker in a colony where life was uncertain. In attempting to understand why such an object was there, the archaeologists realized that to survive, the French settlers forged an alliance with the Spanish, who had access to imported goods from Asia thanks to their trading posts in Mexico.

The cup itself was magnificent, but the context laid bare its true history, which involved neither heroes, nor any date or event of great importance. If the approach to research and other areas favoured by the Conservatives at the Canadian Museum of Civilization is adopted, this kind of information will never become available.

Another example is our rich aboriginal heritage. It did not start with the arrival of the Vikings 1,000 years ago. It began at least 12,000 years ago when the ancestors of the aboriginal peoples first set foot on Canadian soil. Under the proposed new approach, with its narrow focus on characters, dates and events, most of this heritage will be swept under the rug, not to mention the oral traditions handed down from one generation to the next by the aboriginal peoples.

When the Canadian Museum of Civilization was built, its originators recognized the important contribution of aboriginal cultures to culture in general, and so they chose an aboriginal architect, Douglas Cardinal, to design the museum's structure.

The Conservatives have a bad habit of being led by preconceived notions, which they try to back up with so-called evidence, after the fact. For example, the Conservatives stated that the museum focused more heavily on, and allocated the lion’s share of its resources to, non-Canadian exhibitions. That is not true. At least 70% of the exhibitions presented in recent years focused on Canada.

Nevertheless, Canada's history was also influenced by that of other peoples, and museum goers really enjoy international exhibitions. These international exhibitions attract visitors who, in turn, visit the Canadian exhibitions. It is a win-win situation. For example, the exhibition Tombs of Eternity – The Afterlife in Ancient Egypt drew 240,714 visitors to the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I am going to quote a passage from the museum's website regarding another exhibition:

Museum of Civilization reaches out across Canada and around the world Thanks to the phenomenal success of The Mysterious Bog People and other outreach projects, the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s travelling exhibitions program is connecting with a remarkable number of people worldwide.

Together, 10 of the CMC’s travelling exhibitions attracted 445,315 visitors between May 2005 and September 2006...

The Mysterious Bog People opened in Vienna, Austria, last week after a tour that began in Germany, with stops in England, the Netherlands, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and, of course, Gatineau...The total number of visitors worldwide could top 1 million during The Mysterious Bog People's presentation in Vienna.

The success of the CMC’s travelling exhibitions program underscores the importance of international partnerships in organizing successful exhibitions. The Mysterious Bog People, which reveals the fascinating early history of northwestern Europeans, is the result of a collaborative effort between four museums in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany.

“Such international exchanges help forge strong scholarly and people-to-people ties between countries,” says Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, President and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. “More important, they deepen our understanding of other societies, and enable us in turn to share Canada’s rich culture and heritage with the rest of the world.”

Outreach activities also help the CMC display national treasures for Canadians from sea to sea.

This is forgotten with the new approach. The collective heritage of Canadians and human kind will be undermined.

The Conservatives say that they consulted Canadians about the new mandate of the museum. I said that their modus operandi was to go with a preconceived idea and then try to come up with the facts to back it up. That is how they proceeded as well with their consultations.

The minister made the decision to transform the museum and subsequently, people were consulted about certain aspects of this process. Canadians, and much less professionals, were never asked if they wanted this transformation. The department issued the following release, and I quote: “Representatives from the Museum are travelling the country asking Canadians what they would like to see in this new exhibition.”

Moreover, Canadians were asked to choose from among a limited number of events they wanted showcased within a predetermined timeline of 1,000 years, starting with the arrival of the Vikings. Among other things, this timeline excludes the Laurel culture which was already using copper in northern Ontario 3,000 years ago. This is a rather interesting fact, given that very few aboriginal peoples used metals.

Museum workers have already had to contend with staff reorganizations. The government has imposed changes and incurred spending related to the new mandate, even before the bill has been adopted. It has already begun to spend our money to make these changes which have not yet been approved by the House. This is arrogance, pure and simple. As always, the Conservatives want to impose their vision, but this time it is even worse. They want to rewrite history.

They spent $28 million to commemorate the War of 1812. This celebration of a long-ago war was completely out of proportion. Yet most of our history is a peaceful one. We survived few armed conflicts to become the nation that we are today.

Canadians do not want a politicized version of their country’s history. Decisions about the mandate of the museum and the content of its collection must be left to independent professionals, not to politicians.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. Why change this institution when no one has asked for this? Why spend $25 million to bring about this change, when more financial support should instead be given to small museums? Where will the department make cuts to find the $25 million?

If the Conservatives believe that Canada’s history is so important, why are they slashing $29 million from Parks Canada’s budget and eliminating 80% of all archaeologist and conservator jobs? Why have they cut all three research positions that relate to first nations’ national historical sites? Why have they cut deeply into the Library and Archives Canada budget?

The museum has built its reputation on research. Archeologists and historians have had access to primary source documents at the museum for their research for 135 years, or since 1877, at the museum’s predecessor, the Geological Survey of Canada. Researchers are very concerned. The collections are a huge resource for them.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to make significant cuts to research and the acquisition of collections not directly related to exhibits? Unfortunately, that is the message sent by the recent abolition of the position of vice-president, research and collections.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the amendment.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for being part of this debate on such an important subject. I speak of Canada's heritage, our country's heritage, specifically the founding of a new Canadian Museum of History. I would like to point out that this bill deals with the creation of a new museum in the national capital, the Canadian Museum of History. As outlined in the bill, the museum's mandate is as follows:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

This government is creating a museum in Canada's capital that will set up a real national infrastructure to focus on and enhance awareness of our country's heritage.

I would like to point out the broad support that we have for the creation of the Canadian museum of history. It should be pointed out that the mayor of Gatineau, Mr. Bureau, supports the creation of this museum. Mr. Watson, the mayor of Ottawa, supports the creation of this museum, as do historians and museum directors from all across this country.

I would just point out, for example, that John McAvity, who is the executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, said that the renaming of the museum is essential. He said, “That is good news....it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage, to their history”.

Michael Bliss, an historian and an author, said, “It is very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly focused on Canada's history”.

These are all important initiatives. Spokespeople for Canada's history, the understanding of Canada's history, are excited about Bill C-49, the new focus of Canada's largest museum, and moving forward so that Canadians have this national infrastructure for the teaching, dissemination and future study of Canada's history.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moves:

That, in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if any of my law faculty colleagues from long ago are watching right now, they will probably be sniggering because they will remember that tax law was not my favourite field. I would add that it was not the favourite field of many law students.

However, it is probably the subject that affects people's everyday lives the most. People always talk about the long arm of the government and how it finds all kinds of ways, each more imaginative than the next, to reach in and take what we earn with the sweat of our brow. Sometimes it does that under what is called the Income Tax Act. At other times it does so by means of hidden taxes, which are highly valued by the Conservatives, with charges levied on all kinds of things.

We pay our share every day and our money flows in many ways into the government's coffers. Many people will obviously wonder why I am rising to discuss Bill C-48. I am doing so because it has an impact on everyone's life. It has an impact on the lives of the people in my riding, Gatineau. That is as true for small businesses as it is for big businesses, but it is also true for individuals. They pay every day through the GST, and barely a month ago they did through their income tax returns, so this is not the easiest subject.

Earlier I flipped through the act and thought back on marvellous memories of my time at the law faculty and on the Income Tax Act, just from looking at a few sections of the act. I wondered why legislators were incapable of coming up with anything simpler.

I was listening to the member on the other side of the House who spoke before me. Several questions were put to her, all asking the same thing: why are we making technical amendments in 2013 that should have been in place since 2001? Let us get something straight. This is technical, but Bill C-48 is already in force by means of comfort letters.

People must understand that, from the moment the mean taxman decides that something must be done, it is done, even if it is not yet included in the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act or related legislation. From the moment a comfort letter is signed, the government takes that money from our pockets. This will therefore make little change to people's lives, but it will be much easier to access because it will finally be in the act. Comfort letters are all well and good, and they say what they say, but they are not always clear.

For individuals, our tax system is based on voluntary assessment. In other words, we rely on average Canadians to file their tax return by April 30. If they are lucky, and Revenue Canada does not ask them to produce various documents, they can use the short form. In fact, it is not over yet. Even for people with some training in taxation, it is not very straightforward.

As the Auditor General said, this is not like other bills, where we have seen three versions die on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation forced by the Conservative government, whose agenda disappeared as if by magic. In this case, the work just was not done. The work was also not done by the Liberals, since the previous legislation dates back to 2001. Auditors general have been calling on the legislators of the House for ages to do something about this more quickly.

In this way, the public could immediately see the changes to the legislation.

In my opinion, the Conservative response to this matter does not stand up. The legislation has not had previous incarnations, nor has it taken a great deal of time, nor is it the opposition’s fault. That is absolutely not the case.

It has taken them this long to produce Bill C-48 and finally listen to what the Auditor General was telling them. What she was telling them was rather serious and blunt. She noted that there were more than 400 technical amendments, and there are barely 200 in Bill C-48.

In her fall 2009 report she said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said [as quick as the devil] that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

This is true, whether you are a New Democrat, a Liberal, the sole member of the Green Party or one of the few from the Bloc Québécois. This is true for everyone, including the Conservatives.

In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, chapter 2, the Auditor General expressed some concerns that income tax comfort letters were not announced publicly. We are talking about chapter 2 of the Auditor General's report from 1991. In response, the Department of Finance Canada stated that:

…the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.

Comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public. However, in the past 18 years, very few technical bills have been introduced and passed. Only four of the bills relating to income tax have been passed.

A few sentences in my colleague's speech caught my attention. I found them surprising because it seemed to me that I had heard them yesterday as well. It is important to understand that all these bills are subject to a time allocation motion, be it Bill C-48 today, Bill C-54 last night or Bill C-49, which is to come and will not be spared either.

Introducing a time allocation motion for Bill C-48 seems particularly outrageous, especially when the members opposite do it ad nauseam, parroting the lines written and produced for them by the office on the third floor.

They are trying to tell us that this has been before the House for 200 days. Yet, Bill C-54 was also in the House for 200 days, as was Bill C-48, and Bill C-49 probably will be, as well.

With its majority, the government can advance its agenda as it pleases. Perhaps we are moving at a snail's pace because the government does not really know where it is going. It improvises a little and all of a sudden it realizes that the session may end and that it will leave a lot of things unfinished. That is why it is speeding everything up.

I hear people say we are repeating ourselves, but that is not the case. The message the people of Gatineau want me to send the Conservative government, particularly on Bill C-48, is that they are fed up with provisions so inaccessible and incomprehensible to the average person that everyone would like us to change those aspects.

When I got to page 13 of the Income Tax Act, I had covered only three sections, and I was already getting fed up.

Yet I was a lawyer for 30 years. I studied tax law. I was elected as a member in 2004. I have analyzed many budgets, and I have seen the Income Tax Act in all its forms, as a member of both the government and the official opposition. I was not born yesterday, but this can be hard to grasp even for someone like me.

Small businesses also point out a problem I regularly hear about in my riding of Gatineau. For a small business required to complete all the forms, the disproportionate amount of red tape is good only for the numbers expert industry.

When members of the middle class or less privileged individuals want to do the right thing and pay their taxes, but do not really know how the system works, they have to go see an expert to be sure they make no mistakes. Few people like to make mistakes when it comes to taxes. However, some people manage to divert a large portion of what they owe in taxes even though they make millions of dollars. Authorities often go after lower-income individuals and treat them like criminals even though some people are forced to make arrangements with the Canada Revenue Agency, Revenu Québec or other organizations simply because everyday life is hard for them.

We get these kinds of messages in our ridings. True, we will vote for the bill, but the Conservatives tell us to shut our traps the moment we agree with them. We are no longer entitled to speak. I do not have the right to tell the House what the people of my riding would like to get from their politicians, and I was elected by 62% of the electorate, not 39% like the Conservative government. There are lessons to be learned from each of our ridings. That is what democracy means. It means electing 308 members of different political philosophies. Gatineau may not have the same problem as certain ridings in Alberta, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces. That is what makes it possible for us to improve the situation together.

Voting in favour of a bill is not necessarily the same thing as giving the government carte blanche or saying that overall the bill is amazing. Sometimes, the government would do well to listen to us and follow the interpretation, which it does not often do. This is unfortunate, but there is a reason why it sticks to the script, like a racehorse running straight for the finish line. The Conservatives’ problem is that they often hit a wall because they fail to listen to what people were saying along the way. That is regrettable, but the message they are sending to all of our constituents is that their opinion does not matter in the least.

Yet if there is one issue that affects all Canadians, regardless of where they live, surely it is taxation. My grandmother always said that in certain areas of life, things should be the same for everyone. I am sure that she would qualify that statement, since some people are good at avoiding certain things. She used to say that some things were unavoidable, like death and taxes. She was right up to a point, although she would surely be turning in her grave at all of the tax avoidance measures that abound today.

While I am very pleased to see that Bill C-48 attempts to address certain problems, I am not fooled either. The Minister of Justice argues that by amending and toughening up certain laws, the problems of all crime victims will be resolved. That is not true. If the government fails to put more police officers on the highways and to increase funding for psychological support services, then it will not accomplish anything. The same holds true for tax avoidance.

If there are not enough agents to properly investigate cases of tax avoidance, or better still, of tax evasion, we will hit another wall.

Again, this is a problem that the Conservatives have. They have an extremely narrow vision of how to get from point A to point B. They are incapable of appreciating that in order to get to point B and the desired outcome, they might have to make a small detour. But the Conservatives just do not do certain things, like admitting they were wrong or that they made a mistake. According to an old saying, a fault confessed is half redressed. They have a hard time with that and again, that is unfortunate.

Bill C-48 is a sound piece of legislation, but it does resolve everything. Had we not had to contend with this time allocation motion, we would have been able to hear a lot more from my colleagues, and maybe even from the Conservatives.

I listened to some of the speeches, and it was interesting to see what it is about this bill that makes some Conservatives react. Once they had dispensed with “we are the best, the nicest, the cleverest” or what have you, in the final 30 seconds, they tied it to what was happening in their riding. It was beneficial for all members of the House.

We can all learn from one another. I learn something from my colleagues who represent more rural regions. They in turn learn about what makes people in urban areas tick. Of course, there are different kinds of urban areas. There are large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver and cities like Gatineau, which is the fourth-largest municipality in Quebec. Gatineau’s problems are different because it is located right on the Ontario border. By talking to one another, it is possible to find real solutions.

When I served in Parliament from 2004 to 2006, I chaired the women’s caucus. Back then, my favourite expression was gender-based analysis, or GBA.

I would tell my male colleagues that GBA stood for gender-based analysis, not Game Boy Advance. When a bill was being drafted, we ensured that all of the facts were taken into account. We were not just concerned about women.

The best example I can give you is young people who drop out of school. If the facts show that young boys are the ones who drop out of school and a policy is needed to address that situation, then young boys will be the focus of that policy. That logic will dictate our actions.

We accomplish things by talking to one another, by discussing matters and especially by listening and by being willing to admit that sometimes ours is not the absolute truth. However, this government is absolutely incapable of understanding that someone other than the PMO may have some sound ideas or be right. Just imagine having to admit that the NDP had a sound idea. The government thinks the sky would fall and something terrible would happen if it admitted that. How utterly ridiculous and how out of touch with the public.

When I weigh everything, I tell myself that maybe this is what the Conservatives really want in the final analysis. All this really does is leave the public fed up. And what happens when people are fed up? The Conservatives are gambling on two possible outcomes: either that people will come out in force and vote them out of office, which I am hoping will be the case because people no longer want to have anything to do with them, or that people will stay home because they are sick and tired of the whole process. The Conservatives are gambling that the second scenario will play out.

I think people have to realize that while they may not be interested in politics, something like Bill C-48 affects their day-to-day lives, starting with taxation.

Just think about the tax people pay every day on all kinds of things. If they were to calculate how much tax they pay throughout the year, not just income tax, but tax on items purchased at the corner store, at the grocery store, at the drugstore or elsewhere, they would realize that the government is truly omnipresent and that perhaps they should pay attention to politics.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is not an end in itself.

Bill C-49--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the House that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

It is nice to see full benches on the other side enjoying a fun-filled evening. Certainly, we are pleased that they are here. It would be rather quiet without them.

I am glad to speak on Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. The establishment of the museum would provide Canadians with an unprecedented opportunity to learn about and appreciate the richness of Canada's history.

Much consultation has happened and information was gathered up before the construction on this building. There was face-to-face consultation, a web page was set up and there were hundreds of hits on the page with ideas on what the museum should house and how it would be arranged. The consultation was extensive.

The legislation would change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and begin a transformation that would be completed over the next five years in the lead-up to Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. Let me be clear. Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value that 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.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an institution to be proud of. It is one of Canada's most popular museums. It is important to understand that this is not the end of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is the beginning. It would be given a new name and indeed a new mandate.

Let me read the current mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization:

...to increase...appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing [and] maintaining...a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada—

This is a mandate that states its collections do not have exclusive reference to Canada.

Our government is proposing a new mandate for this museum. Let me read it as it is described in the legislation. It states:

...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.

This new mandate would allow the museum to create a national narrative of the history of Canada for all Canadians.

We should think of this initiative as a rejuvenation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This significant investment would allow a major renovation of more than 43,000 square feet of permanent gallery space, some of which has been in place since 1989, in order to present a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada to Canadians and to the world.

It is important to note that this legislation would not affect the internal workings of the museum. The museum's board would remain intact. The Canadian War Museum would continue to be an affiliate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

This bill is an attack on an institution that is very important to me, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is located in my riding of Hull—Aylmer.

I am one of those people who is lucky to live in the national capital region, in Hull—Aylmer, who sees the museum every day, who represented the workers at this beautiful museum, who has visited it regularly and who has truly appreciated it. I am saddened to see what is happening at present.

This museum is part of our region's history and identity, just like Gatineau Park, for example, which I am also trying to save. I want to ensure that government legislation will fully protect it. It is an institution that is respected and appreciated by my constituents and everyone.

The Canadian Museum of Civilizations, in its current form, is the most popular museum in Canada. Everyone says so. What a mess the government wants to make of it.

Our museum is a tourist attraction that has economic benefits and creates jobs for the Outaouais. Its special exhibitions on world culture, such as Haitian vodou and ancient Egypt, are an intrinsic part of the museum's popular success in Canada and abroad. What do we want to teach our children and what legacy do we want to leave them?

The museum has proven its worth over the years. The people of Hull—Aylmer are proud to have a world-class museum in their riding.

However, the government is using Bill C-49 to attack the museum's formula for success. It wants to reposition the museum, refocus it on Canadian history and sideline the temporary exhibits that I mentioned earlier.

Because the government is choosing to focus on Canadian history, people are left with the impression that the museum does not pay enough attention to our history, which is untrue. The vast majority of the museum's resources are already poured into exhibits on Canada's history.

For example, the Canada Hall is the most visited area of the museum and contains one of the most acclaimed Canadian exhibits in the country. It took years and millions of dollars to create it, and it seems that it will be undergoing a transformation.

I find it hard to understand why this government is tampering with a winning formula. This museum became famous for its wonderful mix of Canadian history and exhibits on other civilizations.

Canadian history has had an important place in the museum since its creation. The museum has always been open to the world and its cultures, just as Canadians are. Why change that?

Earlier, my colleague spoke about the Yukon. Yes, I have been there. He spoke about the pride of Yukoners. Yes, I have met the people who work to preserve our legacy and our heritage. Government cuts mean that all of that heritage is being storage in poorly ventilated, unheated hangers, where it is deteriorating. Is that the legacy we want to leave our children, the public and the world?

The government argued that the changes it wants to make to the museum will make a positive contribution to the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. No one has a problem with using the museum to showcase the 150th anniversary. However, using the 150th anniversary as an excuse to change the mandate and focus of Canada's most popular museum worries me, especially given that this government has spent tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to rewrite our collective history and bring it more in line with Conservative values.

The proposed changes are all the more incomprehensible because no one asked for them. No one in the region was consulted before the minister announced his intentions.

The government has gotten into the habit of acting unilaterally, which is very unfortunate for Canadians and very unfortunate for parliamentary democracy.

The public consultations had nothing to do with finding out whether people wanted us to change our museum's mandate, and everything to do with finding out what people wanted to see displayed in the new museum. Back where I come from, we call that putting the cart before the horse. No wonder people spoke out against Bill C-49.

The NPD is not alone in worrying about how out of control things could get if Bill C-49 is passed. In November, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the CAUT, which represents 60,000 university teachers, publicly expressed concern about overt political manipulation of the museum.

The CAUT's executive director had this to say:

[This] initiative...fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy.... [This] initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda.... This is a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda....

I have heard the same concern expressed by the CAUT expressed by a number of my constituents. I received many emails, letters and comments on Bill C-49. An overwhelming majority of my constituents are against the government's plan, and since the museum is in their riding, it seems to me that this government should take their opposition seriously.

I will give a real example of the kind of email I received. One of my constituents, Alexandre Pirsch, told me that he was concerned about Bill C-49 and asked me to speak on his behalf in Parliament. He said that he has had a family membership at the museum for four years and that he does not see himself reflected in the changes that the government wants to make. He said he was dismayed when he learned that the Canadian government wanted to change the mandate and name of a museum that has meant so much to him. He even wrote that he was thinking about not renewing his family membership.

I have received many emails like that.

One of the problems with Bill C-49 is the proposed mandate, which sets out not only the museum's general direction, but also the historical approach it should adopt. Normally, decisions about the type of approach adopted by a museum are left up to museum specialists and historians, specifically to avoid political interference.

The approach set out in Bill C-49, which is based on events, experiences, people and things, is restrictive. It does not leave any room to showcase important developments in our shared history, such as gender relations, colonization and first nations, and environmental changes, for example.

In April, I asked the minister a question about the loss of unionized jobs at the museum and the money that has been spent to change the mandate of the museum before the bill has even passed. In his response, the minister criticized us for not supporting what he described as an investment in culture.

This “investment in culture” the minister was talking about is the $25 million that will be devoted to implementing Bill C-49. I want to say something about that. If ever there was a government in the history of Canada that cannot brag about championing culture, it is the current Conservative government. This government has been making cuts to culture at every turn ever since coming to power.

That $25 million will come out of Canadian Heritage's budget, which has already been reduced as a result of this government's cuts.

The minister also refuses to confirm where exactly this $25 million will come from, and what programs will suffer from the reallocation of funds.

As for the Conservatives and culture, a study conducted by the Canadian Conference of the Arts indicates that funding for Canadian Heritage and cultural agencies had been cut by $200 million, which represents 6.1% of the federal budget for 2012. That is a lot of money.

In 2011, the Conservatives had already reduced investment in culture by $177 million, or 4.5%. Do not try to tell me that this government invests in culture. It is simply not true.

At this stage:

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau, that this House do now adjourn.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at Bill C-49, it talks about all the things that this museum is going to have to do, including organizing exhibits both in Canada and outside Canada. It helps to open up our museums, not only the national museum, but museums in communities across this country so that they can share in the collection of the national museum.

One member's constituency has a museum for Exporail, and he talked about how important that museum was to his community. I cannot think of a better way of making that museum more important and more accessible to Canadians than by becoming a part of the new museum of Canadian history. Does the museum right now have the ability to talk about Canadian history? Yes. Can it do a better job of doing that by bringing in communities across this country, by bringing in artifacts, by sharing the artifacts, but also bringing artifacts that are important in the member's community to Ottawa? Absolutely.

We can do better and that is the whole point of this. With a $25-million investment, we will make sure that all parts of this country can celebrate in their history and all the good things that have helped make this such a great country to live in.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is important to discuss Canadian history. I am convinced that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is offering a genuine opportunity to energize our discussion of history, to do more to get collections out of storage. Although I share misgivings with some members of the opposition, I am prepared to support this bill, but I want to make sure that we put on the record through this debate that future governments and future members of Parliament can look at these debates and understand that someone like myself from the opposition benches supports this initiative but wants to make it very clear that the independence of the curators is enshrined in the legislation. We need to make it very clear that the role of women through our history and first nations through our history is not in any way politicized.

I am prepared to take that leap of faith based on what I see before me in the legislation, separate from all the other things, which the member for Davenport quite rightly points out. Some egregious things have been done in other departments by other ministers, but we are talking today about Bill C-49.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if he is prepared to join members of the opposition in understanding, given the record in other areas of loss of information, loss of Library and Archives, that we are now going to be prepared to take the leap of faith and support this bill?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, a number of members have noted the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages's profound conviction when it comes to this bill. Unfortunately, it is strictly because we do not trust the Conservatives that the bill cannot be passed.

Today, I would like to bring the House's attention to some basic contradictions, which are typical of a government that wants to create a Canadian museum of history. It says it is interested in the country's history and wants to celebrate it and make the public more aware of it.

I want to mention something worrisome. This government has done more to hinder people's knowledge and understanding of Canadian history and to undermine research into our history than any other government. It should listen to the historians, archeologists, archivists, anthropologists and ethnologists, all the experts on our history.

This evening, I am not pulling this observation out of a hat, nor am I making it up just for fun. I made this observation after listening to experts on our history, in other words, people who help us learn more about our past. These experts dig into our past in order to better understand it so that we can, too.

These professionals, researchers and experts have told my colleagues and me that their field is in worse shape than ever before. They say that highway robbery masquerading as budget cuts, combined with the federal government's constant, dubious meddling in their affairs, their profession and their field of research, will have lingering negative effects on the work and research that help us understand our history better.

Everything this government does is rife with contradiction. On the one hand, it is so proud of creating a history museum to supposedly improve knowledge of history, but on the other, it is attacking all of the federal institutions that have been preserving, protecting and raising awareness of our history for over a century.

For example, Parks Canada is responsible for maintaining 167 national historic sites, places worthy of preservation because they are historically significant. Parks Canada looks after Canada's world heritage sites. Expert archeologists have helped the agency unearth artifacts from the past, identify them and explain why they are historically relevant. I am delighted to say that there is an archeologist among us today, the member for Hochelaga.

Curators—not Conservatives, mind you, but people who actually care about history—have also helped Parks Canada through their curatorial work. I apologize to the translators for my play on words, which is not translatable.

The Conservatives decided to lay off over 80% of the archeologists and curators who take care of our historic sites and preserve our precious artifacts. There are now only about 10 archeologists working for Parks Canada across the country in all of our national parks, national historic sites and world heritage sites. I should point out that world heritage site status is not a given; UNESCO can revoke that status at any time.

Tonight, the government has the gall to tell us that it wants to promote history even though it is abandoning fragile historic sites across the country. The same government is planning to remove carefully preserved artifacts from Parks Canada's regional facilities. For example, a large collection of artifacts dating back to the days of New France is currently housed in Quebec City. The government is planning to uproot the collection from its home and put it in storage in Ottawa.

That is what the government, which supposedly wants to make history more accessible and more widely known, is really doing.

Conservatives say they are interested in history, but Canadians are not interested in what they say. They want to know what the government is doing. Conservatives like to say they are interested in history but, in reality, they continue to destroy every single federal public institution that is responsible for protecting our history. They have not only destroyed Parks Canada, which is responsible for protecting our 167 national historic sites, as well as Canada's world heritage sites, they have destroyed Library and Archives Canada--we know that, we heard a lot last week--an institution that has been the guardian of Canada's archives for 140 years, both as the national archives and as a national library.

Library and Archives experts, archivists, professional librarians and others are recognized and admired around the world for their work. A few years ago, Library and Archives Canada was an exciting place for those researchers of our history to be. Some people here will remember that there were always exhibitions about Canadian history open to the public on the ground floor of Library and Archives Canada just a few years ago.

Who closed those exhibition halls? The Conservatives did.

Who cut millions of dollars from research and preservation of Canadian history? The Conservatives did.

Who laid off hundreds of archivists, librarians, digitization experts, historians and professionals at Library and Archives Canada? These guys again.

Who destroyed programs such as the national archival development program that supported small communities all over Canada to create their own local community archives, a program that allowed Library and Archives Canada to accomplish an essential part of its mandate? These guys.

Who almost put a complete stop to the acquisition of historic documents and artifacts by cutting Library and Archives Canada's $1 million budget to $12,000 a year? They allowed irreplaceable manuscripts, relics of our history, to slip through our fingers and be purchased by auction houses and unscrupulous speculators and exported to shady warehouses in the United States. Who is responsible for this loss, this drain on our priceless cultural heritage? Who else but these guys, the Conservatives.

After the serious damage they have caused, no one would dare say that the Conservatives care about history. That is hogwash. On the contrary, the contradiction is obvious. The Conservatives are not at all interested in the history of Canada or all of the work that goes into the difficult research required to explain our history. The Conservatives are only interested in spectacular and superficial things, such as seeing a wax replica of John Diefenbaker, cutting a ribbon or walking down a sparkling, somewhat cheap red carpet that a person could trip on. They think that, by supporting anything glitzy and glamourous, they are supporting and preserving history. That is very unfortunate for those who know something about history.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the specific changes set out in Bill C-49. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an institution that has existed in one form or another for almost 150 years. Its collections existed even before Confederation. The museum has a mandate that, for 30 years, has allowed it to be independent and to truly become a world-renowned institution, as well as an important economic driver for the Outaouais region, where it provides many jobs and attracts a large number of visitors.

I would like to read the Museum of Civilization's current mandate. It is important to remember this mission, which has been key to the museum's success for years.

The purpose 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 [I would like to place special emphasis on 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.

The Conservative government, which never wants to jump in when it is needed, but is always prepared to interfere when its help is not wanted, wants to scrap that and replace it with the following:

...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.

What is the main difference between these two mandates? The words “critical understanding” were eliminated. The government seems to have an aversion to the word “critical”. What a scary word. The museum will no longer have the mandate to share its wealth of knowledge with the rest of the world. It will no longer be mandated to carry out its work “throughout Canada and internationally”. The museum will now be interested only in local issues.

I imagine that the Outaouais tourism industry will have something to say about that. Gone are the human cultural achievements and human behaviour. That was part of the museum's mandate, but we are apparently no longer interested in humanity. The government wants the museum to deal specifically with Canadian history and identity, a rather simplistic formula.

Here is what is most alarming: the museum's mandate no longer includes the obligation to maintain collections and conduct research. The Canadian Museum of Civilization was, above all, a museum of collections and researchers. This public institution dates back to 1856. It was initially a place where the Geological Survey of Canada could present its collections. It became a place for anthropologists, ethnologists, geographers and linguists. The museum's entire history is made up of research and collections.

In deciding to change the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the government is casting aside more than 150 years of collections and research tradition. The government is contradicting itself when it claims to care about history but then quashes the work of experts, which is a necessary part of our history.

At this time, over half of the resources at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau have already been assigned to Canadian history. That is why we wonder about the government's real intentions. We are not going to be impressed by a $25 million cheque. The government is sending one single cheque to the museum, usable only once, while tasking it with dismantling and rebuilding such exhibits as the wonderful Canada Hall, which took 20 years to build. This is a renovation project of epic proportions.

Even worse, $1 million has already been committed. A total of $500,000 will be required just for the administrative costs of the change, but $400,000 has already been spent on round tables and Post-it notes, not to mention the promotional materials for the new museum that are already being distributed, even though Parliament has barely started studying the bill.

The reality is that the museum's heavy load and limited resources have forced it to lay off some of its staff. Two weeks ago, the museum cut 14 positions for budgetary reasons. This may well turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg, now that the government is trying to shift the museum's mandate away from its obligations to conduct research and maintain its collections.

In reality, the government is interfering and reshaping the museum because it fancies itself a museum expert. The government, perhaps despite itself, is taking part in the history debates that are raging in academia. The government—a bit naively, I might add—is wading into an academic debate because it wants to abandon the social and material approach to history that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is known for, in particular because of its stunning and spectacular depiction of Canada's history. Those are the very exhibits that the government is proposing to dismantle.

The government is proposing a generic narrative for our history. It wants something linear, something based on the tales of heroes and prominent figures, on biographies, monarchs, colonizers, missionaries, dates and monuments. That approach marginalizes the stories and life experiences of the individuals and groups who anonymously built our country's history from the ground up.

That approach marginalizes the events that make up and underpin our history. Those events cannot be summed up in a date or a famous face or in a museum devoted only to heroes and battlefields. It gives the impression that the government is not looking to create a history museum, but a wax museum.

As New Democrats, we respectfully ask the government to stop acting like a museum expert at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Archivists have repeatedly suggested that the toxic and disastrous head of Library and Archives Canada, Daniel Caron, stop pretending to be an expert in digitizing archives—as he has done at several international conferences—when he is neither an archivist nor a librarian. Similarly, we are asking the government to stop doing the work that experts know how to do and can do better.

Governments should not be deciding what is in our museums. This seems like a pretty obvious principle. Apparently, there are a few libertarians on the government benches; despite the government spending like there is no tomorrow, they have been pretty discreet. However, they might agree with what I am suggesting, that the content of museums should be left up to the experts and professionals; to historians, archivists, ethnologists and curators; to conservators, anthropologists and the people who do the research and the hard work to help us understand our history. The government and we as legislators have no place in determining the content or the orientation of a national publicly funded museum.

I am relying on the words of the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he announced at the heritage committee that in fact he had been planning this new museum himself since at least May 2011. We know that the minister has been a regular visitor at the Museum of Civilization and he was a regular visitor at the Canadian War Museum. Clearly, this does not come from the Museum of Civilization's ethnologists. Clearly, none of the curators at the museum suddenly decided that they were missing Maurice Richard's hockey jersey. Clearly, what happened was that people high up decided to toy with our most important national museum.

This is a completely backwards plan. Instead of listening to the many experts, museum specialists, historians and professionals at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and elsewhere in Canada, instead of consulting first and then moving forward, the government chose to do things its own way and then see what happens.

According to the minister himself, he has been planning this Canadian museum of history since at least May 2011. To hear him talk, it is as though he were building miniature models of the museum in his basement, unbeknownst to everyone or even to the museum.

First the museum consulted with people in the field and then it took the consultations public across Canada. These were held in half-empty rooms or shopping malls, between the Walmart and the hardware store, where shoppers were invited to put colour coded Post-it notes on images of Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Roberta Bondar.

This is no joke. It is true. We asked the minister who he consulted. What interest group, what professional association and, most of all, which first nation and what delegation of Métis and Inuit did he and the museum consult? The minister's answer was a non-response. He said that they proceeded with consultations, but he failed to tell us who they consulted. We did not get an answer.

This lack of transparency occurred on this side of the river, here in Parliament.

We spent months in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage listening to talk of Canada's 150th anniversary. How is it that there was never any mention of this museum plan, when it was in the cards and being prepared all along, and now we are told that it is being planned to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation?

The official opposition is calling on the government to leave it to the experts to decide the content and direction of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, to listen to and consult with the public, and to invite and listen to the representatives of countless professions whose job it is to survey and enhance our knowledge of history.

We also note the predominance of this government's troubling, detrimental and dubious desire to intervene and obliquely meddle in Canadian history and to rewrite our history.

The Conservatives may find it effective and advantageous, for election purposes, to eliminate all traces of peacekeepers and replace them with Laura Secords who run through the forest, but they have no mandate to revise history. No party is mandated to reinterpret and revise history.

We are asking that our history be more than just instances of official commemoration chosen by the government. It must be a window into the past that belongs to all of us, and it should reflect our many complex and multi-faceted journeys, including the history of the black Loyalists, the Winnipeg unionists in the early 20th century, the creators and pioneers of the National Film Board, the War Measures Act and the deportation of the Acadians.

We reject this government's troubling, detrimental and dubious desire to intervene and to meddle once again. We reject the government's tampering with history. That is exactly what hundreds of thousands of Canadians have told us in recent weeks. Having seen the carnage at Parks Canada, Library and Archives Canada and now the Canadian Museum of Civilization, thousands of citizens have signed and are continuing to sign an on-line petition stating that they are fed up with the interference in and rewriting of history.

We are calling on the government to restore funding and stop interfering in federal organizations responsible for preserving and protecting our history. That was their responsibility long before the Conservatives took an interest in the matter.

This evening, we are asking the Conservatives to show that they care about history. They should prove that they are passionate about the past by not interfering with the work of historians and various experts who contribute to our understanding of history. Above all, they must stop gutting the public institutions that promote and preserve our history.

I would like to conclude by moving the following motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to 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, because it:

(a) represents the government’s interference in Canadian history and its attacks on research and the federal institutions that preserve and promote history such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada;

(b) transforms the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the most popular museum in Canada, to give a secondary role to temporary exhibits on world cultures, when it is precisely these exhibits that make it a major tourist attraction, an economic driver and a job creator for the national capital region;

(c) removes research and collection development from the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, although the Museum is an internationally renowned centre of research;

(d) puts forward a monolithic approach to history that could potentially exclude the experiences of women, francophones, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and marginalized groups;

(e) was developed in absolute secrecy and without substantial consultations with experts, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, Canadians and key regional players;

(f) attacks a winning formula at the expense of Canadian taxpayers; and

(g) does not propose any measure to enhance the Museum’s independence and thereby opens the door to potential interference by the minister and the government in determining the content of Museum exhibits, although this should be left to experts.”

I would like to take this opportunity to say that this motion is seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open the debate in the House on Bill C-49, an act to amend Museums Act to establish the Canadian museum of history.

This legislation would change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, an institution with a remarkable and proud history. It is a history that traces its way back to 1856 when it was then known as the Geological Survey of Canada. In 1968, its mandate shifted and its name changed again to the Museum of Man. In 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization and was moved to its current home on the bank of the Ottawa River.

This museum is the largest of Canada's museums. It is the largest both in size, with over one million square feet, and visitors, averaging 1.3 million visitors over the past couple of years. It receives the largest share of government funding of any museum and it is one of the museums with the highest level of self-generated revenue.

While the Canadian Museum of Civilization is our country's most visible national museum, it is not our only museum. In fact, there are over 2,500 museums in communities all across the country, some large, some small, and all these museums tell our stories. They tell them in different ways and in different locations and they tell them in a way that is unique to these local communities.

For example, in the small town of Midway, British Columbia, there is an exhaustive display of material from the Japanese internment during the Second World War. Japanese Canadians living in the region collected materials and put together a narrative of what Japanese Canadians dealt with and suffered through in the south Okanagan during the Second World War. There are countless examples of exhibits like this in museums all across Canada.

This museum describes Canada's history. Yet, Canada does not have a national institution that connects all of these local museums across the country, to tell Canada’s story.

Geographically, Canada is the second largest country in the world, but in terms of population, we are the 34th largest country in the world. Therefore, what unites us together as Canadians? What unites us as a people? It is our languages, our culture, the arts and the ability to tell our stories one to another and to have an understanding of our shared history. A museum devoted to our history will provide a focus on the people, the places and the achievements that bring us together as Canadians.

We are counting down to Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017. The road to Canada’s 150th birthday offers us an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and the achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

Our stories are vast, and they deserve to be told. From Samuel de Champlain’s arrival on our shores to the last spike that marked the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks that took us from east to west and back.

From Terry Fox's journey in the Marathon of Hope that still inspires millions of Canadians today to raise money and fight cancer to Maurice “Rocket” Richard to James Naismith and his invention of basketball to our brilliant scientists like Frederick Banting and Charles Best, these are the people, the events, the stories that inspire us always and need to be told and retold again.

Canada needs and deserves a national institution that will tell the stories of Canada. Canada needs an institution that will independently research and explore Canada's history. Canada needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together as Canadians. Our children need to know more about Canada's past. That is why last year our government announced the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

Let me read the mandate that we are proposing in Bill C-49 that is at the heart of this debate and of this legislation. This is what the new mandate of the museum will read:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

We have chosen not to build a new national museum from the ground up. We are doing that right now in Winnipeg with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We have also established the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, building on an existing institution.

The home of this new museum will be what is currently the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

We will build on its reputation and popularity to create a museum that will showcase our achievements as a nation.

The United States has the Smithsonian. Germany has the German History Museum.

Let me share with the House something I think is really important to understand about the details of what we are proposing here with this new museum.

Beginning shortly, the museum will renovate over 50,000 square feet of public space, roughly half of the permanent and temporary galleries that are currently part of the museum. Those areas of the museum that will remain as they are include the very popular Canadian Children's Museum, the First Peoples Hall and the IMAX theatre. A $25-million one-time investment will allow the museum to make this happen.

It should be noted that the current Museum of Civilization in Gatineau has not been updated in over 20 years. In fact, in the Canada Hall at the museum, aboriginal people are excluded from the narrative that is Canada's history. It is a museum that needs to be updated and needs to be improved upon, and that is what we are proposing.

The museum will also allocate internal resources to the project and will launch a fundraising campaign with the intent to raise $5 million. I am told that the fundraising campaign is already well under way and having success. This investment will be funded within existing budgets from the Department of Canadian Heritage at no new additional cost to taxpayers. It will allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin the transformation that will be completed in time for Canada's 150th birthday in 2017.

More than changing the name, the mandate and the exhibits, more will change. We want to ensure this great national institution, which we have the benefit of visiting in Ottawa, reaches out across the country and connects Canadians. To achieve this, we are building partnerships, partnerships that will be created between the new Canadian museum of history and museums across Canada that have the same mandate, but are doing it at a local level. These local museums will have the opportunity to become official partners of this new great national museum.

In fact, we already signed our first memorandum of understanding with the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria. What this will mean for that museum and other museums across the country is they will have access to the 3,500,000 items currently in the collection at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, soon to be the museum of history. Approximately 90% of these items are currently sitting in storage because we do not have a network to moves these items across the country and share our history. This is a really important move forward to tell our history and allow us to tell our stories to all Canadians.

I am also very pleased to say that since we announced this project, it has received broad-based support from Canadians, including countless historians and people in historical associations from every corner of the country. These are not people, by the way, who frequently agree with our government, but they agree with the need to create a national infrastructure for the teaching of Canada's history.

I am grateful, for example, of the support of Douglas Cardinal, the original architect of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and a very well-known Canadian for all of his life's accomplishments. In response to the creation of this museum, he said, “I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it’s a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada”.

This project has the support of and has been celebrated by Canadian historians as well. It includes the award-winning historian and author, Michael Bliss, who said that it was very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history and he thanked the government for making the museum possible.

Jack Granatstein, who, as many in the House know, wrote the book Who Killed Canadian History? a few years ago said, “This move (to create the Canadian Museum of National History) is exactly what I thought should happen. I'm delighted the government and the museum are doing it”.

Deborah Morrison of Canada's National History Society said, “the potential for the new Museum to help create a national framework for our history is compelling. And the time is right”.

John McAvity of the Canadian Museums Association said, “the renaming of the museum is essential, that it is good news and that it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage and history”.

The Historica-Dominion Institute said, “We enthusiastically welcome the creation of this new Canadian museum of history”.

The Ontario Museum Association said, “We welcome the initiative to strengthen partnerships among museums in Ontario and across the country”.

John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament and a biographer of P.E. Trudeau, said, “Congratulations on the Canadian museum of history”.

That is a great boost for the museum.

From Marie Senécal-Tremblay, of the Canadian Federation of Friends of Museums, representing volunteers from smaller museums across Canada: “We support these changes to one of our country's most important national museums.”

I am also very pleased, and I should highlight this as well, that the museum proposal does have the support of the mayors of Gatineau and Ottawa, Marc Bureau and Jim Watson. They both support this initiative as being important to the national capital region.

As well, many historians have added their names to the list of those who support this initiative: Réal Bélanger, Charlotte Gray, Anne Trépanier, Norm Christie, Yves Frenette, Bob Plamondon, Richard Gwyn, Jane Fullerton, Suzanne Sauvage, Brian Lee Crowley and many more. Again, people who may not be Conservative understand that on items like this we should work together, put partisanship aside and support the creation of institutions that bind this country together.

I think the Toronto Star said it very well in their editorial on this subject, and I quote:

It was welcome to hear [the government] announce...the rebranding of the Canadian Museum of Civilization...as the Canadian Museum of History. Canada's history should be celebrated in [this] revamped museum. ...we want to make history come alive, ensure we don't forget our shared past and [that we] honour our heroes.

In conclusion, I understand that this is an issue that has brought some great debate across the country. However, Canada's history is far from dead. It is alive and well and a story that needs to be told.

It is a true statistic, but a sad one, that in only four of Canada's 13 provinces and territories is it necessary for a child to take a history class to graduate from high school. That is provincial jurisdiction, of course, but it does not mean we should step away from the importance of it as a national government, as a national Parliament. We can work together and do what we can to talk about Canada's history and improve education, by supporting our museums, building a great national museum, uniting all of our museums and working together on this project.

In the past, this Parliament has come together. When a former Liberal government decided to create the Canadian War Museum, people said it was divisive, a waste of money and that we ought not do it now. However, the Liberal government had a vision and said it was the right thing to do. The War Museum is now one of the best museums in the world, rivaled only by Les Invalides, in Paris, and the Imperial War Museum, in London. It is one of the great museums in the world.

We are now asking for what this Parliament has done before when it unanimously supported the creation of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. We were working together, and it is going to be a great institution for all of Canada. This Parliament also unanimously supported the creation of the Canadian Museum for Immigration at Pier 21, in Halifax. It is a great institution and doing good things for this country.

I have approached this in as non-partisan a way as I can. I have reached out to my opposition colleagues in the NDP and the Liberal Party, provided them with the text of this legislation and tried to work with them so we can make sure this museum will go forward and be a constructive piece of Canada's social fabric. We have worked together in the past on institutions. This is a good project for this country, and I hope my colleagues will work with us to make it happen.

A couple of years away is Canada's 150th birthday. We deserve to have a great national institution that will teach Canada's history, bring Canadians together and work toward a celebrated goal of keeping this country united and strong. Support this bill.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was Harold Macmillan who once said, “Events, my dear friend, events”. That is the great variable.

As we know, we have had many events and we were delighted that we were able to get Bill S-7 approved by this House this past week, in response to events.

Today, we will continue with debate on the NDP's opposition day motion.

It being Victims Week, we will follow up on this week's passage of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, with debate tomorrow on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading.

Insofar as the government's agenda, there is actually a very significant cornerstone to that agenda; that is, of course, our economic action plan. Earlier this week, the House adopted a ways and means motion to allow for a bill implementing measures from economic action plan 2013. Our top priority is creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, so if a bill following on the ways and means motion were to be introduced before Wednesday, we would give that bill priority consideration for debate Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week.

In the interim, on Monday, we will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice and the support of Canada act. It is my hope that this debate will conclude on Monday so that we can have the third reading debate on that bill on Tuesday.

If we have the opportunity next week, we will continue the second reading debate of the not criminally responsible reform act. This is an important bill and I would hope that it will get to committee without delay.

The government will also give consideration to Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act at second reading; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act at report stage and third reading; Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading; and finally, Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before Committee this afternoon to discuss Budget 2012 and talk about other subjects for which Canadian Heritage is responsible.

You have already introduced my deputy minister and the director general of financial management.

1 am pleased to take this opportunity to update the committee on our accomplishments and priorities as we look ahead to the 150th anniversary of Confederation, for which programming begins with Budget 2012.

I would also like to thank the committee for its report on Canada's 150th anniversary, which we will continue to review over the coming weeks. I will be submitting my response to the report very shortly.

When I appeared before this committee in May, I outlined how budget 2012 maintained our government's support for arts and culture. That commitment remains firm, and, indeed, this year we have many accomplishments to be proud of. I know that all committee members, and this is true across all partisan lines, share a view that arts and culture are important generators of jobs and growth.

In challenging economic times, our government, in our two-year economic action plan, decided to make key investments in culture. Budget 2012 keeps those commitments moving forward. While other governments around the world and even in this country were making decisions to heavily cut their support for culture, our government chose a very different path. Our government is one of the few governments in the world that did not cut funding for arts and culture, that did not maintain funding for arts and culture, but made a deliberate decision to increase our support for arts and culture during the recession.

Contrast this with the decisions other governments are making around the world. In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts runs on less money now than it did 20 years ago. Many American states and cities have eliminated their cultural supports. Since the recession, Arts Council England has seen its funding cut by 30%. In Canada, we decided to increase funding for the Canada Council for the Arts by 20%, the largest funding increase for the Canada Council in decades, and Budget 2012 maintained that record level of support.

Our government also maintained our support for our national museums. While other countries in the world were cutting back on culture and even closing museums, we increased our funding to all our national museums. In fact, we created two new national museums, and we have a third on the way. We created the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax as a Government of Canada museum, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, and the Canadian museum of history in Gatineau, which I will get to shortly in more detail.

I think Canadians in all regions of our country are incredibly proud of our museums because, taken together, our national and local museums in communities all across Canada are some of the best in the world. We value our museums. They tell our stories. The collections that they house and the role that they play in our culture are invaluable. Because of this, in budget 2012 we continued our path of supporting our museums with continued stable funding.

As a matter of fact, on top of the funding that we've protected for our museums, we've doubled the Government of Canada's indemnification program from $1.5 billion to $3 billion every year. This is basically the Government of Canada stepping in to support financially the costs museums incur in housing international collections or moving collections around the country to build thematics.

I know that many of you, and perhaps all of you, met with representatives of the Canadian Museums Association this week. They were in town. This was their number one budget ask. We listened to their concerns, agreed with their top priority, and it is contained in the budget.

Our government stood up for arts and culture when it was needed most, for our economy and our cultural organizations. We understand this sector's importance to ensuring that our economy remains strong. We believe that supporting the arts is essential to supporting Canada's economy and our quality of life.

We know that governments in other countries have made decisions to cut — and in some cases cut heavily — their support for culture. Not us; not this government and not this prime minister. We chose a different path and we have stayed on that path, despite being in a period of economic uncertainty. As our path leads to 2017 and Canada's 150th birthday, we are firmly committed to celebrating our country's rich history and heritage. That is the priority I would like to focus on now.

This year, 2012, marks the beginning of the five-year countdown to our nation's 150th birthday. It offers us an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate the things that define us as Canadians.

It has already been a very eventful year, as many of you know. This year we are celebrating the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Coast Guard, Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, the 40th anniversary of Paul Henderson's goal in the 1972 Summit Series, 100th Grey Cup, which occurred last week, and yes, of course, the bicentennial of the War of 1812, as well as many more celebrations.

We will be celebrating many more milestones over the next five years, including: next year's 100th anniversary of the first Canadian Arctic expedition; in 2014, the 150th anniversaries of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences; the centennial of women's suffrage in Canada; and the 375th anniversary of the creation of the city of Montreal.

Anniversaries like these connect us. They define who we are as Canadians. They remind us that we have much to be proud of.

Canada's museums are going to play a key role in this undertaking. I've already outlined the importance our government places on national museums. We are the only government in the world, I repeat the only government in the world, that has created, during the recession, three new national museums while doubling funding for programs such as the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification fund and the Canada cultural spaces fund.

Last month I was very proud to announce that our government plans to create the Canadian museum of history, le musée canadien de l'histoire. On Tuesday, we took the next step in creating this new museum by introducing Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

This legislation would confirm the new name and mandate for the Canadian museum of history as well as the funding our government has committed in order to make this project a success. It would allow the museum to renovate over 50,000 square feet of its public space, roughly one-half of its permanent and temporary galleries.

The museum's new mandate is outlined in Bill C-49. I'll quote the language of the legislation because it's important.

When we started this museum, there were some, perhaps at this table, who instinctively came out and criticized the government. But I would encourage you to look at this legislation. We can have plenty of arguments, disagreements, and debates, and that's fine. We can have disagreements on what the priorities should be, but this is an institution which we think will certainly serve the interests of all Canadians. In my view, it ought to be beyond partisanship. It could be certainly a source of debate.

This is the exact new mandate of the new Canadian museum of history that we've put forward in the legislation. I think you'll find it agreeable. It reads:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

We want this new national museum to truly reach across Canada as well and to connect together Canada's museums all across this country, as well with our historic places. For that reason, part of the funding we've put forward, this $25 million, will be used to create partnerships between the new Canadian museum of history and museums across Canada that have the same or similar mandate, but they'll do it on a local level.

As you know, the Canadian museum of history, currently the Museum of Civilization, is the largest museum in Canada. It has 80% or so of its collection currently in vaults. We want that collection to get out and move across the country—there are great Canadian stories to be told—so that local museums can have access to the vaults and to the collections that are in this museum and to house them locally.

We've doubled the indemnification program from $1.5 billion to $3 billion so that we can get these collections moving around the country to help local museums host these items that are currently in the national museum, to have them in their local museums so they can build local thematics and tell great Canadian stories with a local context. It will help local fundraising. It will breathe new life into local museums.

I think about the Port Moody Station Museum in my riding. It has a great collection. It's a really charming museum, but when you go there, you realize that everything on display has been on display there for about the last 25 years. If they had the opportunity to have access to the new Canadian museum of history's entire collection and to host things as they choose with assistance from the Government of Canada, it would allow them to rejuvenate and to re-energize their mandate and to offer new things to local museums and local audiences. I think this is a very good thing.

As official partners, these local museums will have access to that. There are three-and-a-half million items, by the way, that are in the holdings of the museum. These museums will have access to that. The local museums will also have the opportunity to work with other museums around the country to build thematics, share ideas on best practices, and build regional thematics that make sense for them. This will become the pan-Canadian infrastructure for all of our museums that we're all very proud of in all of our communities, to work together and to be a pan-Canadian infrastructure for telling Canada's stories one to another.

Canada's history is far from dead. It is all around us. It just needs to be told. It needs to be championed. It needs to be celebrated. I am determined to ensure Canada's story is told to Canadians as we travel on the road to 2017.

I would now be very happy to respond to any questions, whether about this specific subject or more generally about something of concern to you in relation to Budget 2012.

Thank you.

Museums Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)