Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to our rounds of questions and answers. This is our seven-minute round. I think we're starting with Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I do want to say that I'm a little saddened to hear that anyone thinks the museum of Canadian history will be a pick-up truck, because I think Canadian history is fascinating. It's romantic, it's dynamic, it's amazing.

Growing up in the fifties, I had four brothers and we used to watch television. We lived in Toronto, so we got the Buffalo TV station WBEN. We got American news and stuff, including Walt Disney. We saw some really good cartoons and shows about Paul Bunyan, with songs that were very catchy, and Davy Crockett, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. We didn't learn our own history. And this generation is not getting it in high school. We have to talk about our history more.

I'm thinking about our history and people like Sir John A. MacDonald, a man who basically assembled this country— the second largest country in the world—with the force of his personality. Or Sir John Graves Simcoe, who banned slavery 60 years before the American Civil War, without a shot being fired.

I want to ask Mr. Rabinovitch a question. As you may know sir, Michael Bliss, a Canadian historian and an award-winning author states that it's very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly—not exclusively, but explicitly—focused on Canadian history.

In addition, John English, former Liberal MP and Trudeau biographer, says, “Congratulations on the Canadian Museum of History. This is a great boost to the museum.”

Do you agree with these comments, and if not, is there some common ground?

[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.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I just disagree with your interpretation of the act itself, and I think time will prove me right. But I appreciate your answer.

Mr. Holyoak, we deal with the members who are stating that there is a lack of support from this government for the arts and culture sector. Nevertheless, our government has increased funding for the Canada Council for the Arts by 20%. That's the largest increase in decades for the Canada Council for the Arts. We've also created two new national museums, and we're showing leadership in supporting arts and culture across the board. So I would proudly compare our record to that of previous governments.

Does your organization support the measures I just mentioned?

[Dr. Lorne Holyoak]

Do we support increased funding for arts and culture?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I mean for the Canada Council for the Arts and the two new national museums.

[Dr. Lorne Holyoak]

Most anthropologists are funded by either the Canadian Institutes of Health Research or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, so I'd be better positioned, I think, to speak to that. However, as I said in my opening remarks, we support the creation of museums that will enhance Canadians' understanding of a variety of topics including a Canadian museum of history. We just don't want to see that done at the expense of what is a world-class institution.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. McAvity, as you know, a number of key stakeholders support the creation of a Canadian museum of history. Could you tell me if you agree with such respected experts as Yves Fortier, a member of the Historica-Dominion Institute's board of directors, and Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association in support of the museum?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Nantel, go ahead for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I was listening to Mr. Rabinovitch describe his vision of this museum, I could not help reminiscing about the images that used to accompany the Canadian national anthem during CBC/Radio-Canada broadcasts. I remember that very well, and my colleagues will probably remember it too, since we are all in the same age group—with a few exceptions.

When I visited the Canada Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization last September, that's exactly what I felt—that pride in our Canadian identity, that diversity, that culture mosaic that has marked our modern image.

I really liked the dimension Mr. Rabinovitch provided. Couldn't we use what he told us by adding a “history” dimension to the museum's mandate without, however, removing the “civilization” dimension?

I want to ask all of you here today questions, but I would like to have Mr. Rabinovitch's opinion on an issue I'm somewhat concerned about.

Don't you think the museum's current success could potentially fade away if its mission becomes more economic? Given your level of involvement in the cultural sector, don't you see that as a key issue? Aren't you worried by a period of uncertainty at that museum?

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

I want to thank the member for his question.

Of course, I will answer in French.

I'm convinced that proper adjustment is possible, as the building is huge. My former colleagues probably have some plans and ideas on how to make different use of the available space. That's expensive. A great deal of effort and investment is required to create interesting exhibits, such as those you have visited in the past. To achieve that, both money and time are needed. I have no doubt that the “civilization” mandate can be added and even expanded upon by presenting historical topics in a better way.

Let's come back to the bill. Do you understand that some of this bill's wording really reduces the museum's mandate going forward?

[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?

[Kirstin Evenden]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Nantel.

I will answer in English.

It's my understanding that the network that will come out of the revised act is a new initiative for the Canadian Museum of Civilization and, therefore, history. The memoranda of understanding that President Mark O'Neill referred to earlier this afternoon with the Royal BC Museum, and now with the Manitoba Museum, are all new initiatives that, once this new museum is established, will provide the regions with opportunities to exhibit regional histories in the national institution, the larger national story. That's my understanding.

Do you have anything to add to that, John?

[John McAvity]

I would like to comment that I've worked in the museum profession for about 40 years, in New Brunswick, Ontario, and now in Ottawa.

When I look at the capacity and powers outlined in this legislation, they are consistent with what a museum does.

With respect to questions such as the international role, I draw your attention to paragraph 9(1)(e), which clearly provides for the role of the museum internationally, as well as within Canada.

The other thing is that most of these functions are really consistent with professional ethical guidelines. For example, the disposition, or what we call the deaccessioning of artifacts, cannot be deaccessioned willy-nilly, and the revenue that would come from any sale of artifacts must go back into the collection.

All of the functions of a modern-day museum are really adequately cared for here, and I don't see many of the limitations that others have been concerned about.

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

Thank you, Mr. McAvity.

I will not ask you to tell me what you are the most pleased about. Is it this commitment to Canada-wide dissemination or the destruction of what is already in place to make improvements? I am not asking you to respond to the question, as I already have my answer.

It's clear that the museum community is excited about this idea, and its members have said so many times in the House. People are very happy about that potential roll-out and project variation. I see that as a positive aspect. As Mr. Rabinovitch said, there was no need to break something to add another dimension that deserves full development—or at least an addition and not a replacement.

I really liked the metaphor Mr. Holyoak used. We should not be against the use of the term pickup, as that's really a nice image. This is really a wonderful thing people use and visit. It is well made, it is moving and can perfectly represent the Canadian reality, as it has not changed that much. And if it has changed, we can modernize the metaphor. So your analogy is excellent. In addition, you referred to something very true in your life, and also very Canadian. So it was perfectly relevant to point that out.

Given your area of expertise, do you think it is a shame the term “critical understanding” is being removed from the legislation?

These words have actually been taken out. To me, this removal is so important, considering all the doubts that we have about the approach of the government toward scientists and other questioning units in our society.

[Dr. Lorne Holyoak]

Thank you for the question.

Speaking on behalf of the Canadian Anthropology Society, I think that is a critical concern for us. The possibility that history will be presented from one viewpoint, as if there are no debates about history or that there is only one standpoint on history, is profoundly disturbing. Furthermore, I think it will impoverish Canadians.

I agree with the other members who have spoken and have said how important it is that Canadians are engaged with their history. I grew up in the 1960s. I can remember that when I was 10 years old my dad gave me a book about the War of 1812. I had no idea, and then, for the next 10 years of my life, Lundy's Lane was something I thought about all the time.

I'm excited about Canadian history just as much as Mr. Young, for example, but when I was 10 years old, my understanding of Canadian history was not the same as it was when I was 22 years old and studying history in university. At that time, I realized that there was more than one story to be told. There was more than one story to be told about the War of 1812. I realized that John Graves Simcoe's actions were a part of a larger world system and that he wasn't acting independently as some sort of hero. He was important, but all the other people who we don't talk about by name in history were also important

I'm sorry. I'm going on too long, but I feel that what I'm trying to say is that there are so many stories to be told, and there are so many ways to engage Canadians. Canadians want to be engaged in a challenging way, not in a simplistic way. Canadians, as I said earlier, are sophisticated and worldly people. They don't want to be spoon-fed their history. They want to be challenged.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Mr. Simms, for seven minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the guests for being here today. This has been very entertaining, and also very informative, more than anything else.

Mr. Rabinovitch, I understand what you're saying about the name change. I'll deal with that later, but first of all, you made the comment that the research will be only an “ancillary” device, more than anything else, given what's coming from the legislation. I want to touch on that a bit more, because I did ask Mr. O'Neill about this idea and about how the word “critical” was taken from the particular passage. Formerly, it was “knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation”, whereas now it just says “understanding”.

I got the feeling from Mr. O'Neill that there wasn't much of a difference, but I get the feeling from both you and Mr. Turk that there is a difference. What is that going to translate into? Because you also talked about a reduction in capacity to do research, the capacity for the museum to be something organic and something better than what it is now and to lend itself to the world. Could you comment on that?

[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.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Do you feel that's lost here in this language?

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

It is lost. “Understanding”, in an academic sense, certainly as I would teach it, is simply instruction.

You have on the one hand the ability to engage, to debate, to argue, and on the other hand, the ability to distribute information, to educate.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Dr. Rabinovitch—and I'll get comments from Mr. Turk too in just a moment—it sounds to me like you want to set up something different. You're okay with the idea because, really, what they're trying to illustrate is a museum of Canadian history. I think that's probably what's going to happen here.

In Mr. Young's case, he says he'll be proven right tomorrow. I think he'll be proven wrong today because what you have here is something that is parochial.

Mr. Turk, would you like to comment on the critical aspect of it and the language of the bill?

[James L. Turk]

I'm a bit perplexed by the discussion, to be honest—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Welcome to Ottawa.