Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Because of the nature of this, and since this isn't something we often deal with, if you want to move a separate motion we can do that, but for now we are just going to deal with the motion of Mr. Calandra. He's seeking unanimous consent that the minutes of the May 29 meeting be released. Is there unanimous consent of the committee members to release the minutes from our in camera meeting of May 29?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There you go. That was easy.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

So, just before we restart, Mr. Cash, the clerk will endeavour to see how we do this, but we will make the minutes available publicly for the in camera meeting of May 29. That would basically be the transcript.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I'd first like to move a motion that we release the transcript of the other meeting. It makes sense that if we're going to actually...

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

You mean the meeting of June 3?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I mean the second meeting that we had around...yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Cash is asking for unanimous consent that we make public the transcript of our in camera meeting of June 3. Is there unanimous consent for that motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

There is no consent.

Now we will move on to our witnesses.

Thank you for your indulgence, witnesses. Thank you for appearing before us.

From the Canadian Museums Association we have John McAvity, executive director, and Kirstin Evenden, vice-president. Welcome.

From the Canadian Association of University Teachers, we have James L. Turk, executive director. Welcome.

Here as an individual is Victor Rabinovitch, fellow and adjunct professor, School of Policy Studies, Queens University. Welcome to you, sir.

From the Canadian Anthropology Society, we have Lorne Holyoak, president-elect.

From the Historica-Dominion Institute, we have Anthony Wilson-Smith, president.

Welcome to all of you. We will begin our rounds of opening statements in the order you appear on the list.

We'll start with the Canadian Museums Association. You have 10 minutes.

[John McAvity, Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

That was quite an enjoyable lesson in parliamentary procedure.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you.

Is that it for your opening? Great.

Now we will move to Mr. Turk.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Turk.

I don't know if you practised that but you landed on 10 minutes exactly.

Mr. Rabinovitch.

[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—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

—especially if you're a young homeowner.

The simplicity of the change is almost breathtaking. It simply links together history and civilization.

Beyond the proposed change in name, however, lies another shift that's deeply worrying. The core of that—I believe that Mr. Turk was talking about this momentarily when he spoke about the revision of the purpose of the museum—is the new mandate, which I would term narrow and parochial.

The current mandate of the Museum of Civilization is set out in section 7 of the 1990 Museums Act. It's not drafted elegantly, but its intention is perfectly clear. Its first focus is on Canada, and it empowers the museum staff to create knowledge, to expand collections that will inform future generations, and to share knowledge through public activities. The museum is also empowered in a secondary focus, which is to conduct external research, make collections, and share knowledge publicly.

The Museums Act of 1990 refers to a full range of human activity. It calls on the museum to increase knowledge and critical understanding for human cultural achievements and human behaviour. This range of knowledge is not limited to history.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have a Ph.D. in history, and I speak to you with great modesty about my area of training and professional knowledge.

Other fields of expertise are essential to understanding society and essential to operating good museums. The CMC staff in areas such as archeology, aboriginal studies, music and popular cultures, design and craft have made huge contributions to understanding this country in its fullest sense. History has been part of the work; history is not everything.

The success of the Museum of Civilization has rested on its balance. The balance on Canadian priority has been balanced by presentations on international themes. The priority for domestic activities has been balanced by Canadian exhibitions and venues abroad. Research from the past has been balanced by research on the ancient past. History has been balanced by contemporary studies on aboriginal arts, nursing, communities, winter sports, and childhood experiences. It's all part of a balance and the knowledge from this balance has been shared.

I won't go into detail talking about the success of the Museum of Civilization. It is by far the most visited museum in the country. In a typical year, its attendance is double the attendance of a full season NHL team. That's a lot of people.

What's the meaning of the proposed new mandate? In essence, it aims to restrict and reduce the activities of a renamed museum of history. The wording is subtle, but the meaning, it seems to me, is clear. Number one, the scope of interest will now be on events and experiences “that have shaped Canada's history and identity”. It's a backward-looking focus, purely on the past. Contemporary issues, contemporary activities, community issues, and cultural expressions have no place in this except peripherally as outcomes of the past.

Secondly, the role of research is very reduced. Mr. Turk has spoken about this. Perhaps research will be intended as something ancillary to enhance Canadian knowledge. Perhaps research will simply be a form of enhanced journalism that's aimed at popularization.

Thirdly, while there is mention of “world history and culture” the focus is only on what can be shown here in Canada. The museum of history is not intended to be mandated to take part in research activity abroad, nor to be part of exchanges that would send Canadian museum knowledge to international venues

These proposed changes to the mandate will have the overall effect of reducing the museum's scope of activity and creating an inward focus that turns away from the world and eliminates concern with the here and the now.

Today, as a standing committee, you have the mandate to look at the changes with long-term implications. The changes will be cumulative. The decisions that will be made by the museum will have great impact on the hiring of staff, on eliminating people who are not historians, on selecting topics for future projects, and on downgrading hard tasks of creating substance. The celebrations of 2017 will be long past when the impacts of the reduced mandate will be felt.

Mr. Chairman, with all of this in mind I have prepared two recommendations that I hope the members of the committee will wish to consider, and I will provide you with some copies of the paper I have written.

The first recommendation I would make is that you consider changing the name of the proposed Canadian Museum of History to the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.

The second recommendation I would make is that the purpose of the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization be written so as to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, knowledge, critical understanding and appreciation of cultures, events, experiences and peoples that have shaped history, identity, and contemporary society with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada, and to do this by expanding, studying, and preserving for posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural significance, with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I have some copies of what I have presented to you. I sincerely hope that despite my drafting, this is a basis for good, impartial discussion amongst the members of the standing committee and that a bill of importance can be made better through your work.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Rabinovitch.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Holyoak.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, sir.

Finally, we will have Mr. Anthony Wilson-Smith, president of the Historica-Dominion Institute.

[Anthony Wilson-Smith, President, Historica-Dominion Institute]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I want to thank you for this invitation to appear before you today.

The Historica-Dominion Institute is Canada's largest organization dedicated to making history and citizenship issues more well known.

Our board of directors includes some of the country's most respected representatives of the business, philanthropic, and arts communities, and a number of them are members of the Order of Canada.

Our programs range from our well-known Heritage Minutes to the Memory Project, which arranges visits by veterans to schools and videotapes the recollections of their war experiences. Passages to Canada brings Canadians from other countries and of different ethnicities and cultures to our schools and other public institutions to speak about their experiences. The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is in the process of being enhanced, is a definitive digital record of things Canadian, and Encounters with Canada each year for over 30 weeks hosts more than one thousand students from coast to coast to coast for a week of learning here in Ottawa.

We are non-partisan. With that in mind, we very much support this legislation.

Canadians can be divided into a variety of categories, but let's take two: those born here and those who come from elsewhere. Those Canadians born here are automatically citizens and are actually not required to know much about our country. Paradoxically, those who come here often know more about their chosen country because they have chosen it and because they have to in order to pass their citizenship test.

But they need and want more, and too often our schools are not the answer. As we know, only four of the thirteen provinces and territories make it mandatory to pass history in order to get out of high school.

History teaches us about what we have achieved as a nation and how, thus providing us with a road map for the future. We do not always agree on history's lessons, and that is not only acceptable, but even desirable. A good debate creates more clarity, introduces us to different points of view, prompts deeper reflection and thereby produces better results.

A national museum of history helps to kick-start that process. Of course, $25 million is a lot of money, and yet in some ways it's not. It's somewhere around 70¢ per Canadian to create a better debate and to discuss our national narrative. No institution is a more appropriate place to do so than one belonging to the federal government, as decided upon by the House of Commons, through which every Canadian has a voice.

At our institute we're proud of the work we do, but we don't presume or pretend to cover the sweep and scope of history. Our Heritage Minutes, more than 60 of them, offer snapshots of key moments in history. I'll make the point that this includes events involving so-called ordinary Canadians as well as bad news and sad and unfortunate chapters in our history. We presume those minutes educate and also engage the people who watch them—and those have been in the millions, of course, for more than 20 years now. We hope they create an appetite to learn more, and if they do, then Canadians need a place to satisfy that appetite.

History belongs to everyone.

Our national narrative should allow everyone to claim their right to see their own reflection in it. We know that a number of elements of the Canadian society do not seem to be sufficiently represented in our history books.

We expect those voices to be heard in this process and to be reflected back within a history museum.

My own background is largely in journalism, not history, and many of you might think journalism is the less well-behaved sibling of history. Journalism is sometimes described as the first, rough draft of history.

These days, with the great democratization of the information process created by the digital world, we hear many voices interpreting events in many different ways. Smart people understand that it's a good idea to read many different interpretations in order to get a better sense of an event's context and its ramifications, including the building and continuing development and evolution of the nation.

To get that process going, there has to be a leader, a gathering place, a trigger, to get the discussion under way.

Perfection, we often say, is the enemy of the good. Sometimes the reverse can be true: good can be an obstacle to perfection. Good can get to be very good; very good aims at perfection. So we shouldn't stop, saying that because something is very good right now, it can't possibly get better. In 2017, as we mark 150 years of being together in recognized form as Canadians, a federally run Canadian museum of history would serve our country appropriately and superbly.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.