Evidence of meeting #67 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was museums.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mark O'Neill  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation
David Morrison  Director, Research and Content, Special Project 2017, Exhibitions and Programs, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation
John McAvity  Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
Kirstin Evenden  Vice-President, Canadian Museums Association
James L. Turk  Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
Victor Rabinovitch  Fellow and Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, As an Individual
Lorne Holyoak  President, Canadian Anthropology Society
Anthony Wilson-Smith  President, Historica-Dominion Institute

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

June 5th, 2013 / 3:45 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.

Conservative

James Moore ConservativeMinister 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 150th 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.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Thank you, Minister Moore.

Now we'll move to our rounds of questions and answers.

First up is Mr. Young, for seven minutes.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, in debate in the House, the opposition has falsely claimed that our government is interfering with the independence of the museum.

Before I go to specific questions, I'd like to give you the opportunity to address this incorrect assertion.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

It is flatly false. I can tell you that there's no head of any museum in this country, certainly our national museums, who will tell you that I've ever interfered with anything that any of our national museums have ever displayed.

From time to time, whenever there's a controversial item that's on display in a museum, or seen to be controversial by some in this country, I'm often asked, “What do you think of this display, what do you think of that exhibit, what do you think of this item?”, and from time to time I choose to offer my opinion. But at no time can I ever, or would I, as a minister ever tell a museum what they can or cannot display; nor the narrative that they can tell about Canada's history; nor the narrative that they can tell about Canadian science; nor the narrative that they can tell in the National Gallery.

These are independent institutions—protected by law, by the way. You don't have to take my view on this, that, you know, “Trust me, I'm James Moore, the heritage minister, and I won't get involved”. It's the law. The law prevents me or any minister or any member of Parliament or any government from interfering with any of our institutions in the way in which they decide to display their items and their collections. It's just the law.

So as a critique, I have to say it's a pretty weak one, because the evidence is pretty obvious about the fact of how our institutions are established in this country.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Thank you.

Minister, in past budgets, our budgets, the opposition has voted against important increases to the arts and culture industry.

Can you provide the committee with some insight as to why the opposition refuses to support our national museums or the arts and culture industry as a whole?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

Let me focus the substance of the question this way. In Budget 2012, as colleagues know, that was where we put in place what we call DRAP, the deficit reduction action plan of our government, which is the reduction in government spending so that we can arrive at a balanced budget in 2015.

Now, within the Department of Heritage—and by the way, Heritage is the third-largest department in the Government of Canada, not in terms of its budget but its scope—there were a number of decisions that we had to make, some difficult decisions and some that were more self-evident, in order to make budget cuts and make our contribution to arriving at a balanced budget.

We decided to protect all of our funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. I think as all members of this committee know, when you talk to artists across the country, that's one of the most revered and important crown corporations that exist when it comes to supporting culture.

We did make a decision, for example, to cut funding for the CBC.

We also made a decision not to cut funding for any one of our national museums. There were multiple reasons for that. One, we're still in the process of building the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. They've had some struggles, but financially they're on track. It's a $351-million build, with a $21-million-per-year operating budget thereafter. That museum is still being established, so the idea of cutting their budget before they're built, while their build is dependent on some of those funds, is something that would seem to me to be a crazy idea.

Equally, we're creating of course the Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax. That museum is just getting off the ground and moving forward, and they're looking to expand, so no reductions there either.

There's also the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which we had the idea to turn into a Canadian museum of history. We didn't want to cut that budget as well, because we wanted to make sure this project is launched and moving forward.

The opposition parties I'm sure have a number of reasons why they may or may not support the government's budget and the budget items. But specifically on the issue of museums, we went out of our way to protect our museums—and by the way, as a consequence, maybe have had to make spending reductions in other areas that were more consequential to those institutions.

But I think we have some of the best museums in this country, some of the largest museums in this country. When the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is just being born, we want to make sure that it has a great launch and is a great institution, not just for Winnipeg, Manitoba, but for all of Canada.

We want to make sure that the Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 isn't just about the story of Pier 21 but has a national perspective, not just a Halifax perspective.

Equally, we want to make sure that the history museum is launched with sound funding so that it can be a success for all Canadians.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

As you know, Minister, since 2006 we have invested an additional $142 million in our national museums.

Could you please summarize why the opposition should support our efforts to promote and maintain our national museums, including the proposed Canadian Museum of History?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

I think the answers are self-evident. We have great museums and they deserve our support.

But there was another item in the budget, which I didn't spell out—it wasn't in my speech—but is really important because the question has been raised. I think it's Scott who most persistently asks this important question.

As the Government of Canada, we have the indemnification fund. The indemnification fund is what it sounds like: the Government of Canada indemnifies collections and items that can move within the country and come in from abroad to our national museums and galleries. The annual amount that the Government of Canada can indemnify in a calender year is $1.5 billion. The problem in years past is that the $1.5 billion in exposure that the Government of Canada can assume per calendar year is very often consumed by March and April. It's usually the largest institutions in the country that take up that capacity: the ROM in Toronto, Glenbow, and other institutions like that.

In Budget 2012, the budget with the reductions but one that also protected all of our museums, we doubled the indemnification fund from $1.5 billion to $3 billion per year. There's $3 billion per year now of exposure assumed by the Government of Canada for collections, so it's been a doubling. Therefore, all these museums across the country that will have the capacity to become official partners with the Canadian museum of history will now be able to host collections locally that are housed in the national museum and can be eligible for protection and indemnification through the indemnification fund that we've doubled.

As a consequence, all of these museums will now have access to collections that they would never otherwise have had: first, because of the creation of the museum and then the signing of those partnerships; and, second, because we've doubled the indemnification found so they have access to those collections. These are two key measures that will benefit museums all across the country. That is why, for example, the Canadian Museums Association is supporting this legislation and these efforts. It will benefit everybody. It's not just about an institution here in the national capital; it's about the entire country. These reforms working hand in hand will benefit all of our museums.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Nantel, for seven minutes.

4 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Moore and the members of his staff for being here with us today.

I would first like to tell you that, in light of the many debates we have had in the House, we were able to see that a lot of people were enthusiastic about the idea of being able to share artifacts and various elements from the displays in the Canadian Museum of Civilization across Canada. We have to admit that, for everyone, this fine project is a great idea.

However, what is a bit confusing in it all is that all those points are already part of the museum act. Your review refers to the same point, which has received a lot of attention. The current display at the Canadian Museum of Civilization could very well have been circulated in the same way.

What don't you like about the current exhibition and theme at the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

4 p.m.

Conservative

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

In my view, it is a great museum. The whole team that works there has certainly accomplished a lot of great things. However, as I said in my speech, no changes have been made to the Canada Hall in more than 20 years. That is a problem.

If we are thinking about Canada's 150th anniversary, we must improve things. We must change things to show that Canada has changed a lot since 1980.

We must also look at how some spaces are used. As a result, the Canadian Postal Museum is also part of this, but it rarely received a lot of visitors. It takes up a lot of space and we can include those things in a larger exhibition on Canadian history.

Yes, changes have been made. I think the number of visitors has been a success. However, we can increase the museum's capacity, broaden the programming and increase the number of visitors. We can establish partnerships across Canada, which will be very beneficial. I think those changes are needed.

4 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

You must know that there are a lot of people here who are museum experts. I have permission to cite Dr. George MacDonald, who is here with us and who reacted to your comments when you said that the First Nations were not included. Let me tell you what he said:

I just watched James Moore on his new web site in the clip on the 2nd reading of Bill C-49 and was shocked to hear him claim that the Aboriginal Peoples are excluded from the displays in the Canada Hall. It is clear from that he did not understand the meaning nor the mutual obligations of that display to the Aboriginal fishing communities of the West Coast. His pressure to remove that exhibit flies directly in the face of what he claims the new legislation will achieve.

What is your reaction to that type of comment?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

That's bizarre. I've never pressured a museum to change an exhibit, so I don't know what that's referring to. It's true that, as you go through the Canada Hall, you get to the end of it and realize that apart from the fashions and the architecture it ends in 1980. It doesn't continue through the nineties and into the modern era.

This is a request for funding to upgrade the museum that I know existed before the current management was present at the Museum of Civilization. I know the NDP is not opposed to our investing this money in the museum—you just don't like to change the mandate. You yourself have acknowledged that this museum could use some updating. The Canada Hall is proof of that.

It's not just that one angle. There's also another one. Over time, inadequacies in the Canada Hall were pointed out to me when I did a tour there not long ago. Acadian Canadians have a plaque on a wall, and that's it. It's just a plaque. The story of the Acadians, the trauma they went through, which is all part of Canada's history, is not treated with real seriousness or any kind of due care. There are all kinds of examples. I've spoken to members of the board of the museum, and I can tell you that very often people put stuff in the suggestion boxes saying that this story isn't adequately told.

Having a refresh is something that is habitual, by the way, in every other museum in the country. They do this stuff all the time to make sure they're up to date, and they understand the nuances of teaching and disseminating information about history.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

You talked about consultations and suggestion boxes. I would like to remind you that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has conducted an in-depth study of the potential festivities and the organization of the 150th anniversary of Canada. To our great surprise, you have told us since May 2011, when you were elected, that you already had an idea of how to make those changes. Basically, we have learned that historians' associations, archeologists and anthropologists were only consulted in the spring of 2013.

Who have you consulted in almost two years? I remember that my team and I went to a consultation in January. I have here one of the consultation methods used by the representatives of the museum. That consultation was held in the basement of a shopping centre in west Montreal. They wanted to know what Canadians were expecting to see in their museum. We had to put little stickers in boxes to indicate whether our first choice was Maurice Richard's hockey sweater, for example.

What types of consultations have you conducted in those two years?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

That consultation was organized by the museums.

Listen, on the one hand, you are saying that I should not get involved in museums...

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Are you happy with the consultations held by the museums?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

That is for them to say. I know that Mr. O'Neill could tell you how they hold their consultations. You must also understand that we are constantly holding consultations to understand the wishes and needs of taxpayers. We want to know what they want to see in every museum and gallery.

I have talked to my provincial colleagues and other people. I fully understand the situation. In my response, I thanked your committee for its work on our country's 150th birthday and on what it wanted to include in the celebrations. I agree with most of what you said, but my mandate does not come from your committee. My mandate comes from Canadians and my obligations are to find and work with you on a number of ideas for the 150th anniversary. That is why, before I introduced the bill in the House of Commons, I presented it to each of you and to each of the parties of the House of Commons. I told you about this bill in person.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

That is because I want us to talk about it.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

You have never told me not to go ahead with it. You told me to submit the bill to study its content and see how it was drafted. We are here today to talk about it.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Exactly, and that is why I wanted to ask you...

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

If you have ideas, I would be very happy to hear about them.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Let's talk about them then.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Thank you, Mr. Nantel, and thank you, Minister.

Next we have Mr. Simms.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, just quickly off the top, who brands a museum? Is that you, or a curator with total independence?