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

4:40 p.m.

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.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.

We'll move now to our questions and answers, beginning with Mr. Richards for seven minutes.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:50 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question.

I'd like to begin my answer by saying that I fully understand the concerns of Canadians when changes are made to their memory institutions. I've been around a long time, having worked in cultural and social policy for the Government of Canada since 1986. I've been in this museum corporation for 12 years. I was in the corporation when another government created a museum, when a government built the Canadian War Museum, and I saw that project from the ground up. Many of the same concerns and discussions were certainly central to that whole period as well.

I think those concerns are understandable. What works, and as the Minister of Canadian Heritage explained, simply by its statutory nature the museum is a crown corporation existing at arm's length from the Government of Canada. Ministers and governments make their views known in very broad ways, as the former government did about the need for a military history museum, as this government has about its desire to introduce a bill to Parliament, and here you are at second reading.

The arm's length and the protection flows from the governance structure of the corporation, and that is the role of the board of trustees in setting the strategic direction and, as I think many of the members of this committee know, that is a cornerstone of crown corporation governance. It appears in our corporate plan each year. It is my task as the CEO of the corporation to respond to that strategic direction and demonstrate to the board, operating on behalf of the minister of the government, that we are indeed implementing it.

My experience in the corporation is that the members of this committee as well as Canadians can be encouraged and assured that the museum will operate independently from the Government of Canada, and that the content of this new museum will be created by the content experts who work for us: the museologists, curators, researchers, and historians.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

That's obviously a pretty clear statement you have made. There've also been some concerns expressed about the new mandate and how it might not allow the museum to conduct research or participate in international knowledge sharing. Can you tell us if that's the case?

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

The members of the committee studying this bill know—and I don't think I need to direct you—that clause 9, I believe it is, immediately following the mandate statement, discusses research and collecting, and the powers and authority of the museum at length. I understand there is some concern that the words “research” and “collecting” aren't in the mandate statement. That's certainly beyond my purview, in terms of your work.

However, I can tell you that the museum is engaged in collection and research as we speak. I mentioned in my remarks that we have a national collection fund of $9 million. At the end of the last month, we literally finalized a research strategy that will garner activities. I see absolutely nothing in this bill, if that's your question, that would in any way prevent the museum from undertaking the research and collecting that it currently does. In fact, it's explicitly set out in clause 9.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

Excellent.

What about the ability to host international exhibitions? There's been some concern expressed there as well that under the new mandate this could not be undertaken .

Is that true?

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

Again, world cultures in history are specifically mentioned, I believe, in the mandate statement proposed in the act. This has dogged us a little bit since day one. There was an earlier media report that said the museum would no longer undertake international exhibitions and partnerships. At the actual press conference in which the government made the announcement, we talked about the fact that we had begun discussing the Greek exhibition that I just highlighted for you, and the museum will continue to host international exhibitions and develop international partnerships. They're critically important, and I believe that was explicitly referenced in the proposed mandate statement, which I think is in proposed section 8 of the act.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

While we're on the topic of international exhibitions, in Budget 2012 the government actually increased the travelling exhibitions indemnification program to help attract new exhibitions to Canada.

I wonder if you could just tell the committee a little bit about how that will help the museum to bring in those international exhibitions.

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

I can also talk, Mr. Chair, as someone who used to manage that program. I worked in the Department of Canadian Heritage in that area for some five or six years and managed that along with several other programs.

The indemnification program was, is, and as long as it is there will be, critically important to museums across the country, particularly those that wish to partner to host large international exhibitions. That's really the fundamental purpose of the indemnification program, and it's an extremely important program.

For example, we would apply for indemnification along with the ROM in Toronto for the Greek exhibition that I mentioned. The indemnification program is absolutely critical to successful partnerships, particularly in hosting and attracting large-scale international exhibitions.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

There also seems to be some confusion in some of the members of the opposite side who seem to be making the claim that Canadians were not consulted on this new museum. I know you mentioned briefly in your opening remarks some of the consultations that the museum undertook in the consultation phase. I wonder if you could elaborate and expand on that a bit, and tell us a bit more about some of the consultations that the museum undertook regarding the creation of the new Canadian museum of history.

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

Yes, I'd be happy to do that.

I certainly can tell you that the museum went across the country for a period of about four months, from St. John's to Vancouver, in nine centres, and met with groups of Canadians in those centres. We mounted kiosks in urban centres. We had an online survey, and as I mentioned in my speech, we also had an independent question and opinion survey.

Altogether we've had about 24,000 Canadians participate in various ways in that consultation. We took the consultation very seriously. The consultation that I referred to earlier, the meeting earlier in Montreal, was in fact one of the most dynamic consultations with a very good panel discussion, a very diverse panel discussion of young Quebeckers, anglophones and francophones, talking about the history museum. It was very helpful to us.

The information has already been given to Dr. Morrison and his team, and they're working that into the interpretive scenario, as we call it, or the storyline that we've begun to develop for the new museum, and we've taken the content and themes very seriously.

I would simply add that in a parallel way we also consulted with academics and scholars—we felt that was critically important—right across the country, and they have helped us develop this new research strategy, which will also help inform the new exhibition hall.

I would finally mention that I'm pleased to tell you that as of recently, we have members of the Canadian Historical Association—and we're very pleased about this—who have accepted an invitation to work with us on our advisory committees in developing the content for the new Canadian history hall.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Madam Boutin-Sweet, for seven minutes.

June 5th, 2013 / 5 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. O'Neill, as you know, I am an archeologist and this bill worries me a great deal. We heard a lot about consultations, but my understanding is that they were all held once the decision was made to change the museum and its mission.

Have Canadians and museum experts, including archeologists, been consulted to see what they think about changing the museum's mission?

5 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed. Our view was that the government had introduced a bill in the House, that there is the likelihood of the bill becoming the law of the land. We felt that it was important to talk to Canadians about the kinds of things that they would like to see in their new history museum. We wanted to learn more about how Canadians might engage in the museum, and the kinds of things that they thought might be important.

In the public consultations there were a number of Canadians who participated. There certainly were museologists and content experts.

5 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

That is not what I was asking.

I am well aware of who you consulted with afterwards. My understanding is that the decision came from the minister. Once the decision was made, no one else could say that it was not a good idea to change the museum's mission. The public was consulted on what will be displayed in the new museum.

I would like you to quickly answer my question by yes or no. Does the museum have a code of ethics for the acquisition of collections?

5 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Mark O'Neill

You're asking about a code of ethics for the acquisition of material.

I would say our collecting is guided by a number of policies that are common to museums across Canada and around the world. That would be an accurate answer, but as for a specific code of ethics, the answer would be no.

5 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

In the fall of 2012, the museum agreed to buy artifacts from the Empress of Ireland. The archeologists of the museum were strongly against that purchase because it was the result of pillage.

First, did you take the advice of the archeologists from the museum? Second, were there any disciplinary notices after that? Third, how much did the collection cost?

5 p.m.

Conservative

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

5 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

It is directly related to interference. Other members asked questions about interference.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

—so I'm wondering if you might make sure that if—

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Moore

Mr. Calandra has the floor.

5 p.m.

Conservative

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.

5 p.m.

Conservative

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

5 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Absolutely.