Canadian Heritage Committee on June 10th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

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

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 29, 2013, on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other acts, we are now doing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49.

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

I'm going to very briefly go over two amendments. As you know, we passed a motion inviting members who do not have a party represented at committee to put forward some amendments. Ms. May and Mr. Plamondon are here on behalf of their respective parties, which have put forward some amendments.

As for the way this is going to work, those amendments, pursuant to the motion we passed, are deemed to have been moved, so no one has to move the amendment. I am going to allow that Ms. May or Mr. Plamondon can speak for a minute to their amendment, and then we will deal with the amendments they have put forward. But I'm going to be pretty strict to the one-minute mark, because we do have a busy agenda today.

So I'm going to go directly—

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

Mr. Chair, if I may have the floor for a moment...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sorry, Ms. May, maybe real quickly. Do you have a question?

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

I just want to put on the record that while I appreciate your invitation, it wasn't my idea. I've been kept to a strict one minute. I'm not allowed to ask questions of the witnesses and I'm not allowed to defend my own amendment. It's an inadequate procedure. I just want it on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Okay. I won't take that out of your minute for your amendment either, so now you have that plus a minute.

(On clause 2)

We're going to go directly to clause 2. There is a Liberal amendment. On amendment Liberal-1, suffice it to say that if this amendment passes, a number of amendments will, by consequence, be dropped. Also, if it is defeated, a number of amendments will drop because there are several amendments that are identical or nearly identical to Liberal-1.

On amendment Liberal-1, Mr. Simms.

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

Yes, I agree. I think this is going to be lumped in with a lot of these, as you can see, with the vast majority of them. It came from witness testimony from the former president—I think that was his title—Mr. Rabinovitch. Basically, it says that it should be called the ”Canadian Museum of History and Civilization”, as opposed to just the “Canadian Museum of History”.

Now, in going through this, as we've pointed out, a lot of amendments have to be made just by this title change alone, so I'm assuming—it's been a while since we've done this here in the heritage committee—that you're going to lump this in with others and that a lot of these amendments will be taken care of in one vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

I'm sorry, Mr. Simms. If amendment Liberal-1 is defeated, that means the following amendments will be defeated: NDP-1, BQ-2, Liberal-2, NDP-2, Liberal-3, Liberal-4, NDP-3, BQ-5, Liberal-6, NDP-6, BQ-7, Liberal-7.... There's a bunch of them, because they all deal with the name change, so if this is defeated, all those dealing with the name change will also be defeated.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

So is there any discussion on amendment Liberal-1, Mr. Simms?

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

Well, I think all I can say is this. The fact is that Mr. Rabinovitch brought compelling evidence that the Museum of Civilization does carry with it a great reputation, one that is far-reaching around the globe. It's a tremendous title, “Museum of Civilization”, and it has been regarded by other institutions around the world as something that has a great reputation. Therefore, I think it's only logical that it be called the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, we've tabled a similar motion. I think it's worth noting that we spent quite a long time studying Canada's 150th birthday. In that long study, we never heard a single witness come forward to suggest or to promote this idea. The government decided to set aside the witness testimony during the Canada 150th study, pursue its own agenda, and then call witnesses. They could do the right thing, and it would be incumbent upon them to do so, because they've sort of done this process backwards. They should listen to some of the witness testimony and respond to it accordingly.

That's why it is important to pass this motion, not just because it's a good idea but because it's part of the democratic process. We invite witnesses in. We want to hear their expert opinions on these things. One reason the NDP has opposed this from the beginning is that the process has been completely backwards on this. This is an opportunity not to right the entire process but at least to indicate to Canadians that we're interested in the democratic process here at this committee. On behalf of my colleagues, I say we'll be supporting this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Cash.

Madam Boutin-Sweet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the end of clause 8, it says “... people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”.

History and anthropology are not the same thing. At the moment, the museum is a museum of history and anthropology. However, if we keep the word “history” only, we lose the anthropological dimension. This clause shows a willingness to continue to cover the history of other peoples. As a result, I think it would be important to keep the word “civilization” in the name of the museum, alongside the word “history”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you.

Those in favour of Liberal amendment 1 on page 1?

(Amendment negatived)

I'm not going to list all the amendments that impacts. If you want, I can do that, but as we work our way through, that will become evident.

Next up is amendment BQ-3 on page 6.

Mr. Plamondon, do you want to take a minute to speak to amendment BQ-3?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

According to the amendment we are proposing, the Canadian Museum of History would not include the Canadian War Museum or any other museum. If we want to have a museum of history, let's make one, but let's not damage the reputation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, especially since there is a danger. If everything is grouped together, there is a risk that the current government will have control and provide its own interpretation of history, which is hardly reassuring. It would be sort of like revisiting history through the eyes of the Conservative Party.

Just think of the emphasis placed on the War of 1812 festivities. Yet, according to polls, less than one-tenth of 1% of Canadians said they knew the war existed. In fact, it is an insignificant part of Canadian history. That gives us an idea of what the party wants to do with our history, or rather with the rewriting of our history, which would then be very different. I think every museum has its own calling and, if we want to create a museum of history, it should focus on history only.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Merci. We have a couple of people who'd like to speak to this bill.

Mr. Cash or Mr. Nantel—did you want to speak to the bill? No?

Okay. Those in favour of amendment BQ-3?

(Amendment negatived)

Next we go to amendment BQ-4 on page 10.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I just want to clarify that the time accorded our colleagues who are not on the committee is being taken out of the government's allotted time and not the opposition's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

It is not taken out of anyone's time, really. It's just committee time. We don't have set time on one clause.

Mr. Plamondon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

This amendment deals with clause 2 of the bill. We would like it to say: “History is to enhance Canadians' knowledge and understanding of events”.

This amendment removes the word “appreciation” from the wording of the clause. In our view, the sole purpose of a museum must be to enhance the public's knowledge and understanding. If we talk about enhancing appreciation, we suddenly see a desire to influence public opinion. Then there is the risk of propaganda. That is why I moved this amendment. It seeks to remove the word “appreciation”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

All those in favour of BQ-4?

(Amendment negatived)

Next we move to LIB-5. That's on page 12 of your binder of amendments.

Mr. Simms, do you want to speak to LIB-5?

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

Yes, it's on including the word “critical”. I have received some information from people who have been involved in this type of curatorial work for many years. To simply say, “understanding and appreciation of events” is one thing, but to include the word “critical” means you are looking at it in a very academic way. This has been the tradition of major museums such as this and others, other national museums, and other museums around the country. It enhances our understanding through a critical lens, which gives the experts a far greater role in what they do, and I think it enhances the research at the end of the day.

So I'm including this one word—“critical”—just before the word “understanding”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Cash.