Not really. That's not how we're set up.
Evidence of meeting #68 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #68 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's too bad. I tried.
In the case of destroying material for the sake of danger, were you talking about old film that is highly flammable, that sort of thing?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
That's one possibility.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
That's one possibility.
The other possibility being...I've read that when they destroy material they do it in an experimental way to do tests on certain objects. Is that correct?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
That's another possibility.
For example, an artifact that may be deemed to be of no value could be given to the Canadian Conservation Institute to do experimental conservation techniques upon it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
The Canadian Conservation Institute is always experimenting. It's a leading-edge special operating agency of the department. It's continually testing new ways of preserving material. They will sometimes take an old map, or something where they are testing a new chemical composition, to see what impact it would have on the artifact in question.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
A map is probably not the best example because we wouldn't normally do it on maps. Carbon-14 dating is a perfect example. My colleague's giving me an example of carbon-14 dating. As technology becomes more and more sophisticated and we test new ways of seeing how old artifacts are, we sometimes need to use that kind of technology.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few questions about materials.
First, what other materials could be dangerous? You talked about carbon 14, but I did not quite understand the logic behind that. Could you perhaps repeat what you said?
Second, you mentioned film, but there are other things. It could be anything. You talked about maps in particular. Could those things be reproduced before they are destroyed, so that the information is at least preserved?
Third, if the material is dangerous, who decides to destroy the object in question?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
That decision would be made by the museum itself, most likely by the curator in charge of the area that's being studied. As to whether or not a reproduction is made of something before it's destroyed, those are technical questions you'd have to ask the museum curators. I can't imagine a case where an original map would be destroyed, requiring a reproduction.
A map probably wasn't the best example, but maybe a bone fragment. If it was decided that there is so much of it that this particular bone fragment might not be of particular significance, they might wish to do some testing on it. I want to emphasize that it's extremely rare for material to be destroyed.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Just for some context, in the current mandate of the Museum of Civilization, is there a clause similar to this?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
Yes, it is the same clause.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
I can't, I'm afraid. I'd have to check with the museum to get some records for you. I could do that if you'd like. I don't have information regarding how much would be destroyed in a given year, for example.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Before we move to the next amendment, I would like to propose another one that would fit in here.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Moore
Next we have amendment Liberal-8, but why don't you explain what your amendment does?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
The amendment reads:That Bill C-49, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 2 with the following: (f) undertake or sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related...”
The idea here is to include the words “fundamental or basic research” in the museum's mission once again. Not only was the word “research” removed, but also the words “fundamental or basic research”. Right now, archeologists, for example, are in charge of their own research. They can decide on the excavation site.
Even though we were told that this would not be the case, I am afraid that research will only focus on collections. In other words, I am afraid that, because of the amendments to this bill, research will only be possible as part of exhibitions. I don't think that is how things should work. I think research should be broader in scope in this large museum, which was the Canadian Museum of Civilization, after all.
That is why I want the words “fundamental or basic research” to be included in the museum's mission again.