Canadian Heritage Committee on June 10th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Madame Boutin-Sweet.

Everyone should have a copy of this amendment in front of them.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Next we will move to Liberal amendment LIB-8 on page 23. Mr. Simms.

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

This is one of the first amendments I wanted to bring here. The inspiration came from Bill C-11, which was to set up a study every five years of Bill C-11. This one proposes every three years. I'd be open to five years, but what have you, I think three years is a pretty good period of time.

We are talking about curatorial independence. We're talking about the fact that these people are truly experts at what they do and they want to be independent. Sometimes we don't get it. For instance, we just voted to tell these people not to destroy things. Why didn't I vote against it? How can you say on the one hand that you want curatorial independence and then you're going to vote to tell them not to destroy something?

So here we are in a situation where I think this is the type of thing that this bill needs, a three-year review by a committee of the House so you don't have to go out and spend lots of money just to have an independent study of some sort. You can do a House study—it could be the Senate or a special committee to talk about our museums. You could even expand it to not just this museum, but the other museums including the Canadian War Museum as well.

I think this is a bold step, but it's one that could be used here in the Canadian Museum of History as a model to show that other museums can do this as well, to allow our committees to study for—and I didn't put curatorial independence by the way. I put “independent functioning of the Canadian Museum of History”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I think our committees can already do this, Mr. Chair. I don't think it needs to be prescribed in legislation. It's not in any other piece of legislation with respect to our museums, and our committees already have the independence to do any research they want on any museum at any time.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Next we will move to clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

We're in the middle of a vote. Do you have a point?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

A very brief one, I'd asked that we record the votes. Does that mean for every vote I have to ask if I want a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Yes. In the interests of time, we usually—you can't do a blanket statement that we're going to do a recorded vote, so we ask people if they want a recorded vote.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

How do we determine whether that vote is going to be recorded?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

If a member wants a recorded vote, it's a recorded vote. It doesn't have to be a majority.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)

Now we have new clause 9.1 proposed in Green amendment 2 on page 27.

Ms. May, on Green amendment 2....

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you are working from the act, you are going to go to page four, line 33.

I'm prepared to vote for this bill, but what my amendment is attempting to do, similar to the one I raised initially in my earlier comments, is to enhance the public acceptance of the bill with this particular change.

We do note the Canadian Museums Act does have a section that assures curatorial independence, but for greater certainty and because there's so much public concern that there's a political agenda driving the change of the name from Museum of Civilization to Museum of History, I'm proposing the following:

9.1 For greater certainty, no decision taken by the Governor in Council, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages or the Department of Canadian Heritage may infringe upon the curatorial independence of the Canadian Museum of History.

It's intended to strengthen the act overall, and strengthen public confidence that there's no secret political agenda behind the current change. I would urge the Conservatives who are here today to pass this in aid of assuring concerned people that there is no such agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I would first like to congratulate Ms. May for this amendment. It is very cautious. I know how good her relationships are with everyone in the House, but a bit of caution does not hurt.

In light of all the current issues, including CBC/Radio-Canada, its rebranding and Bill C-60, I just don't want anyone in committee to forget that, last November, we passed a motion to invite Hubert Lacroix, the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, to appear. I think, given the current events, that should take place as soon as possible.

To go back to the amendment, anything that can prevent undue interference is relevant. Therefore, we are going to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

Mr. Simms.

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

First and for the record, I congratulate my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, for bringing this forward.

I think it's fundamental in several ways, because if you look at the testimony we heard, for all the doubts that may have been brought into this—whether it's any government that sees itself being a micromanager in an institution like this—we always lean on this one section of the Museums Act.

There's nothing wrong with doubling down on saying that people deserve to be independent. I think this is something that some people may not feel is necessary, but it certainly goes a long way to preserving their independence, so I encourage everyone to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Just briefly, I think this may answer the question.

It would be redundant, because as we said, it's already in the Museums Act, which governs all of the museums. It's not specifically in any other particular museum description.

Again on the one hand, as Mr. Simms pointed out too, one of the motions was to stop them from doing something and tell them what they could or couldn't destroy. But on the other hand, we're asking for curatorial independence, so they're kind of at odds with each other.

I think the act itself is pretty clear that curatorial independence is guaranteed by the Museums Act. You can restate it a hundred different times, but it's pretty clear. It's right in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would echo my colleague on the Liberal side and my colleague Pierre Nantel that this is a laudable amendment, but it really underlines the fact that the members opposite who support this bill don't quite understand that, regardless of the actual words written in the law around curatorial independence, this government has proven time and time again that they are experts in being able to skate through the words and reach into supposed independent crown agencies to make sure that they do the government's bidding.

So I would just underline to our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that we'll probably support this amendment, but we are under no illusion that this is actually going to beef up or preserve the independence of this museum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Okay, thank you.

Shall amendment Green-2, carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Amendment Green-2 is defeated.

(Clauses 10 to 22 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Shall Bill C-49 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.