Debates of Oct. 30th, 2013

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Statements by Prime Minister Regarding Repayment of Senator's Expenses—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 17, 2013 by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay regarding alleged misleading statements made by the Prime Minister during oral questions on June 5, 2013.

I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for raising this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the member for Winnipeg North, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska and the member for Avalon for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the member for Timmins—James Bay claimed that answers given by the Prime Minister during question period on June 5 with respect to a financial transaction between his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy completely contradicted information later revealed in July through a Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation.

The hon. member focused on the Prime Minister's June 5 assertion to this House that decisions regarding the transaction

....were not communicated to me or to members of my office.

He concluded that the discrepancy meant either that staff in the Prime Minister's office withheld information from him and knowingly allowed him to respond to questions in the House with false information, even perhaps without his knowledge, or that the Prime Minister chose to ignore the truth.

This, he said, was evidence enough for a finding by the Speaker that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred. He likened the present situation to one faced by Speaker Jerome on December 6, 1978 after it had been ascertained that a former RCMP commissioner had deliberately misled a minister, who then provided the incorrect information to a member, thus impeding him in the performance of his duties.

The member for Timmins—James Bay then referred to my ruling of May 7, 2012, in which I reiterated the three conditions that need to be established when alleging that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House. In doing so, he acknowledged that only one of the three conditions had been met, namely that the statement in question was known to be misleading. He then stated that further study was required in order to determine whether the other two conditions had been met, namely whether the Prime Minister knew at the time that what he told the House was incorrect, and that in making the remarks the Prime Minister intended to mislead the House.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the Prime Minister had, in fact, indicated both inside and outside the House that he had answered questions based on the information he had at the time. The government House leader then recalled the long-standing practice in this House of accepting the word of a member.

Furthermore, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the ruling of Speaker Jerome, as cited by the member for Timmins—James Bay was not instructive in the present case as that finding of prima facie privilege was firmly based on an admission by an official that he had deliberately misled a minister. He concluded that, since no answers provided in the House were known at the time to be incorrect, there was no intention on the part of the Prime Minister to mislead the House.

The importance of this issue for members individually and collectively cannot be overstated, as it speaks to the very privileges upon which our parliamentary system is founded. Members frequently have risen in this House to defend their need, and indeed their right, to be provided with accurate and truthful information in order to fulfill their parliamentary obligations, and Speakers have frequently underscored the need for clarity and accuracy as well.

That being said, many of my predecessors in the chair have reminded the House that in most instances, claims related to disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege.

As Speaker Fraser indicated on December 4, 1986, at page 1792 of Debates:

Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 510:

In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.

More recently, Speaker Milliken expanded on this and the role of the Chair in such instances when on January 31, 2008, at page 2435 of House of Commons Debates, he stated:

…any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine.

While the Speaker might not be tasked with assessing the content of replies with respect to the their accuracy or appropriateness, the Chair does, however, have an important if strictly limited role when it is alleged that the House has been misled. In this particular instance, the matter centres on allegations of the House being deliberately misled, so certain precedents and practices are germane to the case. As the member for Timmins—James Bay and the government House leader have both indicated, my ruling of May 7, 2012, is of particular relevance. At that time, at page 7650 of the Debates, I stated:

It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 234, lends further support to this assertion, indicating that:

…before the House will be permitted by the Speaker to embark on a debate in such circumstances [it must be demonstrated] that a Member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or an admission of facts that leads naturally to the conclusion that a Member was intentionally misled, and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in Parliament, is necessary.

Coupled with this is the time-honoured tradition of accepting a member's word in the House. Many of my predecessors have reiterated that principle over the years, just as Speaker Sauvé did on May 27, 1982, when she explained, at page 17823 of Debates, that:

I cannot attach greater credibility to the word of one hon. member over another. The Speaker cannot interpret statements made by hon. members which must be accepted at face value. The hon. member [...] claims he had been misled. I accept that. He claims he has been deliberately misled. I accept that too, but as an assertion, not as a fact upon which I could find privilege; because the minister, who has the same right to have his word accepted in this House, says there is no attempt to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, and I accept that, too.

To uphold these conditions and practices, as the Chair must do, the threshold of proof is high. It should be no surprise then that in the rare instances when prima facie has been found, little or no doubt was left as to the validity of the claim made. The ruling of December 6, 1978, in which Speaker Jerome found that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, rested on the official's own admission that the minister had been deliberately misled, and it was on that basis that Speaker Jerome stated in the Journals of December 6, 1978, at page 1857:

I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.

This precedent stands in contrast to most others. Among them, and perhaps more analogous to the issue now before the House, is Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 25, 2004, where he concluded at page 1047 of House of Commons Debates that there was no prima facie breach of privilege since:

...no evidence has been brought forth to show that…department officials deliberately intended to deceive their superiors and so obstruct hon. members in the performance of their duties.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the evidence brought forward, as well as what was said in the House, searching for evidence that the conditions laid out in my ruling of May 2012, and in Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 2011 that informed it, have been met. The Chair has not found that evidence. The member for Timmins—James Bay himself doubted that all enumerated conditions for finding a prima facie privilege have materialized when he conceded:

The other two elements, however, do need to be clarified, and this is the reason I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there is a prima facie case so that the issue could be studied at greater depth by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

He cast further doubt when he asked, “Did the Prime Minister know at the time that the statements he gave to the House were misleading?” and “Did the Prime Minister intend to mislead the House?”

By his own admission, neither question can be answered with certainty.

These same doubts were echoed by the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North. That the Prime Minister has acknowledged that he did not himself have full information when he provided an answer during question period last June 5 does not lead the Chair to conclude that the two missing conditions have been met. Nor is it appropriate for the Chair to speculate on whether the Prime Minister ought to have known of Mr. Wright's actions or been told of them by the individuals in his office who are now said to have known about them.

The Chair understands that members have strong views on both sides of this very public and evolving issue, but I must remind the House that the Chair is bound by very narrow parameters in situations such as this one.

Based on accepted practices, precedents and usages, as well as a thorough scouring of the evidence presented and statements made in the House, the Chair cannot, in the current circumstances, find evidence that the Prime Minister's statements to the House were deliberately misleading, that he deliberately provided incorrect information, that he believed his statements to be misleading or that he intended them to be misleading.

Accordingly, the Chair can find no valid procedural grounds for finding a prima facie case of privilege at this time.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the bill earlier this week. It is a pleasure to stand here again and have the opportunity to speak to bill C-7, which was formerly Bill C-49. It represented the creation and the transfer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today.

First, I find Canada's rich history to be absolutely fascinating. For example, the history of Quebec, which was founded in 1608, is Canada's oldest city. Almost half the buildings in the historic district of old Quebec were built before 1850. Today, this 135 hectare area is a UNESCO world heritage site. The history of John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the other Fathers of Confederation negotiations at the Charlottetown, Quebec and London conferences led to the beginning of the Canada we know today. The living history we experience now such as Commander Chris Hadfield's amazing journey comes to mind. Last spring he mesmerized people around the world, me included. There is no doubt his name and his mission will be forever part of our collective Canadian history.

As members can imagine, I am delighted with our government's commitment to provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn more about our history.

We have already outlined initiatives we are taking to ensure Canadians have greater access to our history. I would like to mention just a couple of them.

The second Canada History Week will take place next July and communities throughout the country will celebrate history with local events. As well, we established the Canada history fund to recognize outstanding students and teachers of history.

When I spoke before the House on October 21, I also mentioned these initiatives, as well as others. For example, beginning in 2014, we plan to increase funding for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and the Canadian Encyclopedia. These are great tools that all Canadians can access online. We have also provided support for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017.

I am proud of the efforts of our government and I am proud of how we have worked to promote our Canadian history.

The proposed Canadian museum of history will play a key role in allowing Canadians to learn more and share our country's unique past. In fact, it will be housed on the banks of the Ottawa River in what we all now know as the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This beautiful building was designed by renowned architect Douglas Cardinal, whose incredible work could be a chapter in a story of our cultural heritage.

Mr. Cardinal offered an excellent observation about the Canadian Museum of Civilization's progression into the new Canadian museum of history. He said:

I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it's a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada.

On October 21, I provided a summary of the bill's progression through the House. As I have mentioned, we spent over 20 hours debating the legislation. We discussed it from many different angles: the need for a museum devoted to Canadian history; how it would be financed; as well, as the logistical details and how it would progress to its opening in 2016.

The legislation has received significant study and I am pleased to say that we have progressed to third reading stage.

In fact, when we asked for participation from Canadians across the country and what they thought should happen with the museum, we received over 20,000 pieces of advice from Canadians. This is clear evidence that Canadians are engaged in this process and are quite willing, when given the opportunity, to participate in a dialogue as to the direction the museum should take.

At the same time, I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the new museum. I want to assure the House that we have heard their comments and I would like to briefly address some of them.

The issue of the new museum's independence has been raised on more than one occasion. Rest assured, the Canadian museum of history, like all national museums, indeed, all crown corporations, will operate at arm's-length from the government.

I am so impressed by the people who manage our museums across the country, our small museums in small town communities or our large museums like Pier 21 and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is their commitment and effort that promote Canadian history in our country. These are the people who should be, will be and are responsible for the content in our museums.

Our government is establishing a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history, one focused on the history of our country. Once that is done, it will be the museum's capable board of trustees, its director, its management and all of the employees who will determine how to present our country's history.

I also heard members speak to the important issue of research. Nothing in this bill limits the ability of the new museum to carry out research. It will have exactly the same powers as the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, and research is an essential component of that museum. It will remain and continue to be an essential part of the new museum.

I understand the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have recently developed a joint research strategy. It confirms the essential role research will play in both museums over the next decade. It is available on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's website for anyone who would like to learn more about it.

Let me also reassure the House that the new legislation will not have an impact on international travelling exhibitions. Potentially, we will see them increase to talk across the world about Canada's history. Our government recognizes the importance of these exhibitions from an educational perspective. We also know from a business perspective how much potential revenue they can create, not just for the museum but also for the surrounding region and area. Nothing in the legislation in any way jeopardizes the museum's ability to present these exhibitions, which have been so popular with the Canadian public.

I am particularly pleased that the future Canadian museum of history is negotiating partnership agreements with the institutions across the country that devote themselves to our Canadian history. This is an amazing way to reach out to people across the country. Three of these are already in place, one with the Royal BC Museum, one with Calgary's Glenbow Museum and an agreement was signed just last summer with the Manitoba Museum. I understand that plans are already being made for the current partners to send and receive collections from each other.

Other partnerships will soon follow. The Canadian museum of history will be a must see for the thousands of people who come to this region each and every year. However, its reach will be far greater than that. Partnerships like the ones I have described will allow the Canadian museum of history to work with museums across the country, each and every one. In so doing, we will make our national collections accessible to as many Canadians as possible. Geography will not interfere with our ability to ensure that Canadians see and learn what our history is all about.

The new museum will lead a network that will connect history museums across the country so they can access some of the 3.5 million items that are in the national collection. Like all museums, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has a vast majority of its collection in storage. This will be a wonderful way to provide greater access to our treasured artifacts. Because of space and issues that prevent all of our artifacts from being displayed, it will see those artifacts travel across the country and be displayed not in storage, but in a position where they can viewed, studied and admired.

Before everyone had to travel to the national capital region to appreciate first hand an important part of their heritage. Now they will be able to go to museums much closer, in fact in their own communities. It is an incredible resource and partnership that is being created through this process.

At the same time, there are museums across Canada, in the very communities where we live, including my riding with the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre. There are more than 2,500 of them. They cover different aspects of our history and many have fascinating collections to begin with. We want to ensure that these smaller museums will be able to share their exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and to access the new museum's collection.

With that goal in mind, we have put new support in place to make it easier for them to approach the new Canadian museum of history and access the national collection.

In addition to this, several changes have been made to the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program to assist small Canadian museums.

The exhibition circulation fund would not only support the borrowing of collections from the Canadian museum of history, but would also extend the support to small institutions that were previously ineligible. A requirement that exhibitions must travel outside of the province or territory has been removed in the case of history exhibitions to encourage small institutions to exchange exhibitions with each other. It is a requirement that has long been an issue for smaller museums that would like to deal directly with each other. This new piece of legislation, under the guidance of the Canadian museum of history, would allow that to happen. We have also made sure that the aboriginal heritage component would give priority to exhibits focused on historical events and key figures, and would encourage exhibitions in non-traditional spaces, such as community centres.

To sum up, this new national museum would work with museums across Canada to ensure that as many Canadians as possible have the opportunity to learn about our achievements. In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage is using many of its internal resources to support access to Canadian history. The Canadian Conservation Institute is putting a priority on the conservation of objects related to the road to 2017. Finally, the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Virtual Museum of Canada would dedicate 25% of its annual budget, up to $500,000, to virtual exhibits related to the road to 2017.

That brings me to the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation. As everyone in the House knows, in just a few years, we will celebrate this momentous event. What a perfect time to welcome a new Canadian museum of history. Since Confederation, we have grown as a country and accomplished so many great things. In the lead up to 2017, we will promote the people, places and events that have marked our history.

As the House knows, this year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first Canadian expedition in the Arctic. Next year, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, which led to the founding of Canada. There are also the 200th anniversaries of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. We will also remember the sacrifices of two generations of Canadians during the First and Second World Wars. I look forward to paying tribute to all of our veterans.

In commemorating people and events such as these, we become aware that we stand tall today because of the millions of men and women whose courage, hard work and perseverance helped to establish this great country. They are renowned artists such as filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, painter Emily Carr, singer Céline Dion, pianist Glenn Gould, writer Gabrielle Roy, Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro and many more.

Sports heroes such as Clara Hughes, the only athlete ever to win multiple medals at both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games, and hockey legends Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky are also a part of this celebration. As is our multi-sport champion, Lionel Conacher, who was inducted in the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame in 1955, the Canadian Football Hall of Fame in 1964 and the Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1965. No wonder Canada has a reputation as a leading sports nation.

Distinguished scientists have also made us proud. For example, Frederick Banting, whose discovery of insulin has helped to save countless lives.

Impressive, is it not? It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the incredible people who have made this country what it is.

The upcoming anniversary is tailor-made to learn more about our history, pay tribute to the people who have left their mark on this country and reflect on our legacy. The Canadian museum of history would do just that. It would be based in the national capital region. It would reach out to people across the nation through a network of museums in their own communities. It would entertain us. It would educate us. For many, it would inspire us to learn more about the people, places and events that brought us to where we are today, a free and democratic country envied by many around the world.

There are four specific changes. I would like to reiterate those that are being made within Bill C-7. The first is a change of the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. The second is for the purpose of mandate change in terms of the direction that the new museum would be taking. The third is that the capacity and powers of the museum would remain the same, intact as they are today. The fourth is that there would be no change to the governance structure of the existing structure; no interruption of the corporation's ability to operate; no impact on employees, officers or trustees; and no change in legal responsibilities.

We have before us the opportunity to prepare for 2017. The creation and the renewed mandate of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history puts us in that position. It allows for us not only to celebrate what is historical, obvious and important from a Canadian perspective here in Ottawa, it actually sets the foundation for us to have this historical celebration, a study of our history, a learning opportunity of our history across our country.

There are thousands of museums, smaller museums in smaller communities that were never in a position to access or use the over 3.5 million artifacts, many of them at or currently in storage at the Museum of Civilization. They will be able to travel across this country. When those artifacts and exhibits travel across the country, there is an opportunity to ensure it will be done safely and that each one of those artifacts will be insured by the Government of Canada through the museum.

We have before us the living and breathing opportunity to see where we are going as a country in terms of the celebration of our 150th anniversary. We also see that our historical life, the life of Canada, when put on a road map, is one of envy for the rest of the world.

One of the things I learned during my time at the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was that when studies are done across this country, across this world, on where individuals or families would move if they were to leave their country of origin, of the seven billion people who walk on this earth, one billion said that Canada would be their first choice. With that profound understanding, we should consider ourselves fortunate. With 35 million people living in this country, there are a billion who believe this would be the country to live in if they were to move from their country of origin.

It says to all of us here in the House that this is our opportunity to show the world. The Canadian museum of history is setting the foundation to say to the rest of the world that we are prepared to talk about not only how great our country is now but how our country was built, how our country started and where our country is in terms of its position in the world.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this afternoon. I certainly hope that all members of the House, regardless of their party, regardless of where they sit in the House of Commons, will see there is an opportunity for us to put a renewed focus on our country's history, and that history begins at the Canadian museum of history right here in Ottawa.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I sense my colleague's great interest in history.

Having sat on a museum board for a number of years in the Northwest Territories and having faced the inevitable decline of federal funding toward other museums across this country that try very hard to hold up the history of this country, I see the government investing a whole bunch of money into an Ontario-centric museum here in Ottawa and leaving behind all the museums in all the small communities across this whole country which, over the past two decades with the Liberal and the Conservatives, have seen one cut after another on any kind of federal support for these marvellous museums.

The museum in my hometown, the Northern Life Museum, has over 10,000 artifacts that go back through centuries in northern Canada, collected by the Oblate missionaries. We do not get any funding anymore from the federal government. That collection is priceless.

What will the government do for small museums across this country? Will it continue to build monuments here, or tear apart old monuments to create new ones in the capital region?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I hope he was listening closely to what I was speaking to this afternoon. I hope that perhaps he would have had a chance to go through all the pages of the transcript of when the former Minister of Canadian Heritage and now the Minister of Industry appeared at committee to explain and to extrapolate on the very point he is making.

Part of the legislation will allow the small museums in the Northwest Territories that the hon. member speaks to, and small museums across this country, to not only participate in a more meaningful way in Canada's history but to actually have access to the artifacts that sit here in Ottawa and Gatineau. The artifacts will be spread across the country.

The small museums can now partner with other small museums. It is good for Canada and good for small communities.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his new responsibility and I look forward to working with him on the heritage committee.

He said during his speech that the birth of Canada was in 1867. I am sure he will correct that. He knows it is not true. The birth of Canada was centuries before. Since he knows that, can he commit to keep the artifacts of New France in Quebec City instead of bringing them to Ottawa?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for his kind words and also congratulate him on being elected as second vice-chair of the heritage committee. I look forward to working with him.

I would like to respond to his point. In fact, our confederation was in 1867. Prior to that there was Upper and Lower Canada, I acknowledge that, but our Confederation as a country was 1867.

Part of what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation is not to become centric in terms of our focus of there only being one location for all of these artifacts and all of our Canadian history should be located in one place, but that there can be an exchange, an interaction and delivery of those historical pieces to other communities so they are not just enjoyed in one community but across this country.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for St. Catharines and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for carrying forward on the legislation, Bill C-7.

I heard what was said by the New Democrats on this matter and it needs to be pointed out as being factually not true. The member said that our government has not done anything for small museums. That is absolutely not true. The Canadian Museums Association represents all of Canada's hundreds of small museums all across this country. They all unanimously support the creation of this museum because this one museum in the national capital would create a hub-and-spoke model from which all small museums all across the country will benefit.

Our government, in spite of the worst recession since the Second World War, created the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the Canadian Museum of Immigration, the Canadian museum of history. We have increased funding for small museums all across the country. All of them will benefit by the creation of this museum, which is why provincial governments, whether they are New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, are all supporting the legislation. All the museums associations, all the historic associations, all of them are supporting this because it is a no-brainer to support a great national institution as we go to our 150th birthday and celebrate the brilliance that is Canada.

The opposition should stop being so blindly partisan in opposing everything just because it came from a Conservative. This is going to be a great institution from which all Canadians will benefit for years to come.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to the thank the Minister of Industry for his intervention. We can see the passion upon which, as Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, he built the strategy that is going to see the Canadian museum of history established and opened, hopefully within a very short period of time, 2016. We can also see the fundamental understanding that he and the government has for our history and the industry, which is museums that display who we are, what we are and what we will become. I want to thank him for all of his efforts as Minister of Heritage because it was something he did with a lot of passion and that is quite evident in the points he made this afternoon.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Conservatives are saying that they care about history and about our heritage.

However, the Conservatives cut the budget of Library and Archives Canada. Historians across the country agree that these cuts really hurt. The Conservatives also laid off 80% of Parks Canada archaeologists. There are now only about 10 archeologists left to take care of 167 national historic sites.

Why did the government make those cuts? Why did it introduce such a bill and make cuts that are so detrimental to science, history and heritage?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is trying to point out that there somehow were cuts. The Minister of Industry and former Minister of Heritage just pointed out very clearly and succinctly that there have been investments made in small museums and there have been investments made in large national museums. Not only are we concerned from a heritage perspective, not only are we concerned from a historical perspective, but we are also concerned about the small communities that depend on these museums and their understanding and delivery of their services to know about our Canadian history.

With third reading of the bill, we have an opportunity to promote and show across this country in a Canadian non-partisan way that it is time to deliver on the Canadian museum of history. It is time to move the bill forward, and I will look for the member's positive support this afternoon rather than the negative tone that the opposition seems to be taking when we have a bill that is about the future of our museums, which speaks to the history of our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a comment. The former minister made reference to the Canadian Human Rights Museum. It is going to be located in downtown Winnipeg. It is a very impressive facility and no doubt it will be an absolute world class museum. I wonder if he might want to pay tribute to individuals, such as the visionaries behind it. Izzy Asper and Gail Asper were a driving force in making the museum a reality. Many different private individuals from across Canada have actually contributed. We have even had contributions from other countries. I am thinking specifically of the Mahatma Gandhi statue that was contributed from India.

In looking at our treasures, we also need to recognize that it is not just government; the private sector and others play a very strong role in the operations of our museums, wherever they may be.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is Kathleen Powell, the director of our museum in St. Catharines, or those who work in all of our museums across the country, whether small community museums or national museums, I certainly am proud and would be happy to step forward and congratulate everyone who is currently working in a museum or has worked in one in the past, as well as all those who are part of what we are from a Canadian historical perspective.

I would submit that if I make those acknowledgments and thank all of those individuals, I certainly do not want to point to the federal government as being the only entity that is involved in the process. That is absolutely not the case. I have hundreds of support quotes from across the country, from private and public sector individuals, to support the cause we are working on here. I would then ask the member to support this legislation.

Oral Questions

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Following question period, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley referred to me and some comments that he believed he heard during question period. I am not sure what he was referring to specifically, but obviously, if he and other members of the House felt that I had used a word or language that they felt was inappropriate or unparliamentary, I would certainly withdraw those comments and apologize to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his clarification on the earlier point that he referenced. I am sure the House appreciates his remarks also.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split her time with another member, as noted?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Agreed and so ordered. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats oppose Bill C-7, which proposes to change the name and mandate of Canada's most visited and most popular museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Let me explain why I have taken this position and why this House should vote down this bill. First, the process the government is using to change the museum is flawed and it lacks transparency.

Second, the changes to the mandate of the museum are unacceptable. The government wants to shut down the Canada Hall social history exhibit. It wants to ignore the contributions of hard-working, salt-of-the-earth Canadians, contributions they made to Canadian history.

My third and strongest objection is to the government and its apparent desire to dictate how the history of Canada is to be told. Governments should not be involved in determining what its people know and do not know about themselves. Museums must be left to the museum professionals.

The Conservatives should stick to politics and leave history to the experts. They have no business rewriting what Canadian history is and how it is told.

As to my first point, members might ask how changes to the Museum of Civilization lack transparency. We are told that the re-branding, renaming and remaking of the Museum of Civilization is going to cost $25 million, but where is this money coming from? Which programs in the Department of Canadian Heritage are being trimmed and cut in order to pay for these unneeded changes?

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has refused to answer these questions. Besides the lack of transparency around the money, the Canadian Postal Museum, which was housed within the Museum of Civilization was unceremoniously closed, without notice or consultation. What possible reason could the government have to still the voice of the pioneers of our postal service?

Even though the Museum of Civilization performed national consultations about the changes at the behest of the government, these consultations appear to have been an empty public relations exercise giving the false appearance of transparency.

According to experts, these public consultations were not true consultations. Notes were not taken. Concerns were not addressed. The real decision-making is not happening out in the open. The decisions are actually being made behind closed doors. How is that transparent? How is that democratic?

As for my second objection, to the reorientation and renaming of the museum, my colleagues across the aisle might be wondering what the harm is in changing the name of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history. In fact the name change is just a hint of the larger changes in the museum's mandate. Besides, most of the museum is already dealing with historical content and, until now, did not require a change of name.

The Conservatives want to eliminate all things at the museum that are anthropological or part of social history. They want the museum to be all about the heroic and a “who's who” approach to history. They want to emphasize dates and events. Anthropology has been part of this museum's mandate since 1907, but now the government seems to want Canadian history to be a simple and tidy story.

Let me remind the House that history is messy. History is complicated. History is best told from a holistic approach. History is more than just famous people and famous events. The museum currently uses a broad approach, and this is what we want to see remain.

Let me ask my colleagues across the aisle why they want to cut out the history of ordinary folk. What is wrong with the history of how things really were for everyday Canadians in the past? What is it in the current museum that they want removed? What do they want Canadians to forget about, besides the Senate scandals?

This country was built both by its famous people and its ordinary people. However, the government wants to sideline different stories, including stories of first nations and those marginalized due to class, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

The Conservatives want a museum that ignores the contributions of diverse and ordinary Canadians. That is why the government wants to eliminate Canada Hall. That is why it wants to get rid of what has been called the largest and finest social history display in the country.

Canada Hall took 20 years to build and is made up of a series of life-size replicas of historical Canadian cities. This exhibit is a benchmark for the telling of social history in this country. It displays the lives of a wide breadth of ordinary Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These displays encapsulate an entire uninhabited history of this land.

I, for one, defer to and support museum professionals such as historians, anthropologists, archivists and archaeologists, and they are telling us not to reorient the museum to concentrate only on famous people. Famous people are not the only important people in Canadian history. Allow the museum to continue to tell the history of regular Canadians, of the people who built this country by their devotion to the land and by their determination to carve a future.

Canadian social history should not be sidelined. Canadians and visitors to Canada ought to be able to learn about all the different people who made this country, even those who are not famous.

Social exhibits like Canada Hall are about all of us. I am calling on the government to leave the mandate of the Museum of Civilization alone. If people could vote with their feet, then the 1.2 million people who visit and enjoy the Museum of Civilization annually would seem to agree with me.

The Museum of Civilization has been hailed as the crown jewel in our national network of museums. People love its approach to Canadian history. It is not a broken museum. Bill C-7 is a solution in search of a problem.

In my riding of London—Fanshawe, in the area around the city of London, we have excellent museums that are about our community's history. I am proud of the Strathroy-Caradoc museum and how it helps people discover our story.

The Fanshawe Pioneer Village, located in my riding, does a fantastic job of enabling people to learn about and understand local history, showing rural and urban life and the lives of everyday farmers and tradespeople in the 19th century.

Nearby, the Ska-Nah-Doht Village and Museum, which just celebrated its 40th anniversary, is a display that is devoted to the social and cultural history of first nations people. It is a testament to the contribution and reality of the people who lived in the Thames River valley.

My constituents love learning about and discovering their own history. The broad approach used by the three aforementioned museums is to be commended and shows Canadians want to know about their communities.

In his book, Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition, Timothy Luke talks about how museums, like the Museum of Civilization and the ones I mentioned from the London area, are places where Canadians first learn and later reassure themselves about their culture and their history.

He describes how, in other countries, museums have become a battleground in culture wars. He describes how politicians have tried to influence national identities by meddling with these public institutions of memory and history. He warns that “Museum exhibits may not change public policies, but they can change other larger values and practices...”, that is to say, what people know about their history and what they know their community. I quote: “...that will transform policy”.

This is the reason I object to Bill C-7, and this brings me to my third and final argument. The changes being made at the Museum of Civilization have not been asked for by museum professionals, our country's historians, anthropologists and archaeologists. These academics have said they too are against these changes. We are listening to these experts, and the museum experts do not want Bill C-7.

Why are we going through with this charade? It is absolutely essential that we take a very close look at the motives behind these changes and that we consider what this museum means to Canadians and what its impact is on our understanding of ourselves. If we do not do that, we have failed.

If we allow the government to ram through this bill without any comment, without any discussion, then we have failed the people of Canada. We have failed those who have made our history and those who choose to preserve it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised there are not any questions from the government side. The Conservatives must be in a state of silence, which is unusual. Of course, the Prime Minister is in a state of silence all day in all things these days.

The hon. member made an interesting point, which is that we have to take a look at the motive for this change, because what we are seeing from the current government is that its members are trying to reinvent history as it is presented over time, and that is a worrisome matter.

When experts on museums are coming out in opposition to these changes, we should be listening. It is extremely important to listen to evidence-based research from the people who work in the museums and to history as they understand it.

The hon. member said we have to take a look at the motives. I did not hear all of her speech, but could she outline in fairly short and concise terms what she might think the motives of the Conservatives would be for changing the name?