Debates of June 17th, 2013

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just raised a very important point. Bill C-49 has been surrounded by a lack of transparency and consultation throughout this entire process.

I know that my NDP colleagues worked very hard in committee to listen to the witnesses and consult Canadians, but this Conservative government did not accept any of the amendments the NDP suggested in committee.

The Conservative government is lacking transparency and refuses to be accountable to Canadians, which undermines the parliamentary process and the work we are doing here in the House of Commons.

Data Used by Government with Respect to Bill C-54

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rose last Wednesday to raise a question of privilege in relation to a report central to the deliberations of the House on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. I have since had the benefit of reading the interventions of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the hon. Minister of Justice and I wish to respond this evening.

Briefly, for the benefit of members listening who are unfamiliar with the issue, the government commissioned a report on persons found not criminally responsible last year. This report was received last November.

When researchers discovered in March an error involving the transposition of data labels, they diligently worked to provide the department with a corrected version. However, after the corrections were provided to the government, the minister continued to cite from the old report in debates, an old report that the government, even after being apprised of the error, tabled in the House.

When first rising on this point, I thought it very important that the House be provided with the correct numbers in a timely manner. Indeed, the basis of my intervention was that as a scientist MP in particular, I am impeded in my work when evidence in the form of quantitative information is withheld or concealed. Moreover, I feel that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was unable to properly study Bill C-54 with incorrect data before it.

I rise today to respond to the intervention on this matter from the Minister of Justice. At the outset, let me state that I appreciate his prompt attention to the matter, and I also appreciate that he decided to not repeat in the House the comments of the spokesperson for his office as reported in the press, comments that criticized both the researchers and their work and could have unfairly damaged their careers and reputations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent in my intervention today to argue two things.

One is that the government lacked a necessary sense of responsibility, urgency and rigour in correcting factual errors germane to the debate on Bill C-54, and that this neglect had significant consequences for the work of the House.

Second, I would like to propose, if you find that my privilege has been breached, that a commensurate and positive remedy would be one that formally led to a systematic way for ministers and members to correct any significant factual errors presented to the House. I believe that would improve the work of the House for the benefit of all members and for the good of Canada.

At the end of his intervention last week and in response to the request in my initial intervention, the Minister of Justice tabled a report in this place. I thank the Minister of Justice for that. However, and regrettably, that document gives rise to what is potentially a new point of order that I can only raise now, having seen the document for the first time on Friday.

As the Journals for last Thursday note at page 3406, the Minister of Justice

...laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Description and Processing of Individuals Found not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder Accused of “Serious Violent Offences”” (English text only).

This note is followed by the annotation “Sessional Paper No. 8525-411-60”.

I wish to raise two issues here. First, as O'Brien and Bosc note on page 433:

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages.

The citation therein is to Standing Order 32(4):

Any document distributed in the House or laid before the House pursuant to sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order shall be in both official languages”

I do not wish to belabour this point at length, but I note that the minister sought unanimous consent to table the document, something which he is not required to do by virtue of his being a minister. That said, he did not specify to the House that the document was only in one language. I believe the minister will agree that all documents tabled in this place ought to be tabled in both official languages of this country, and I must say I found it curious that he sought consent without informing the House of why it was needed. Had he specified he wanted to consent to table it unilingually, it is quite possible that some hon. members would not have agreed.

Second, and this is the bigger issue, the document tabled was not actually the final March report as we know it now to be. Instead, what was laid upon the table was a work product version replete with "track changes" intact. “Track changes” is a feature used to manage multiple versions of Microsoft Word documents. While I trust that some members will now appreciate having the opportunity to study a version of the report with correct data, it is regrettable that the minister did not table the clean and finalized copy, with which I am now aware his office was provided on the same day as this version.

Additionally, the minister did not table a copy in French. Surely the final report in both languages would best suit members studying the matter and perhaps re-evaluating their position vis-à-vis Bill C-54.

In his comments in this place, the Minister of Justice stated that the corrected report had been available online for some time, providing reference to the website for the national trajectory project.

I would first begin by noting that the version on this website is clean and not the one that the minister tabled in the House.

In addition, I visited the website over the weekend. The minister is correct in saying that the report is available, but it is only available in English. There is no French version.

Since there is no French version on that website, strictly speaking, I would have to object to the minister's assertion that "the amended version in fact has been available online for everyone to see". Indeed, as I verified with the researchers, no French copy of the corrected version existed anywhere in the public domain and, to my knowledge, it still does not.

The manner in which the minister tabled the revised research report last week is an illustration of the government's lack of rigour. It is his responsibility as minister to ensure that the members of the House have the information required to make informed legislative decisions. Rather than tabling the final report, the minister tabled a unilingual draft version. In failing to provide these updated statistics in a transparent way by tabling a draft report rather than a final report, and then only in response to my intervention, I believe that the minister has failed in his responsibilities to the House. Because the minister has shirked his responsibilities, he has violated my privileges as a member.

There is a critical contention that is not refuted by the Minister of Justice's comments on the matter of privilege. In his submission of last Thursday, he stated, "We gave notice that the report had been significantly amended". This notice was only given in an order paper response. The problem, as you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, is that saying there is an amended report and actually providing the amended report are two separate things.

Beyond that, on May 27, the Minister of Justice said to the House "I referred to some of the statistics in the final report", knowing full well that he had, in fact, referred to statistics that were no longer in the corrected report because researchers had diligently reviewed their findings, discovered significant errors and transmitted them to him as soon as possible. Over two months after receiving the "significantly amended" report, the minister was referring to erroneous data in what he called a "final report" from November, 2012. This to me suggests an intent to mislead the House.

I understand that the Speaker does not generally delve into the minutiae of order paper responses; however, I must note with frustration that the government's response to a question asking for current statistics, as part of Question No. 1169 on the order paper, a response that simply pointed to the old report given in annex 1, would indeed mislead the House and provide members with the impression that the report in annex 1 was the significantly amended one, when it was in fact the old one.

In responding to questions posed in Question No. 1169 on the order paper, such as "Which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence?" and "What was the nature of the subsequent offence", the government had the option to use information it knew to be correct. Instead, it chose to respond with information it knew to be incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I am told you have no role in adjudicating the sufficiency of answers to order paper questions. However, I believe you cannot deny that the government did not use that opportunity to take responsibility and correct important factual errors.

I will now focus on one aspect of the privilege question more precisely, the central issue of incorrect data cited in this House.

I rose in this place last Wednesday, June 12, after routine proceedings. This was my first opportunity since the June 11 Global News story about recent citations of incorrect statistics by a minister and a government member.

Yet that same afternoon, June 12, after the Global News report and after my question was raised, a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights testifying about Bill C-54, Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association stated the following, as reported by the blues. I will quote his citation of the Minister of Justice.

The Hon. Rob Nicholson provided some interesting facts in the House of Commons debate on March 1, 2013, about persons found not criminally responsible, when he stated that:

A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.

This underscores the problem. Ministers' words carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. However, all of these statistics quoted by the aforementioned witness are incorrect. I know it, the minister knows it, and now, as of this report being tabled, all English-reading parliamentarians know it.

The problem, as I believe you will see, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister's act of informing Parliament did not correct the Hansard record of March 1. His assertion that the corrected report could have been found on a website is unconvincing, as that source did not inform certain witnesses or even government members, such as the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who cited old numbers at committee during its study on this bill.

I should be clear that I do not fault the witnesses for their use of the facts as they were provided. I do not believe any of them had any intention to mislead Parliament. I do, however, take issue with the minister only tabling the correct numbers after the committee had reported the bill back to the House, and the use of old statistics by other government members.

In particular, regarding the citation of old statistics by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Justice explained that, “...the Minister of Natural Resources was provided, as were many government members, with supporting documentation that in error included the statistics....”

He then added, with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, “This was nothing more, quite frankly, than an honest mistake, not of his own doing, and I hope this addresses entirely the matter pertaining to the hon. minister.”

While I greatly appreciate the Minister of Justice acknowledging that a mistake had been made, I must disagree with the conclusion he draws as to the matter being closed.

Indeed, if the Minister of Justice's proposition, that all members should have gone online and consulted the corrected report, is followed through to its logical conclusion, this obligation would equally extend and apply to the Minister of Natural Resources and all government members. The Minister of Justice was quick to suggest that I should do “a simple Internet search”. Surely his fellow minister and other government members ought to have done the same Internet search. If even the Minister of Natural Resources and his office were misled, how could regular members of Parliament to be expected to discover the true facts?

Given that, as of Friday, June 14, the report from Dr. Crocker's research group had not yet been translated, and therefore had not been tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, do we even know if all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights knew the correct facts when they adopted report 25 on Bill C-54 on June 12, 2013?

Returning to the elements of privilege as outlined in my initial submission, the minister failed to address another point. As I noted, the minister referred to the November report as “final” despite having received the corrected report. He again, in his intervention on my question of privilege, used the word “final” in relation to the November 2012 report.

I do believe this misleads the House. The November report is not final if there is a corrected March report. Similarly, the report tabled is not final if it is not the final version submitted, which it, the one submitted containing Microsoft Word's track changes, is not.

Moreover, while the Minister of Justice has indicated a mistake in what was provided to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources has yet to recognize his error before this body. I believe he ought to do so and, more importantly, tell the House whether knowing the actual facts has changed his mind about Bill C-54.

Speaker Milliken often ruled in the past, which I will cite from Monday, October 4, 2010, as follows, “it is also a long-standing practice in this House for the Chair to accept the word of hon. members and indeed their apologies”. I agree, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of Natural Resources personally, one way or the other.

In my initial submission, I stated that I would even consider abandoning this privilege claim if the government were to table the new report in the House and explain why it did not choose to do so when it was first made aware of the correction. While the government did provide a document, not the final report, it did not explain why it had yet to table it and, indeed, basically sought to say it had done everything it ought to have done. I disagree.

I would like to move now to discuss what I think would be an appropriate and commensurate remedy for any breach of privilege. It is not because I wish to presume to know your decision, Mr. Speaker, but it is because I believe this matter can result in a positive legacy for Canadians and I wish to explain how.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley helpfully pointed out the following to the House in support of my question of privilege:

—the 22nd edition of Erskine May, which states the following on page 63: “[I]t is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

Had the ministers, in fact, corrected in an obvious and accessible way the errors that were preserved on the record, witnesses would have not quoted them after my intervention as evidence in committee. Had the record been corrected, witnesses and parliamentarians would have had accurate information upon which to formulate their positions on this gravely important issue.

Moving forward, the question becomes whether this matter should go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, an issue on which we should have guidance from you, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of how you rule on privilege merits, it is the obligation of members to correct themselves on important matters and the means by which this might be done. I believe all members would agree that it is important to, as much as we can, ensure that erroneous so-called facts are not repeated in the public square. I believe all members would agree that the repetition of untruths in the public square can seriously impede members in the exercise of their democratic function as legislators and I expect that the hon. members of the House would never stand by and allow that to happen. Therefore, I believe that if there were a clearly defined process for members to correct any errors they had unwillingly stated on record, they would eagerly seize that opportunity.

Like the Minister of Justice's statements on March 1, which I acknowledge were made before the new report was provided, the Minister of Natural Resources's comments after the correction also remain on the record.

So far, the approach of the House and Chair appears to be that members can, if they so choose, rise on a point of order or rise on a question of personal privilege to correct themselves. It seems there is no formal requirement to do so. The problem is that in the case of erroneous empirical facts, they may remain on the record, which is permanent, even after perhaps new research has corrected them. Permanent corrections are possible, however, through the process of seeking a corrigendum. Regrettably, there is little guidance on this point and, indeed, I only find a handful of references to corrigenda in speaker's rulings since 2001. As the parliamentary glossary explains, this is a term used in journals, Debates, committee meetings of proceedings and committee evidence to indicate that a substantive correction has been made to a previous issue.

Beyond clerical corrections to bills and the order paper, there are examples of where a speaker has ordered that a “corrigendum be issued to rectify the error”. I will concede that these have arisen, it seems, primarily in cases where the transcript does not reflect what a member said. However, I assert that there ought to be clarity on whether a member could rise to seek such a correction where new research, for example, has shown that the empirical facts have changed.

As such, it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee to consider whether or not another mechanism should exist for an ex post correction of Hansard by a member who intervened, limited to empirical findings perhaps, to ensure that those who rely on Hansard are not misled. In other words, I accept that the minister did not know of the corrected data when he first spoke. When he was informed later in the month, it would have been ideal for him to rise on a clarifying point of order or to seek a corrigendum. The premise that I am operating under, of course, is that if the minister had the corrected data, he would have indeed cited it at the time. This is not something he has yet said, and so I realize it is not an entirely safe assumption.

In closing, I believe that this matter is not best resolved by belabouring who exactly said what, or placing the Chair in the position of interpreting the intended meaning of words, something you recently reminded the House was beyond the Chair's purview. Thus, while other members may seek to extend this matter, I believe we are best served by ministers involved reporting the correct numbers to the House as a point of order or seeking to correct themselves through a corrigendum if such is indeed permissible.

The words of ministers of the Crown carry significant weight by virtue of the resources they command and the respect given to their office. That is why I believe they have a special obligation to correct themselves. Moreover, each member of this place surely has an obligation to inform himself or herself of the facts before speaking and to correct himself or herself if erroneous information is presented. If that were not our habit, the force and import of debate in this House would be diminished and the dignity and purpose of this House would be diminished.

From you, Mr. Speaker, I would thus seek some guidance whenever you choose to report back to the House as to what is required when a minister realizes that an error has been made. I would also ask you to consider whether it is possible for members to seek correction of their own interventions in Hansard when it is not merely an error of transcription but rather a correction to an empirical quantity, perhaps with a notation that an amendment has occurred, such as would be appropriate in the cases I cited in my interventions on this matter.

I believe that your guidance on such requirements may be a positive legacy of this matter of privilege.

I thank you and I thank all members for their attention to this matter.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his very interesting speech and I congratulate him.

I think that what came up the other day in the House and what they added today is very relevant. What is relevant is the idea that a minister who is accountable to the House of Commons appears to have misled MPs. He tabled a document in the House when he knew that the document was only available in English. He then asked the House for unanimous consent without revealing that the document was not written in both languages. That is hard to accept and is very worrisome.

Our rules are there for good reason. They are there to protect Canada's democracy. Misleading the House of Commons could have very serious consequences. I am very worried for our democracy. The minister is accountable to the House of Commons, but he does not seem to understand how important it is not to mislead the House.

I respect my colleague and we will continue to support all of the other points he raised. The Speaker will report back with his ruling.

It is clear that the idea of misleading the House is a very serious breach of Canadian tradition and rules that govern this place. The rules are there to protect Canadian democracy and Canadians. To run roughshod over those rights and obligations is of great concern to us.

We continue to support the member in his undertakings and beseech you, Mr. Speaker, to present us with a ruling in all due haste.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I thank both members for their interventions this evening. The Chair has taken them into account.

I am sorry, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as is referenced by the opposition deputy whip, the minister sought and received unanimous consent to table these documents. However, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands also raised some other points. I wonder if you might allow us the opportunity to do a little more research and get back to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is no question that if the Minister of Justice or any other member from the government side wants to intervene in response to the interventions this evening, he or she would be given the opportunity to do so.

The interventions we have had from the two members of the opposition will be taken into account and the decision will be rendered as soon as is practicable.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would amend the Museums Act to create the Canadian museum of history.

I would like to focus my remarks on one of the issues that came up during consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The issue was the reference in clause 9(1)(c) of the bill to the authority of the new museum to dispose of items in its collection. The bill lists a number of ways in which the museum could dispose of an item in its collection. It would be able to sell an item, exchange it, give it away, destroy it, or otherwise dispose of it.

During deliberations by the committee, concerns were raised about the inclusion of the word “destroy”. In this section of the bill, I would like to take a closer look at this and see if I can allay any outstanding concerns that anyone might have about why it is desirable, even necessary, for the new museum to have that authority over its collection.

The first thing I must point out is that this clause does not represent any change to the powers all other national museums have, and have always had, under the Museums Act. As it currently stands, all of the institutions covered by the Museums Act have the power to sell, exchange, give away, destroy or otherwise dispose of items in their collections. Therefore, Bill C-49 would seem to give the new Canadian museum of history the same power over its collection that all of the existing national museums, including the Canadian Museum of Civilization, already have. This would be nothing new.

I would like to reassure the House that this power is not only common for any professional museum, but also absolutely necessary, for a number of reasons. As I have indicated, destruction is only one of a number of ways in which a museum may dispose of something in its collection. I should point out that it is actually fairly uncommon for a museum to dispose of anything in its collection through any means. The fact that museums collect and preserve artifacts on behalf of the public is a duty that museum professionals take very seriously. The dedicated professional staff of Canada's national museums take that duty very seriously. However, the authority to dispose of something in their collections, even if seldom used, is a very important option to have.

A museum might determine that an object may no longer be relevant to its mandate. This is most often the case in some museums that were formed many years ago. As the museum evolves, it may be determined that another museum might be a more appropriate place for a particular artifact. In these cases, the object might be given to another institution in the form of an exchange or gift.

As museum collections grow, it falls to museums to ensure that their financial resources are spent wisely. Therefore, in some cases where a museum has duplicates, it only makes sense not to utilize precious resources to maintain a duplicate object. However, duplicates must always be dealt with in an ethical way. That is why the Museums Act always specifies that any revenue that results from disposal must be used to further the museum's collection.

I would also like to address concerns expressed by some members over the authority of the museums to destroy an object in their collections. I would like to cite the code of ethics of the International Council of Museums. The code of ethics states the following:

Each museum should have a policy defining authorised methods for permanently removing an object from the collections through donation, transfer, exchange, sale, repatriation, or destruction...

Therefore, the International Council of Museums acknowledges that a museum may ethically resort to the destruction of an item in its collection.

This same idea is reflected in the ethical guidelines of the Canadian Museums Association. This guide states:

Occasionally, museums may reasonably plan to destroy or alter objects or parts thereof for research or other purposes; however, the museum’s overriding responsibility is for the wise use of the collection material, with the greatest long- term benefit.

Let me stress that any decision to dispose of an item in the museum's collection and the most appropriate means for their disposal, is made on a case-by-case basis by highly professional museum staff. They have the responsibility to manage their collections in a professional, ethical manner. That is what the national museums already do and that is what the new Canadian museum of history would continue to do. The Museum Act does not depart from professional museum practice. It replaces existing professional museum practice. It gives the national museums the authority to act in the same ethical manner as other professional museums.

We may ask ourselves what would lead a museum to destroy something in its collection. Well, it is unusual, but circumstances do arise.

For example, museum professionals refer to something they call “inherent vice”. Sometimes something about an object or the material it is made from makes it self-destruct or renders it unusually difficult to maintain. An artifact can be made from a combination of materials that over time react against each other, such as combinations of leather and metal, or improperly combined mixtures of pigment and other chemicals in a painting.

On that same issue, from time to time a museum, despite its best efforts, may discover that one of its artifacts has been attacked by destructive pests such as moths. In some unfortunate cases, to ensure the safety of other items, the affected artifact, which has often significantly deteriorated, must be destroyed.

Other objects contain dangers to those working in museums. Until the 1970s, many biologically-based artifacts were doused with arsenic, lead, mercury and some organic pesticides, such as DDT, to keep insects and microbes at bay. Arsenic is particularly prevalent in ethnographic collections.

Finally, sometimes in the interests of science and research, a decision may be made to subject an artifact to something called “destructive analysis”. This is done in instances where the information or knowledge to be gained through this type of analysis is greater than simply keeping the object intact. While destructive analysis can often just affect part of an object, it occasionally results in total loss.

Therefore, there are absolutely reasonable circumstances where a museum can, and should, have the authority to destroy something in its collection. However, in no case is this done lightly and decisions are made by professionals who are in the best position to make such choices, professionals such as those employed in our national museums.

Bill C-49 would allow the new Canadian museum of history to operate in the same professional and ethical manner as our other national museums and other professional museums worldwide.

Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation was informative, but it might be misleading in some cases.

I am fascinated with the Conservative Party's fascination with renaming everything from the Progressive Conservative Party to the Conservative Party, from the Reform Party—

[An hon. member]

There was a CCRAP too.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Yes, there was the CCRA party, and we go on with name changes constantly.

When is the government going to stop with the ribbon-cutting and the appearance of doing work and actually ask the people who are able to make—

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I see some CCRAP across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would hope the member from Sudbury would withdraw his remarks calling members across the way crap. I do not think that adds anything to the debate and the over million Canadians who put us in government not once, twice, but three times. I hope you would ask him to withdraw those comments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That of course was not what the member from Nickel Belt was doing.

Could the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine finish his comments?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must indeed be careful to call things by their proper names. I will therefore start again.

We were at the CCRA party and now we move on now to the new Conservative Party.

The ribbon-cutting, the grandiose shows, do not replace in any way what really needs to be done on the ground. The member spoke to it. It is important that we speak to the professionals to get guidance on how to run a museum properly. Yet the government has cut 80% of some of the staff in those very museums. Millions of dollars have been cut to Parks Canada. How exactly are we to run museums without any professional staff to whom we can ask these questions?

I would like his opinion on what we will do now that we have very few people actually doing the work on the ground.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention why I am delighted we will have the Canadian museum of history.

I mention one of the exceptional Canadians who I am passionate about and whose memory is connected with a small museum in Woodstock. The Canadian museum of history would be better known to all Canadians. One reason I am here is because of this exceptional Canadian.

Colonel Joseph Whiteside Boyle was born in 1867, when our confederation was born, in Toronto, Ontario, and was buried in Woodstock, Ontario. He made his fortune in the Klondike.

During World War I, Boyle organized a machine gun company, giving the soldiers insignia made of gold to fight in Europe. He undertook a mission in Russia on behalf of the American Committee of Engineers in London to reorganize the country's railway system.

He successfully petitioned the new Bolshevik government of Russia to return archives and paper currency from the Kremlin to Romania. He served as the principle intermediary on behalf of the Romanian government in effecting a ceasefire in 1918 with revolutionary forces in the present Moldova, then part of Romania.

He rescued over 50 high-ranking Romanians held in Odessa—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am sorry, we are almost out of time. I will allow one more question. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, a short question please.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with what the government puts out in terms of bills, but I make it a duty of mine to talk with my residents in my riding and ask them what they think of them.

I have to say in all honesty, bringing up the bill and telling people what the bill is accomplishing has resulted in nothing but consternation within my riding. I am in a big city riding with museums, just like a lot of other places in Canada. People there do go to museums, science centres and other things, but they do not understand what this is all about.

One of the people I spoke to said that this was a solution in search of a problem, a problem that did not exist. Why is the government obsessed? There may be 165 people in the country, and they are all sitting over there, who feel they have to rename this museum and change everything when it is not necessary.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Canadian museum of history. It is representing a country's tradition.

Two great nations founded the country. I should be proud, not ashamed, that we will have this Canadian museum of history.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 provides for changing the mandate and name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. Its temporary exhibits on the cultures of the world have made it a tourist attraction that has economic benefits and creates jobs for the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I will also take this opportunity to note that it is the only museum in the federal capital region that is on the Quebec side.

The museum has a long history. It dates back to 1856, the year when the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada passed a law authorizing the Geological Survey of Canada to establish a geological museum. In 1907, anthropology studies were added to the museum’s mission, and in 1927 it became the National Museum of Canada. The Canadian War Museum, which is affiliated with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has been part of the National Museum of Canada since 1958. In 1968, a corporation known as National Museums of Canada was established and it was made up of four museums: the National Museum of Man, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, the National Gallery of Canada and the National Museum of Science and Technology.

It is the mission of the National Museums of Canada to demonstrate the products of nature and the works of man, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, so as to promote interest therein throughout Canada and to disseminate knowledge thereof. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and in 1990 it became a separate crown corporation. Now, the museum is to become the Canadian Museum of History.

Bill C-49 introduces major amendments to the museum’s mission. The current mission talks about establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest; that sentence is completely omitted in the new mission. At present, the museum’s mission talks about working throughout Canada and internationally, while the proposed new mission refers only to Canadian history and identity.

However, it is important to understand that Canada has been influenced in the past by the rest of the world. I do not think that this new, narrow vision does justice to that fact.

With the amendments in Bill C-49, the museum’s approach would be limited to understanding and appreciating just dates, events, historical figures and objects. This approach, which is completely outdated in the social sciences, leaves out a number of important aspects of a society's development. A study of historical heroes often leaves out women, children, aboriginal peoples and minority groups, not because they did not have an impact on our history or make cultural contributions, but because unfortunately this impact is too often left out in the Conservatives' approach.

All kinds of moments and processes in our country's history could be lost because of this approach.

For example, there is the poor treatment of Polish settlers in the west who, left to their own devices, had to build dugouts to survive the winter; the fact that slavery existed in New France; the evolution of women's rights; and the evolution of the rights of the workers who built our economy. I am not going to be reassured just because the latest news headlines announce the cancellation of an exhibit about underwear.

Bill C-49 proposes eliminating research and collections from the museum’s mission, which is the first paragraph of its mandate. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a museum and a research location with an international reputation, and it deals with more than 20,000 years of Canadian history.

The Conservatives have to stop interfering in our history. No government must exploit federal institutions or history for political gain. Defining the mandate and the content of the museum must be left up to museologists and their interlocutors, with stakeholders such as the first nations.

The decision has been criticized by a number of groups and individuals. My colleague from Hull—Aylmer has already told the House about opposition from the constituents in her riding, where the museum is located. The founding director of the Museum of Civilization, George F. MacDonald, believes that changing the museum’s name and mandate is part of a plan to impose the Conservative brand. The former president and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, condemned the fact that the name “Canadian Museum of Civilization” was being abandoned. He said in his evidence that, in his view, it is the most successful brand name in Canada’s museum sector, a brand that is known and respected throughout the world.

Even though they say they are interested in history, the Conservatives have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists and librarians and destroyed national historic sites, national parks and Library and Archives Canada.

The Conservatives have already laid off 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists. The deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, resigned because of spending scandals and mismanagement. I repeat: mismanagement. If the Conservatives are really interested in history, these cuts and this interference must stop. Researchers’ independence and funding must be restored, and the federal institutions that preserve our history must be protected.

The Conservatives do not care about museums. Just last week, there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen that described the financial problems of the Canada Science and Technology Museum, which is located in Eastern Ottawa and requires critical structural repairs of $3.4 million. The article described, in detail, the space problem at the museum, which is already at 130% capacity, with no room for any new acquisitions.

The museum requires $2.5 million dollars in roof repairs and $845,000 in upgrades to the ventilation system. However, the crown corporation responsible for managing the Canada Science and Technology Museum, as well as the Canada Aviation and Space Museum and the Canada Agricultural Museum, has only $800,000 available to it to repair and update the facilities at the three museums. The National Gallery of Canada had to wait a long time before it received funding to repair its leaking roof.

I hope that the Conservatives will not let our museums deteriorate to that point.

I am opposed to the bill because I believe that maintaining the museum’s current mandate is important. I also fear that the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is internationally acclaimed, will be manipulated by the Conservatives as they attempt to impose upon us their politicized version of our nation’s history.

Museum professionals, including historians, anthropologists, archivists and librarians, must be responsible for determining the contents of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, not politicians.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep asking the same question. Perhaps by the end of the night one of the NDP members might actually answer it.

The member talked about a number of things. She talked about the reduced mandate of the museum. We see, of course, in clause 8 of the bill that it not only talks about Canadian identity and history, but it also talks about the awareness of world history and cultures. Paragraph 9(1)(e) talks about international exhibits. Paragraph 9(1)(f) talks about sponsor research related to its purpose or to museology and communicating results. Paragraph 9(1)(h) talks about promoting knowledge and dissemination of information related to its purpose throughout Canada and internationally.

The member talked about leaving it to the experts. This quote is from the museum president himself. He said:

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.

I am wondering if any of that gives the member any hope that she might get a museum of which she could one day be proud.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to thank my colleague for his relevant question. In response to his question, I will say that I am proud of the existing museum and its mission.

For a long time, the New Democrats have fought for the recognition of the many facets of our country’ history, and for the inclusion of the history of the first nations and the sometimes acrimonious relationship between anglophones and francophones and their descendants. We want to include the story of Chinese labourers who helped us build our national railway, and the stories of other immigrants who continue to bring their own histories and cultures with them.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very passionate, as usual.

I tried to get an answer from the government but unfortunately did not get one. I will ask my colleague. Perhaps she could give me her opinion. Who does she think should make decisions about a museum's mission and mandate?

As she pointed out today, a minister is the one who came up with this idea. That is fine, in theory. However, he is using his own idea as the basis for a bill that redefines the name and mandate of a museum. Even now, we still do not know who was consulted before Bill C-49 was drafted.

Could my colleague tell us who she thinks should be consulted when a museum's mandate is written?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague for her relevant questions.

She did already ask this question, but unfortunately we never get any answers to our questions. I feel as though it has been déjà vu since I became a member of Parliament.

What we know is that the hon. minister came up with this idea. It may be relevant to him, but it is not relevant to democracy. We were elected by the public and we must consult the people who are affected before we do anything.

However, the government, which may be blinded by its own ideology, does not see anything around it. It lives in its bubble.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, a bill to create the Canadian museum of history.

The government believes in national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full story of our country. That is why we are making a one-time investment of $25 million to establish the Canadian museum of history. This funding is not new money, but rather comes from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. This new national museum will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about our rich Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history will grow out of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The government is refreshing the mandate and orientation of the museum. Just as schools modernize curriculum in accordance with new events and discoveries, the new Canadian museum of history will present a comprehensive story of this country.

Change is not new to this institution. The Canadian Museum of Civilization began in 1856 with the establishment of a museum by the Geological Survey of Canada. With roots stretching back far into the past, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is one of North America's oldest cultural institutions. As staff of the survey fanned out across the country, they gathered cultural information and artifacts, as well as carried out their main tasks in geology and science.

Ever since its beginnings from a modest collection the museum has been evolving. Indeed, its ability to adapt and evolve is what has made it so successful. Just think, in 1862, the Geological Survey of Canada mounted its first ethnological exhibit, a single display case containing first peoples stone implements, clay pipes and a few fragments of pottery.

Today, the Canadian Museum of Civilization welcomes over 1.6 million visitors on average each year. It houses permanent galleries that explore 20,000 years of human history. Its program of special exhibitions expands on Canadian themes and explores other cultures and civilizations, past and present.

The museum is also a major research institution with staff who are leading experts in Canadian history, archeology, ethnology and culture.

In 1968, and with a new mandate, the National Museum of Man was established as part of a group known as the National Museums of Canada. Nearly 20 years later, in 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It subsequently moved to Gatineau, into the fabulous building designed by Douglas Cardinal. The building itself illustrates the museum's history, with a structure that suggests fluidity and flexibility.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization will take place over the next five years and will provide a number of opportunities to celebrate Canada's history in the lead-up to 2017.

At present, the museum has four permanent exhibition galleries: the Grand Hall, the First Peoples Hall, the Canada Hall and Face to Face: The Canadian Personalities Hall. The new permanent gallery will replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall.

More than 4,000 m² of exhibition space will be renovated to create permanent exhibition space presenting a national historical narrative. This space will feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed.

It will be the place where Canadians can go to retrace their national journey and find national treasures. It will be where they can learn about the people, events and themes that have shaped our country's development and defined the Canadian experience. Including key events and episodes from our past, it will tell some of the greatest Canadian stories.

The museum has carried out a series of consultations, online and in person, to solicit the views of Canadians on the stories, people, themes and events that they want to see in the new museum. More than 20,000 Canadians contributed, expressing what they expect of the museum in general, and particularly in the new Canadian history hall.

Here are some highlights. Canadians want our museums 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.

They also want the museum to foster a sense of national pride without ignoring our failings, mistakes and controversies.

They want to see various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways through different eyes.

I am delighted that the new exhibit space will feature national treasures such as explorer Samuel de Champlain’s astrolabe, the last spike from the Canadian Pacific Railway and Maurice Richard's number 9 Habs jersey.

At the same time, the museum's president and CEO has said that the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history, warts and all. That is an important point. Many episodes in our history are critically important, like the internment of Japanese Canadians or the situation of aboriginal people in residential schools. Canadians can learn so much from our history.

At present, there is no mention in the Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression or the conscription crisis. Most important, the Canada Hall does not begin with first peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century. Clearly, this needs to change.

The Museum of Civilization tells the story of human history and identity in Canada. The new Canadian museum of history will be the next phase of that story, helping define us as citizens of Canada and the world.

Why does our government feel that it is so important to focus the interest on Canada's collective history?

In 2017, this country will celebrate its 150th birthday. In the lead-up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate and celebrate our history.

A new national museum devoted to our history will highlight our achievements as a nation and will help Canadians learn more about their rich and diverse history.

I hope that many Canadians will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our country in the newly renovated halls of the Canadian museum of history.

I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support Bill C-49.