Canadian Museum of History Act

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

James Moore  Conservative

Status

Third reading (House), as of June 18, 2013
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Museums Act to establish a corporation called the Canadian Museum of History that replaces the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It also sets out the purpose, capacity and powers of the Canadian Museum of History and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 18, 2013 Passed That 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, be concurred in at report stage.
June 18, 2013 Failed That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
June 17, 2013 Passed That, in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stages of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
May 29, 2013 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
May 29, 2013 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to 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, because it: ( a) represents the government’s interference in Canadian history and its attacks on research and the federal institutions that preserve and promote history such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada; ( b) transforms the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the most popular museum in Canada, to give a secondary role to temporary exhibitions on world cultures when it is precisely these exhibitions that make it a major tourist attraction, an economic force and a job creator for the national capital region; ( c) removes research and collection development from the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, when the Museum is an internationally renowned centre of research; ( d) puts forward a monolithic approach to history that could potentially exclude the experiences of women, francophones, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and marginalized groups; ( e) was developed in absolute secrecy and without substantial consultations with experts, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, Canadians and key regional actors; ( f) attacks a winning formula at the expense of Canadian taxpayers; and ( g) does not propose any measure to enhance the Museum’s independence and thereby opens the door to potential interference by the minister and the government in determining the content of Museum exhibitions when this should be left to experts.”.
May 28, 2013 Passed That, in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 7:45 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the minister and I cannot speak for the government except to say that it would be a wonderful thing to have a major key science and technology museum.

The question is, where would it be? Would it be in Ottawa or should it be in some other city? We should be talking about those matters. We should be considering it in the future.

This museum, the one we are talking about in this bill, is focused on Canadian history. However, it is something we should talk about going forward.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 7:50 p.m.
See context

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I see the government moving forward with significant changes to the museum. It is one thing to simply rebrand and change the name. I know the government is in tough times financially. It has the largest deficit in history, which it is having a hard time bringing down, and we have the 150th anniversary of our nation coming up. Perhaps it has decided it cannot build a new monument to recognize that point in time in history, so the best thing to do is to take some kind of institution that already exists, which is our magnificent Museum of Civilization, and rebrand it.

From what I can determine from Bill C-49, that is mostly what the bill would accomplish.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the page, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, with whom I am very pleased to do so.

If one looks into the depths of the bill, we are moving away from proudly having a Museum of Civilization, which had a mandate of not only showcasing to Canadians. Thousands upon thousands visit the Capital every year to go to the museum, which was built by, I am very proud to say, Mr. Cardinal, an internationally renowned architect. It is a masterpiece of architecture renowned worldwide. The good news is, I think he is being continually engaged, and I hope he is, to ensure that any changes to this monument are in keeping with the incredible design he put in place.

Apart from changing the name from the Museum of Civilization to the museum of Canadian history, we need to delve more into exactly what the government is up to. There are changes in the legislation that change its mandate. The mandate right now includes doing research. I think it is in clause 8 that this mandate to do research has been removed to become the museum of Canadian history. This raises the question of who then will do the research in these displays.

If we look in more detail at exactly what the proposal is, and I refer back to the speech by the minister about his intent in this legislation, apparently there will be a major fundraising exercise. There was a reassurance given to Canadians that they did not have to worry because not one more cent of taxpayer money would be spent on this monumental exercise toward the celebration of 150 years of Canada and that we would be move toward partnerships. What that raises for me is in the language. We saw that word “streamline” in all of the budgets and throne speeches of the government.

The Conservatives have two favourite words. One is “streamline”, which basically means fast-track and get rid of any legislation that might slow things down. The other word is “partnerships”. It appears that the new way of recording history in Canada and displaying it is going to be in partnerships. With whom? Will that be the way we will now do partnerships with our university institutions, so that, increasingly, research in our country has to move from basic research to applied research and they have to partner with major corporations?

Why is this of grave concern? There has been a lot of talk by the minister, and by the other Conservative members lauding the bill, that it will be a whole new way of doing business and there will be greater linkage with the small local museums of our country. There seems to be a short memory of what the government has done to the small local museums. I sat in the House when the government went through and erased the support to all the small local museums in our country.

Therefore, that leaves us with who can partner and who will be able to take advantage of these mechanisms. My understanding is there is some kind of a mechanism where monies can be transferred back. I stand to be corrected, but it seems to be that the mechanism whereby we will have these exchanges back and forth is if museums have enough money to put upfront to begin with, they too can display our national treasures and then they eventually they will be paid them.

However, if they are small museums whose funds are cut, how will they put up the dollars? More important, these are our national treasures. I know that from going to many of the events in the Art Gallery of Alberta, a lot of money was put into it and donated and given by various levels of government to ensure we could now borrow art internationally. The museums have to ensure their facilities are properly humidified and so forth.

Therefore, there is not a lot of clarity in here about exactly who will be paying for the transportation, displaying and packaging up again and sending back to the Archives of Canada, which raises another issue. Who exactly is going to undertake this research. Now the newly called Canadian museum of Canadian history will not do the research and Archives Canada will no longer do the research. Who exactly will do this research? Is it the people with whom the museum of Canadian history will partner? Will we have the Suncor Energy display of the history of environmental protection in Canada? Who knows who will be displaying the history of first peoples in Canada?

I am a bit concerned about the remaking of the Canada Hall. People always ask how I like Ottawa and I say, “How would I know?” I tell them I never get to see Ottawa because I am always working hard for them. However, the last time I went to the Museum of Civilization, which I still like to call it, I remember I went specifically to the display of Dr. Yee. He was a Chinese herbologist who was a personal friend of my father's. Sadly, Alberta did not say it wanted Dr. Yee's herbal shop. To its credit, the Canadian Museum of Civilization took that, and it is displayed in the museum. Every chance I get, I go up and see Dr. Yee's shop and I think about my father and his relationship with this wonderful man.

Is that going to be gone? What is going to happen to this collection of information? Are we starting at zero? Who is going to make this decision?

Have we been making new appointments to the board? With the establishment of the new museum of Canadian history, are we going to have a clean slate for the board? We know where those appointees are coming from in the current government. Perhaps we will wait until after the next election and have failed candidates and have them appointed. I do not know.

I have a personal friend in Edmonton who is a textile conservationist and she used to be on the Canadian Museums Association board. She has a lot of valuable expertise. I look forward to following up with her and finding out what she thinks about these changes, especially on the removal of the research dollars.

Here is another interesting fact. The website for the Museum of Civilization no longer exists. I went to website to see what the Museum of Civilization offered and all the sites were gone. I did find one remaining site, and that was for visitors. When people visit the museum, they can put up their review and 256 people found it excellent. People already think it is an incredible experience. Interestingly, in the comments they filed, most of them appreciated the aboriginal display.

It raises a lot of really important questions. Of course many of us are very saddened, and I know those who work for Canada Post are going to be saddened. Apparently, we are expunging the Canadian Postal Museum. Why? I do not know.

As I understand, there was $25 million spent on rebranding and consultation after the fact when the government had already been decided what the name would be. I had hoped to share the very interesting process that went on when there actually was the in-depth consultation with Canadians about renaming the Museum of Man to the Museum of Civilization, but I will save that for questions.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that the website does actually exist. I was looking at it on my cellphone. However, I guess it speaks to the fact that yet again the member does not know what she is talking about. I would refer her to proposed section 9 of the bill, which says:

undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research;

The member talks about the museum not having a mandate to do research. Wrong. It does, and it is on page 3.

She talks about the curatorial independence, and if she actually read the Museum Act she would find that:

No directive shall be given to a museum under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including

(a) the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities

(b) its activities and programs for the public...

and research with respect to the matters referred to in the other paragraphs guaranteeing curatorial independence.

The member is wrong on financing. We have given $142 million. She is wrong on research. It is wrong on there not being a website and wrong on the curatorial independence.

Is there anything that she was actually right about? No. Did she actually even read the bill, because that would actually help.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I actually did read the bill, and perhaps I will read it to the member because apparently he has not. If the member read the bill, and if he was provided notes on the differences in the bill, he would read the changes to section 8 of the Museums Act. The phrase “maintaining and developing for research and posterity” is removed.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Because it is in section 9.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

He clearly does not even want to hear an answer to his question.

If the member had actually read the bill, he would realize there also is a change in paragraph 9(1)(f).

Yes, most of the provisions are exactly the same, which raises the point of why on earth the Conservatives changed it. When we look at it in detail, the way it reads right now, paragraph 9(1)(f) says “undertake and sponsor research”. It is proposed to be changed to “undertake or sponsor” which raises the question of lesser interest by the government in actually financing the museum.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for raising two very important and interesting points in her speech.

She spoke in particular of Mr. Cardinal's absolutely remarkable architecture, which represents Canada's landscape and the influences that shape our country. It is known as a museum of civilization, and Mr. Cardinal reflects and acknowledges the Canadian landscape in his exceptional architecture.

She then talked about the incursion of private business interests into the affairs of a public institution. I would like her to discuss this a bit more and get her views on the issue.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8 p.m.
See context

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear yet what the changes exactly are to the museum, whether they are external or simply internal, or whether there have actually been consultations with anyone who has been involved in deciding how the displays would be changed and who is actually going to finance these displays.

One other thing that is important for a museum is that we maintain an archive. I mentioned one example of a display in there that is very important and very near and dear to me and to my family. The severe cuts to Archives Canada and very severe cuts, 80%, to the archeological work of Parks Canada, raise the question of where is this new information on history, archeology and so forth going to come from? What about finances for storage? What is going to happen to the former displays?

We look forward to the museum changing and displaying the history of Canada. Frankly, I hope it includes more information about the Fathers of Confederation, one of whom is from my family. I look forward to information on that and why they became involved in trying to make this a stronger country.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, if it were not so depressing, it would be laughable. The bill before us does an extremely good job of representing the Conservatives’ attitude towards knowledge, learning, education, science and even Canada's place in the world.

Allow me to summarize the situation. Let us discuss the role of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in maintaining a collection of objects for research and for posterity. Done. Finished. That is precisely what the Conservative government is all about. To hell with research and to hell with posterity. This disdain for posterity can also be seen in its environmental policy.

The museum's mandate, which until recently was to cover Canadian and global content, has suddenly lost the second component of its work. It is no longer a matter of telling people abroad about our history and about who we are. Now, we care only about ourselves, in a narrow vision of what our interests are from a minimalist standpoint.

Reading over the bill, I wondered in fact if it had been written by the Minister of International Cooperation, because it has his usual trademarks.

Not only that, but the museum’s current mandate refers to critical understanding. Critical. What a nightmare for the Conservatives. Anything critical, even a critical mind, is not something they are fond of. No problem. They simply got rid of the word “critical”, just as they would like to get rid of criticism in general.

As if that were not enough, they are changing the museum’s name. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is history. In my time in the House, my impression has been that “civilization” is another word that the Conservatives do not like much. It is worth noting that the exhibitions on cultures and civilizations, which are extremely popular, will now have to play second fiddle.

The tragedy is that the Conservatives’ scorched earth policy is not only affecting the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists, librarians and scientists, and are shunting basic research aside. The list appears to be endless.

Even in my riding , they are on the attack—that is the only word to describe what they are doing by scuppering the Biosphere.

Since there are many similarities between the Biosphere file and that of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, I will take the liberty to speak for Hervé Fischer, president of Science pour tous, and a group of Quebeckers who recently released a letter on the subject, from which I will quote the following:

On the heels of cuts imposed on the Biosphere in July 2012, the federal government is now laying off most staff and putting in employees from the meteorological services. The Environment Museum will not survive. Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review its mandate. Some public access will be retained, it would seem, but what form will they take? How can a museum like this one be operated without staff? Such is the fate reserved for this emblem of Montreal! Inaugurated in 1995 as the result of an agreement between the city of Montreal and the federal government, it became the sole environment museum in North America in 2007. Today, we bear witness to its painful demise.

Goodbye to museologists, educators, interpreters, designers and technicians! Too bad for visitors from here and elsewhere. Gone are the major events that left their mark at the site, such as Cousteau’s Calypso, Vittorio’s drawings and children’s craftwork around fire hydrants, the Recycling Artists Eco-Fair, and so on. Disappointment awaits those classes of young people who were warmly greeted and were offered activities that were both recreational and educational. The same goes for the others from all over Canada who could gain video conference access to educational activities in their mother tongue.

[Drastically reduced] public access to the greatest architectural masterpiece by Buckminster Fuller...The Biosphere’s fate extends beyond tourism. Environment Canada was a major source of scientific and technical knowledge. The Biosphere could have continued disseminating this knowledge to the public, which is something that clearly does not appear on the list of priorities of the current government...As museum and heritage institutions are on the chopping block, the end result is that young people will be losing irreplaceable expertise...A sad fate indeed.

I would like to point out that one of my proud constituents, Mr. René Binette, president of Écomusée du fier monde, will present a resolution to the Canadian Museums Association this week. I am sure the association will also address the issue of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I would like to comment further on the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I would like to echo James Turk, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I fully share his point of view. In his opinion, this decision is a mistake. It needlessly eliminates the largest and most popular museum in Canada. Some parts of the current museum will be integrated into the new Canadian Museum of History, but others, such as the immense Canada Hall, the largest and finest social history display in the country, will not be. If the government really wants to highlight Canada’s history, it should restore funding for Library and Archives Canada, renew its support for local and regional archives and reinstate the budget for the protection and improvement of historic sites in Canada. Once it has done so, it can then envision creating a museum of history with a totally independent board of directors that would ensure the institution does not become a vehicle for government propaganda.

In fact, just as Canadians said about the Biosphere, the only thing you can say is “what a sad fate”. I hope that all Canadians who are concerned about this situation will join us in opposing the bill as strongly as possible.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:10 p.m.
See context

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to keep hitting on this topic because it is quite clear to me that the NDP has not read the bill or does not understand it.

The same member referenced, yet again, the fact that there is no mandate to bring this museum internationally. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(e) talks about “Canada and internationally”. I would ask the member to actually read that section. Paragraph (f) talks about the importance of research. I would ask her to read that section.

The member for Western Arctic talked about our first nations who have been here for 30,000 years. What about them? He clearly has not even read the name of the new museum. How can they understand the bill if they have not even read the title of what the new museum is going to be called?

The purpose of the new Canadian museum of history is to enhance Canadians' knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of events, experience, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity. It is also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures. How can you possibly not support that mandate—

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I will remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address his comments to the Chair and not directly at his colleagues.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that if anyone has not understood something here, it is my honourable colleague. He has really not understood the points that I mentioned.

Previously, promoting Canada’s image abroad was part of the goal. Of course, we are keeping an aspect such as the understanding of the history of the world by Canadians, but this element of promoting our image abroad has disappeared. Of course, there is a research element. A museum cannot exist without a research element. A distinction must be made.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:15 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

There was not.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:15 p.m.
See context

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

My colleague says that I said there was not, but I never said that. This proves once again that he really has a problem with listening.

Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2013 / 8:15 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

You said there was not. That was your first statement in the first five minutes. You do not know what you are talking about.