Bill C-49 (Historical)

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 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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, we only need listen to that garbage that has just come from that speech to understand why it is so important that Canadians continue to have a principled Conservative government governing this country. If anything mentions Canada or Canadian pride, the opposition members, Liberals or New Democrats, run for cover. It is embarrassing to them to be proud of their country.

I have in my hands the Liberal amendments to this bill. He talked about the thoughtful amendments the Liberals brought forward. I have these amendments here. Ninety-nine per cent of them deal with changing the name of the museum. Those are the thoughtful amendments.

Once we decided we were not going to water down the focus on Canadian history in the new Canadian museum of history, that we wanted to have that focus for all Canadians, and we turned that down, 99% of the Liberal amendments were also turned down.

What we are hearing them also say today is that somehow, Dr. Morrison, who has 20 years of experience as an archeologist, is an author and is very experienced, is not capable of putting together museums and exhibits that all Canadians can be proud of.

When it comes to something that is so important to all Canadians, I have never heard such nonsense as I just heard from this member in his speech, not to mention the question just raised by the opposition NDP member.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to criticize, I would hope he would criticize with facts. The amendments we put forward included re-establishing the research component of the museum, which is crucial.

Also, what I said about Mr. Morrison was not that he cannot do his job. He said that they have a mandate. That is not accurate, because until Parliament changes the mandate, the mandate of the Museum of Civilization stands. There is no new mandate until Parliament says so, no matter how much he would like it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I am proud, I would say that this museum has nothing to do with pride. The Conservatives want to reduce history to military history. We already have the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. It could be turned into a military museum, which would solve the problem.

The War of 1812 is not the be-all and end-all. It was one event in history. Yes, we should be proud of it. On a VIA Rail train, I was served a new kind of wine with a label commemorating the War of 1812. There is no need to get carried away.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization touches on sociology and civilizations, and the history of women in particular. Women make up 52% of this country's population. If the museum is forced to use a dated structure, and everything that comes along with that, the focus will be on the masculine.

When will women start to be part of our history? There is no focus on women, yet we make up 52% of the population. What does the member think about that?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, museums must be able to do research and critical analysis. Museums are not supposed to glorify anyone. I am very proud to be Canadian. I always have been and I always will be.

However, it is important for national institutions to be created in a spirit of harmony and respect, for their mission to be objective, non-partisan and not focused on a reductionist approach to our society as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to talk about this legislation, especially after following such a disrespectful speech to the people who are in charge of Canada's national museums, who are charged with the task of updating a museum that has not been updated for a long period of time. Only the opposition would criticize a $25 million investment in such an important national institution as the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will become the new Canadian museum of history.

In his speech, the hon. member touched on the important landmark the Museum of Civilization currently is. We agree that it is a very important landmark. It is something we should be very proud of. That is why we were proud when the architect Douglas Cardinal, who the member mentioned, said that he supported the conversion of this museum to the new Canadian museum of history and how excited he was that the museum can continue to grow.

There was a time when the museum was called the Museum of Man. Times changed, and we updated it to become the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Let me refer to the museum president's testimony at committee. He said this about the museum:

“In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely under themselves. Whole categories of endeavour, politics, sport, culture, our contributions to the world among others, are poorly covered or not covered at all. Women's history is, at best, peripheral and the journey through time ends in the 1970s, so almost half a century of our history is left unexplored”.

He goes on further to say:

“As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you will find no mention of the Quiet Revolution, or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how or when the colony joined confederation. You'll see recreations of grain elevators and oil rigs, but you won't learn about the phenomenon called Western alienation.

Although modules on the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada have been added very recently, Confederation itself is reduced to a multimedia timeline. You'll find no mention in Canada Hall of the Flag Debate or Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to the residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. No meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the Conscription Crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall itself is its starting point. If you've been there you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples in time immemorial, but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall”.

As proud as we are of the museum, if one has gone through it, it becomes quite clear that it needs to be updated. That is why, in addition to the enormous resources we have poured into arts and culture, with some $142 million for our museums, we are investing another $25 million in this museum to update it.

Some opposition members have referred to research. They have said that as a result of some of the changes, the museum will no longer be doing research. Had they actually read the bill, as we have been saying through second reading debate in this place, and I will say it again, they would see that it is actually right in the act that research will continue to be important to the museum of Canadian history. I will say it again. Paragraph 9 (1)(f) states “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research”.

It is on the second page of the bill. One does not have to read that far to get to the fact that the museum will continue to do research. I know that opposition members do not typically read bills. All I am asking is that they read to the bottom of the second page, and they will find that the museum will continue to do research.

Again quoting the statement of the president of the museum:

“[W]e will continue building our national collection and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years”.

It is one of two things. Either they have not read the bill, in which it specifically talks about research, and do not believe the museum president who talks about how important research will be going forward, or they are deliberately trying to confuse Canadians into thinking that a museum of history will not actually do research.

It goes even further.

I see that my time is actually running out, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Having noticed that it is 11 o'clock, the hon. member will have four minutes after question period to finish his remarks.

We will move on now to statements by members.

The House resumed from June 14 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 from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has four minutes left in his debate time.

Could I ask all members who are not going to stay for the debate to depart the chamber now and those who are staying to stop talking in your loudest voices, please. Try whispering.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

It is okay, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem talking over the opposition.

It is a pleasure to rise again to complete my discussion on the Canadian museum of history. As I said in questions and comments earlier, it is really a shame that for the 50th time we have had to force the opposition to debate a bill in the House. The opposition has been so afraid to do work that, for the 50th time, the government has been forced to bring in time allocation, after eight and a half months of those members delaying and refusing to deal with the important business of the people of Canada. We have been forced to bring in the motion so we can deal with the important matters of governing. It is truly amazing, and I am sure the massive amounts of people watching at home are wondering to themselves what would happen in this country if we ever let the opposition govern. Nothing would get done. Those members would probably talk themselves in circles.

We have heard a lot about what is actually in the bill. Opposition members keep saying we did not listen to them with respect to amendments, and it keeps talking about how we brought in time allocation. As the minister said, this piece of legislation has been before us for eight and a half months, and as much as the opposition has talked about the things it does not like in the bill, 99% of the amendments it brought in were focused on one thing and that was the addition of one word to the name of the museum. Opposition members focused on that in committee. They were okay with calling it the Canadian museum of history, but they wanted us to add the word “civilization”. That made up 99% of their concerns.

After eight and a half months and hours of debate, this legislation sailed through committee. It did not even take us the full amount of time in committee to deal with the proposed amendments. As a result of there being so little opposition by the parties opposite, the legislation sailed through. Because we did not agree to adding that one word, they want to continue debate for many more months.

A number of things have been brought forward by the opposition. I will focus on the opposition critic, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who talked a lot about critical understanding. Using his own words in his speech, he said, “What a scary word. The museum will no longer have the mandate to share its wealth of knowledge with the rest of the world”. That was one of the reasons he will not support the bill. Had he read paragraph 9(1)(h) on the second page of the bill, he would have seen it says that the museum will be continuing to do research.

That member also talked about how the people of Ottawa and Quebec and the tourism commission would react to this legislation. We already know that the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau support the bill. The original architect Douglas Cardinal supports the bill. Thousands of Canadians participated in discussions and consultations with respect to the new mandate of the museum.

Hundreds of Canadians across Canada are excited about this new Canadian museum of history. Communities across the country are excited at having the opportunity to share in the collections that are currently in storage. Even more important, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday we would have a new institution that would tell the stories of Canada, not only to Canadians but to people around the world. We live in the best country in the world and we should not be afraid to show that off, not only to Canadians but to people around the world.

I commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for bringing the bill forward. I also commend all those members on both sides of the House who will be supporting it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has said that no substantive amendments were brought forward, but in fact there were two very substantive amendments. He is mistaking substantive with simple. They were simple and substantive at the same time. Those members over there have a problem with some of this stuff. The amendment was around research and posterity. It was a motion that included bringing research and posterity back into the language. This is important because we heard witness testimony from the former head of the museum stating that, time and time again, he and his staff referred to the mandate of the museum as a way of guiding them in their internal decisions. That is why we thought this amendment was so crucial.

There was another amendment that included just adding the word “civilization” back into the title of the museum.

Both of these amendments were simple and substantive, and the government voted them down. Those members are mischaracterizing the debate that went on in committee. They allowed only one day for witnesses to come forward for this study. Also, earlier this afternoon we heard another motion for time allocation.

Why does the member opposite have such a hard time parsing simple and substantive, when both of those measures were simple and substantive?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is funny listening to the member because he tried to pull this in committee. He said we only allowed one day for witness testimony. Then the Conservative members called him on that and actually went back and unanimously decided to release the minutes of the committee meeting to the public where it had been unanimously agreed how long we would spend dealing with witnesses. They had agreed to how long we would spend talking to witnesses. The New Democrats say one thing in private and another thing in public and they have been caught out on it.

This is the same thing. They ask why we have to bring in closure. It is because they say one thing in public and another in private. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to move forward with things like the Canadian museum of history, as well as jobs and economic growth. We do not have time to play the silly, childish games of the NDP.

Specifically to some of the other questions, the member talked about research. Had he read page 2 of the bill he would have seen that in paragraph 9(1)(f) it talks specifically about research. He talked about putting history in the name. The whole mandate of the museum is Canadian history. I do not know what more we have to do to put it in. He talked about curatorial independence. The only people who are asking the government to interfere in the museum's independence are the New Democrats.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned something about only a very small portion of the amendments dealing with the name change. In our case actually that represented less than 20% of the amendments that we put forward.

One of the amendments that I thought was a reasonable one was that a review process would be set up, similar to what was proposed in Bill C-11, the Copyright Act. I said every three years, but would have been open to five years. By doing that, we would get to review the mandates of each of the museums, not just this one. This was a golden opportunity to open up all these national museums, because we are now getting into an area where we are looking at these national museums, this one in particular, sharing their resources with the rest of the country.

I thought this was a good way to review how this process would be being played out for the sake of the institutions across the country that want to share in this. How does he feel about this review process?

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian heritage committee, we have jurisdiction to do that any time we want. We do not have to wait three years to review the mandate of any museum.

The Liberals and the NDP have a number of opposition day motions that they can bring forward for us to debate in the House. At committee, we can discuss anything we want whenever we want and call whatever witnesses we want. In fact, if the member looks, he will find that at Canadian heritage committee many of the motions that we have brought forward and that we have discussed recently have been motions that were brought forward by the opposition.

Do I think we should be reviewing it? Absolutely. That is our job. Does it need to be in legislation? No, because I do not think as parliamentarians we need to be told when and how we should be reviewing any of the functions of government.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very keen to rise today to voice the opinion of many Canadians, especially many of this country's historians, and to debate the Conservative government's Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

In my humble opinion, this is not a very good or a very welcome idea. Of course, that is quite the opposite of what we have been hearing for a number of hours, but I believe that I have some points that deserve to be shared, considered and discussed.

Why is it a bad idea? First of all, I strongly suspect that the Conservative government—particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage—does not know what history is, who makes it, and the issues related to teaching, education and Canadian history. In fact, the last few minutes of debate have bolstered my convictions. I am talking about history with a capital “H” because we are talking about the science, not Canadian history.

Perhaps there is an excuse. After all, he is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not the minister of history. That would explain the confusion because when we talk about heritage, it is easier to draw up a list of cultural assets and items that attest to the identity of a country, a people or a nation.

Historical objects are a part of heritage. However, history itself, the historical narrative and the Canadian identity are not as easy to put on display. If that were the case, historians would have stopped producing works about Canada's colonization, the establishment of the parliamentary system in our country or the emancipation of women in our society.

The fact that we continue to debate these phenomena is proof that our understanding of them is not static. When I say “we”, I am referring to historians rather than politicians. By putting these phenomena in a museum, we run the risk of ending debate and dissimulating the reality.

In even clearer terms, creating a museum with objects that represent Canadian history and identity stems from a particularly dated concept or vision of history. There are not many historians left in Canada or the world who describe the science of history in this way.

Many historians would say that this idea could only come from a conservator. I mean that in the sense of a conservator who wants to preserve something in its existing state and perhaps even wants to have something preserved by the state. Who knows? The idea that history is an unchangeable, written, eternal truth that lends itself to being put in a museum is an idea that no longer holds true in this day and age. That goes without saying.

There may be one exception. There was a major history museum project in France, championed by President Sarkozy. However, after much opposition, the project completely fell apart. No, we should not be following France's example. I agree. However, when it comes to museums, it could be useful to look at what our partners are doing. France does have a certain amount of museum expertise that warrants our respect.

It seems that the history museum was, by his own admission, the Minister of Canadian Heritage's idea. I heard him say it. Since when do politicians deal with history-related issues? Leave that to the historians.

As politicians, we may have the luxury—perhaps even the duty—of creating history through our actions and our contributions, but we should never impose our perspective on history. Politicians are involved in commemorating and celebrating historic events, but they are not involved in history with a capital H. Those issues are far too serious for us as politicians. It needs to be said: we are not experts in teaching history.

For pity's sake, let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists, or at the very least, let us consult them before going any further. Moreover, the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressed a number of misgivings, particularly about the way things were done. The members of the association said:

We call on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to stop its process of redesigning that museum until a panel of distinguished figures in historical and museum work is created and has an opportunity to prepare recommendations on a more appropriate direction for re-developing this outstanding heritage site.

Note the use of the verb “call on”. This is rather strong language. The members are not saying, “we ask”, “we advise” or “we suggest”, but rather, “we call on the Department of Canadian Heritage”.

Clearly, therefore, it is not simply a matter creating a new museum out of thin air, a museum that will grow out of nothing. It is about transforming a museum that already exists and that has already acquired a sterling reputation.

As I stated, these issues are far too serious for the humble politicians that we are. Let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists. Let us allow them to decide among themselves how best to define the parameters, the strategic directions, the problems and the subject matter that will be exhibited at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will eventually be renamed. The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation is a crown corporation set up under the Museums Act. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is therefore responsible for it and the act determines the museum’s mandate.

Before changing a winning formula—one of the most-visited museums in Canada, and certainly one of the best-known outside our borders—why does the minister not consult the various interested parties more broadly? For example, he might consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and the first nations, who are heavily involved in and well represented at the current Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Once the announcement was made, public consultations were held in about a dozen Canadian cities, but the consultation process seemed bogus because the decision was already made. Earlier, I heard that contracts had already been signed. I therefore wonder what we are doing right now in the House.

The examples of decisions made on this issue unfortunately leave me no ray of hope. The sudden closing and hasty dismantling of the Canadian Postal Museum show the total lack of transparency around the process. There were tightly controlled consultations, which had limited success. However, the consultations did not allow Canadians to question the decision to transform the museum, despite opposition from a large number of Canadians who traveled to take part in them. The minister is intervening in an area that is not his cup of tea, and without extensive consultation with experts.

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said I had total confidence in this bill and in the future of the museum. Over the weekend, just when I was telling him about the bill, a friend of mine who is a historian said the following. I am quoting him, because I would have great difficulty putting it any better: “It is difficult to express an opinion on the real intentions of a Conservative government that is as reluctant to show exactly what is underneath this matter as it is to show exactly what is underneath women’s clothes.” We spent the rest of the time just having a friendly discussion.

There is another aspect of this bill that bothers me. With the change in the mandate and the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the public is being introduced to the idea that political power, that is, the Conservative government of Canada, may decide on its own about the content and significance of the exhibits that will be presented there, or at least strongly influence them. I find the possibility of partisan politics interfering in a world-renowned scientific and cultural institution to be absolutely unbearable.

The artist that I am, or that I am modestly trying to be, is completely averse to any use of culture and the arts for partisan purposes. While scientists and artists look at the world with creativity and critical judgment, the political world is generally quite risk-adverse, especially the party opposite.

As my time is quickly coming to an end, I will leave out some of the arguments that I had kept in reserve. I will conclude by saying that it is because I am certain that Canadian history and Canadian historians deserve better that I cannot support such a bill.

The role of a government in the area of culture is to allow debates to be held and to provide locations for meetings, research and expression. I cannot support this partisan initiative, as it promotes Conservative symbols, such as an attachment to the monarchy, an insistence on military values in a civilian context, an inordinate celebration of old wars, and so on.

This is a deliberate strategy designed to rewrite Canadian identity. This is not the role of the House of Commons, and it is not the role of a member of Parliament or a minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments and my question specific to the member's discussion with respect to content in the new museum. He talked also about one of the witnesses at committee, the representative of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, James Turk.

At committee, I asked Mr. Turk if professors taught the same lesson plan year after year. Professor Turk answered back as I expected, that they certainly did not. I asked if they modified it and updated it and he said yes. I asked him why they did that and he said that knowledge and information changed. Therefore, I thought that somehow within the teaching of education things changed, but our museums were supposed to stay the same forever. They were never supposed to change.

More specifically, he talked about the content of the new museum and who would put it together.

We heard from the president of the museum. After the consultations, when we had hundreds of thousands of responses from Canadians across the country, he said:

Those comments, suggestions, and pleadings will inform our every decision going forward. The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum...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.

Does the member know something about Dr. David Morrison, who has a Ph.D. in archaeology, is very well published and has years of experience? Is there something about him that we should know that makes him unqualified to lead the research into these new exhibits?