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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 29, 2013, on 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, we are now doing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49.

We have with us two individuals from the Department of Canadian Heritage. From the heritage group, we have with us Cynthia White-Thornley, executive director, and Judith Marsh, senior policy analyst. They are here for our questions, if we have any, but they won't be making a presentation. They're here only if they're needed for some clarification.

As you all know, when we go through clause-by-clause, we usually skip the first clause, which is the short title, and we move that to the end.

In front of you, you should have Bill C-49, as well as a package of amendments. Does everybody have the package of amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sorry, Mr. Brown. That'll have to be a closing comment because it's 7:30 and we're out of time.

I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses. Thank you for appearing and contributing to our study of Bill C-49. Thank you to all of you for sitting through our previous testimony as well. It's been a long night for you, so thanks for your input.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, everyone.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to the promotion of Canadian history. What we are opposed to is the fact that Bill C-49 is limiting the museum's mandate to a large extent. Seeing as how two former museum directors have substantial concerns about this bill, I think we need to give the issue some thought. I also think that we need more than two hours to discuss this.

I would like to talk about research. Currently, the museum archeologists decide what their research will focus on, but things will be reorganized. I am a bit concerned about the future of research at this museum. Will it be based strictly on the needs of upcoming exhibits, or will the archeologists—and I am talking about archeologists because I am one myself—still be able to conduct basic research?

I would also like to point out that three ethnologist positions are still vacant at the museum and that the person currently in charge of ethnological collections is a war historian.

I see here a similarity with what happened at Library and Archives Canada, where many people have lost their job and where it is now difficult for employees to do research on site. In the first place, they have to contend with a staff shortage and, in the second place, their personnel is made up of people who are not specialists, but rather generalists. I note an underlying problem in the area of research, especially seeing as how the new mission set out under Bill C-49 does not include the word “research”.

Mr. Turk, do you agree with me?

[James L. Turk]

—in the sense that if we take everyone in this room at their word, we're all in favour of a stronger museum that helps us better understand, appreciate, and be critically aware of our history. If that is in fact what everyone in this committee believes, you have a unique opportunity because Bill C-49 adds zero to the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, but takes a lot away from it.

It can be fixed easily by changing the mandate provision in the bill, because it takes away the brand, as Mr. Rabinovitch said, and it takes away the money. The cost of the vast amounts of reconstruction is going to be far more than $25 million.

In terms of the sharing, which I assume is why some of our colleagues from the museum community are supportive of the bill, there is literally nothing in the current Museums Act that would preclude precisely what is being promised under the new bill.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

I should explain, Mr. Chairman, that changes don't happen simply overnight. They evolve in the operation of an institution over a period of time. Why a mandate, and a mandate expression in law, is so important is that it acts as the direct guideline to the administrators of the institution as to what they're supposed to do.

I wish I could count on multiple fingers the number of times that I and my colleagues over 11 years would go back to read the mandate paragraph in the 1990 bill, and how many times we would cite it to each other as we decided on the internal allocation of money for positions in one area or positions in another area.

This is a long way of saying that the wording of Bill C-49 will have a very direct impact on how the senior managers see their authority, their priorities, and their role. It's important that it's not just words, but that it is the law stating what you're supposed to do.

Unlike my colleague, Mr. McAvity, having worked in these large institutions and having had to justify every penny to the Auditor General when they come through for their special investigations every five years, you have to be able to point to the law to explain what you're doing and why. As well, the Treasury Board reviews your plans, and the Department of Heritage reviews your plans each year. You have to be able to justify: where does the law say that this is your mandate, that this is your objective?

So the way these words are chosen—and this is for all members of the committee—is really important. It's not window dressing. “Critical understanding” is an academic expression meaning the ability to criticize, the ability to engage with knowledge and challenge it.

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

Absolutely. We will come back to this, as the removal of the words “critical understanding” is clearly a major issue.

I have a question for Mr. McAvity or Ms. Evenden.

Ms. Evenden, you referred to subclause 9(1)(i) of Bill C-49, which reads as follows: “establish and foster liaison with other organizations that have a purpose similar [...]”. That's extremely important to you.

I'm once again wondering about the following. I understand that anyone with an interest in history, civilization, museums and that duty to remember will be happy about this point. But this was already included in the Museums Act. Right?

[John McAvity]

Sir, we are completely supportive of Bill C-49, and we are certainly aware of the comments of a number of other people who have been supportive of the legislation as well.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch]

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question by the member.

I certainly agree with the way you have put the problem. I also grew up in the 1950s. I can still see Davy Crockett and I had a coon skin cap. And I certainly know that the Americans won the War of 1812 because of what took place in 1815 outside a certain battle of New Orleans, and can sing that song as well.

But those problems of mass media representation are not going to be overcome by simply renaming a museum. Mass media representation, the type of popularized telling of stories, telling of tales as done through Hollywood, is something that can only be competed against through having significant cultural activities and cultural industries: Canadian filmmaking, British filmmaking, other filmmaking.

Where does the Museum of Civilization and proposed museum of history fit into this? As it now stands, the Museum of Civilization does a very, very extensive job of portraying Canadian history. My calculation is that 75%, some three quarters, of all of the public exhibition areas are given to Canadian history. There are exhibitions on Sir John A. Macdonald, on D'Arcy McGee. There is nothing to say that these cannot be improved and I think it is laudable that they be improved, and the installations dating back to 1989 and 1990 can be improved. But fundamentally, does Bill C-49 improve it? My advice to you would be that it does not. The bill as currently constructed takes away from that broader mandate of understanding the world and being engaged with the world.

One of the proudest things I was involved in was opening an exhibition in the centre of Beijing at the time of the international Olympics, followed shortly thereafter with the opening of four exhibitions in Brazil showing aspects of Canadian life, Canadian artifacts, what we were accomplishing in Canada. That is a central part of the mandate of the Museum of Civilization.

So I don't know how the circle should get squared. I do believe as currently constructed, the legislation reduces and eliminates rather than enhances the ability of museums to contribute to solving the problem that you and I grew up with.

[Dr. Lorne Holyoak, President, Canadian Anthropology Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Anthropology Society, an organization that represents professional and academic anthropologists throughout Canada.

I do have prepared remarks, but on the walk over here today I was thinking about the bill and an image popped into my mind, a picture of my uncle back in the thirties on the farm in Saskatchewan with a sedan he had converted into a pickup truck so that we could haul boulders out of the fields. I thought that is what Bill C-49 is. Unfortunately, it's more than that. You're taking a Rolls-Royce and you're chopping the roof and tearing out the back seats so that you can turn it into a pickup truck. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

I'd like to start my remarks by noting that we are also concerned about the consultation process as it has gone forward to this point. We feel there was a lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History.

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations. The museum's representatives did not undertake to provide participants with a synthesis of comments, a formal response to their concerns, or any specific indication as to how the museum would seek to integrate the received feedback in the research or implementation of the new exhibits. Only a minority of professional practitioners of the historical disciplines was invited to participate in these meetings.

I'm pretty confident that everyone in this room has had the privilege of appreciating the Canadian Museum of Civilization, this national monument to the cultural heritage and living present of all who have peopled these lands, most notably the first nations, Inuit, and Métis, as curated, researched, and shared publicly by a cadre of expert and dedicated scholars for more than a century. This history can be traced to the founding of the anthropology division of the Geological Survey of Canada in 1910. In those early years, and later as the National Museum of Canada and then the National Museum of Man, the focus and collections remained predominantly focused on Canadian aboriginal peoples. As established in 1990, and still in effect today, the vision of the then-renamed Canadian Museum of Civilization was expressed in the mandate of the Museums Act:

to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada.

In this process, the museum was empowered to undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.

On this basis the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dedicated to publicly supported scholarship on core issues in the Canadian and the human experience, and is internationally renowned for its work. Upon a substantive research basis, public exhibitions, both permanent and temporary, have been rigorously created to be offered, critiqued, and constantly renewed as a trust to the Canadian people. This work has been largely, but not exclusively, anthropological in character and has depended on the sustained and sometimes lifelong work of specialist curators in ethnology, cultural studies, archeology, and history.

However, in May 2012 the Canadian Museum of Civilization's administrative structure was readjusted to no longer include a vice-president for Research and Collections. Research and Collections is now placed under the former vice-president, who is now a director general of Exhibitions and Programs. Furthermore, the current executive of the museum includes no member with research or collections expertise. It is unclear what the future of research will be at the museum, despite the substantive need for research both in itself and as the basis for exhibitions and programs of quality.

Bill C-49 provides a new and significantly reduced purpose: “to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”. It also has a narrower empowerment to “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology”. This language renders even research within the reduced mandate optional. It would be possible under this language for there to be no research undertaken within the museum itself, and it appears planned that research may become an adjunct to exhibitions, once they are decided upon, rather than the informed and critical basis from which they arise.

Some of the consequences are immediately clear. The First Peoples Hall, a signature creation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, is 10 years old. It cannot maintain or renew itself, and it requires continuing research and collaboration to ensure that it is current with contemporary aboriginal life and engages with emerging issues regarding the past and present of Canada's first peoples.

This anticipated new Museum of Canadian History will, according to Dr. Mark O'Neill, include “aspects of the aboriginal experience” but shift toward other still-unspecified Canadian historical themes. Here a very considerable amount of research and enhancements of collections will be required, as this has not been hitherto a focus of the museum. The museum's collections are currently, depending on definition, 70% to 80% aboriginal, as has been the established curatorial expertise of the museum. Elements of material culture cannot simply be borrowed from other collections and placed on display. There are major issues of cost, access, time, research, and vision.

Apparently, there will be a one-time-only provision of $25 million for the transformation of the museum, but this will not be new money. These funds are designated for a renovation of half of the museum's 100,000 square feet and other costs. Given current costs to meet curatorial standards at this level of roughly $1,000 per square foot, this generates an underfunding of at least 50%.

The plan for the museum is due to culminate at the time of the 150th anniversary of Confederation and presents a view of Canadian history as “settler history”. In the words of Mark O'Neill, “Canada's history from the fur trade to the Northwest Rebellion to Confederation, through two world wars and the quiet revolution to Canada in the world will come to life”.

So Canada's history started with the fur trade. The frame has clearly and decisively shifted. The frame now is the imported imaginings of the modern European nation state and its transplantation to a new territory. This history enshrines a much-diminished vision, compared with the collaborative one that recognizes our shared occupancy of these lands and the fundamental character of all Canadians as treaty people.

Canada's history truly began long before there was any thought of Canada, and we all benefit from the living legacy of the first nations, Inuit, and Métis fashioning vibrant societies and cultures, and maintaining relationships with their neighbours. Those who arrived later, the French and British as well as successive waves of newer arrivals from all corners of the world, have brought with them an abundance of linkages with larger and new global realities. Canadians are outward-looking and cosmopolitan by their very definition. Canadians deserve a museum that reflects that. The Canadian experience has never been limited in time and space and is intrinsically part of the larger human experience.

We are concerned that the government's decision to transform the CMC into the CMH fits into a pattern of a politically charged heritage policy that has been emerging in the past few years. Alongside the substantial public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative appears to reflect a new use of history to support the government's political agenda, that is, the highlighting of particular features of our past favoured by leading ministers of the current government.

If so, this would be a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should instead be run according to sound professional standards and principles of non-partisanship.

Once again, I applaud the government's initiative to establish a Canadian museum of history. I deplore the government's decision to convert the Canadian Museum of Civilization into a pickup truck.

Thank you.

[Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queens University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here today.

By way of personal introduction, I was the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization from 2000 to 2011. During my tenure, the Canadian War Museum was built and the CMC vastly expanded its collections and presentations on Canadian history and on international themes. Prior to this I had been an assistant deputy minister, in the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments. I've always had great pleasure in having the authority from my minister to speak to members of the opposition or any MP, and at that time at least, as a public servant, to take information and report information fairly back to ministers.

Currently I'm not here representing any organization. I am an adjunct professor of cultural policy at Queen's University. I'm also the volunteer chair of Opera Lyra, Ottawa's professional opera company. I publish considerably in various Canadian and international publications. All of that is by way of background to say that I bring a certain amount of knowledge to the table, which I hope is helpful to the members of the committee.

As you know, Bill C-49 is part of an initiative that was announced by Minister Moore. An important part of that initiative has been alluded to by the other presentations so far, and includes funding to enable the Museum of Civilization to develop networks for purposes of better historical exchange. That type of announcement is really part of a much longer debate that has gone on for years regarding the proper role of “the nationals”—the national museums. The general view, certainly amongst museum people, is that the nationals are uniquely positioned to promote linkages and networks, to share materials, to share research and information. And in this respect the announcement by the minister certainly fits beautifully into what could be an important development for the Canadian museum world. The type of initiative that the minister announced could always be administered through the Department of Heritage, it could be administered by individual museums. In any event, I would certainly hope that it's not the last of such announcements.

Allow me to turn now to the substance of the discussion this evening, which is Bill C-49. I confess to finding the substance of Bill C-49 to be deeply confusing. It proposes in clause 2 to abandon the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector. It's a brand that is known and respected throughout the professional world. The Museum of Civilization is a pathfinder in what is now called internationally “museums of society”. One example of its eminence is that a conference was recently convened at the University of Barcelona to feature the experiences of the CMC as a model for the work that the university was doing on behalf of the Catalonian region of Spain. And several other museums of society, notably Quebec City's Musée de la civilisation and Amsterdam's Tropenmuseum, joined with the CMC to present information on how museums can present people, society, and development in a way that is an example of what can be popular, credible, and informative, and contribute to national understanding.

The Museum of Civilization is described throughout the global tourism industry as one of Canada's must-see landmarks. It actually receives a three-star billing from the Guide Vert Michelin; Parliament Hill receives only two stars. Clearly, the people from Guide Vert Michelin weren't here an hour ago; they would change their mind. The same applies to Frommer's guides, Lonely Planet...and on it goes. They are just three examples.

Visitor recognition of the name and style and content of the CMC is enviable. It's one of this country's bright spots in showing itself. Foreign diplomats make this point repeatedly, and they use the museum as a key orientation point for new staff who arrive, and also for visiting dignitaries.

If the Museum of Civilization stands out as such a great product, why would anyone want to change its brand? Think like a business person. General Motors, even in its worst days, did not abandon the brand of Cadillac and Chevrolet.

The challenge from a marketing standpoint is to extend a brand. New products can be added, an old brand can be relied upon to win attention and trust. If the government believes that the area of history should be given more attention in titling, then why not simply retitle the museum as the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.

CMHC, it has a ring—

[James L. Turk, Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 68,000 academic staff at 124 universities and colleges across the country.

We're deeply troubled by Bill C-49. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a great museum, the most popular in the country and arguably the best. It's certainly one I'm proud to take every visitor who comes to Ottawa to see. The proposed Canadian Museum of History will be something less. Not only does Bill C-49 ensure a lesser institution, the process of consultation has been disappointing at best.

The CAUT, our organization, raised some concerns initially and was very pleased that the CEO, Mark O'Neill; the vice-president of research and exhibitions, Jean-Marc Blais; and the director of archeology and research, Dr. David Morrison, willingly agreed to meet with us. They did spend more than an hour talking with us and indicated that there would be an opportunity for consultation; this was back in October. In February Monsieur Blais was in touch again to say that there would be a process of consultation involving us, and we've never heard a thing since.

The Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Archaeological Association, and the Canadian Anthropology Society wrote a letter on the same matter to Mr. O'Neill on May 6, 2013, and I'd be happy to give the clerk a copy:

On behalf of our respective associations, we write to express our serious concern regarding the lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History. Unless redressed through significant and meaningful consultation with the professional heritage community, we fear this lack of engagement will critically compromise both the quality and credibility of the new museum.

I mention the concern about consultation because there are serious flaws in the bill, and I'd like to just address a few of those. I'd be happy to expand in the question period that follows.

The first is the change in the purpose of the museum. The current mandate, since 1990, of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is quite clear and quite impressive. I'll just quote a relevant section:

to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.

That has been replaced by a much shorter mandate that may superficially sound similar but is fundamentally different. The relevant section of the proposed mandate in Bill C-49 says:

to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.

Unlike the proposed change, the CMC mandate makes clear that it is a knowledge-generating organization, like all great museums. The proposed mandate for the Canadian museum of history eliminates all reference, for example, to maintaining a collection for research and posterity.

It removes paragraph 9(1)(f) from the act that established the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is particularly troubling. The part that has been removed reads:

undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.

To our mind, these changes clearly indicate that the research and knowledge advancement function of the museum is under threat. The removal of “critical understanding” and replacing it with “understanding” is one concern. Promoting critical understanding of history is an essential goal of any great museum. Providing visitors with critical understanding of history means offering them an opportunity to consider different points of view, the opportunity to critically analyze the past, and to re-examine traditional viewpoints, rather than simply venerating national heroes.

Another indication that the research and knowledge-generating role of the museum is being replaced with it becoming a display site is the elimination of the position of vice-president of research and it being combined into the job of vice-president, exhibitions.

A second concern of ours is the limited perspective of history. The new act will replace the museum's emphasis on human cultural achievements and human behaviour with “...events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity...”.

It's a troubling emphasis on dates, heroes, and objects, an approach that historians have moved well beyond. The great man/great woman version of history risks leaving out the experience of the vast majority of Canadians. The stories and experiences of ordinary people and events that don't fit into the political biography model will be marginalized, just as they currently have been celebrated in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Other concerns are the elimination or marginalization of the history and culture of first nations people, and of issues of colonization, industrialization, gender relations, migration, environmental transformation, and so forth.

This refocusing and rebranding will involve the gutting of the Canada Hall, a remarkable permanent exhibition of Canadian social history. What's curious is that the Canada Hall cost over $50 million to create, and yet the total budget for the transformation of the new museum is only $25 million. So how they are going to recreate the vast social history that's currently reflected in the museum, as well as doing other things, is totally beyond us, especially when that $25 million is not just for that, but lots of other things as well.

Minister Moore, for example, recently indicated that the $25 million was also going to include the cost of agreements to establish a nationwide museum artifact lending network, which he described as having more than three million items in its collection, 90% of which are in vaults. I'm quoting: “We need to get these items out of storage.... We need to get them moving around the country.” But this betrays a fundamental ignorance of the museum materials. The vast majority of these artifacts are things like bone fragments and are not exhibit-worthy; they are research materials. Collectively, they are extremely important to our understanding of Canada's past, but not for their value as exhibition pieces.

Our third concern, and the final one I'll mention in my opening remarks, is about whether this is going to result in a partisan representation of history. All of what's happening in regard to the transformation of the Museum of Civilization into a Canadian museum of history is in the context of the broader undercutting of the role of Canadian heritage institutions. Here I speak of Library and Archives Canada, which we've spoken about on many occasions, which has a national campaign called Canada's Past Matters; the cuts to archeology and heritage sites as a result of the cuts to Parks Canada; the closure of federal departmental libraries; the reduction of public access to libraries; the elimination of the inter-library loan system at our National Library; and the elimination of granting programs for local and regional archives. All of these are part of a context that gives us concern about what's happening

The decision to transform the Canadian Museum of Civilization seems part of a pattern that suggests the government's interest in using history to serve its own political agenda. In our view, we'd speak out as strongly to any government appearing to do this.

The celebration of the War of 1812 was the transformation of a rather tawdry series of skirmishes into some defining characteristic of Canada's history. The rewriting of the study guide for people who want to become new citizens, which was done by this government a few years ago—this is what it looks like now—is a celebration of heroes, warriors, with pictures of warrior events, and there is even a picture, on the aboriginal page, of a former Governor General of Canada who portrayed himself as an Indian. It's the sudden interest in the Franklin exhibition, and the diversion of resources to an already decimated Parks Canada archeology budget to focus on finding this wreckage. It's the glorification of the monarchy and the War of....

The context for all of this gives us grave concern.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization has been a remarkable contribution to the history and people of this country, and internationally as well, and for it to be transformed into something that will not retain its fundamental research and knowledge-generating function and that will not have the resources to maintain the broader social history of our country is something we lament.

We urge you to revise the mandate for this institution, as reflected in Bill C-49, into something that continues the tradition of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Thank you.

[Kirstin Evenden, Vice-President, Canadian Museums Association]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49 today.

Many countries have national museums devoted to their history and heritage. There are numerous examples we could cite today. I will mention a couple of them. There is the fascinating Te Papa museum in Wellington, New Zealand, which features first nations history and culture, as well as the heritage of that country. There is the Smithsonian in Washington, another well-known example, which embraces a broad approach to presenting United States history, from grand achievements all the way through to everyday Americans.

We're confident at the Canadian Museums Association that the new Canadian Museum of History will paint a similarly broad picture of this diverse and complex country.

Canadian history is many things. It's major events, it's sometimes war, and it's sometimes major and significant historical figures, such as prime ministers and monarchs, but it is also about those things that relate to the everyday, the small-h history that we all know and live ourselves.

In this history of the everyday and the extraordinary, the new Canadian Museum of History will really a place where Canadians could explore all of these diverse aspects of who we are and what we want to become, starting initially by exploring first nations issues, from both contemporary and historical perspectives, and indeed, contemporary events that relate to historical circumstances. Sometimes these events are important but challenging, such as, for example, an internment camp in Minto, New Brunswick, the FLQ crisis, or the Winnipeg riots.

These are all aspects of who we are and where we've come from, and knowing history contributes to the quality of life in this country and supports the rich creative and scientific achievements of our nation. Our history is therefore multi-dimensional, whether expressed and preserved through artifacts, art, documents, or science, and it's vital that this rich heritage be properly presented in this museum. It's a place where we will all connect with each other through these stories.

We note clause 9 in particular, which gives clarity to the powers and capacity of the new Canadian Museum of History and details its mandate in terms of collections, research, and preservation. We note paragraph 9(1)(i), which outlines the creation of opportunities to work with other partner museums across Canada.

Again, as someone who has lived in three Canadian provinces in this country and has worked in all three, I certainly think that the national museum will really be an encouraging partner with all of these regions to again further historical research across the country. These regional stories that can become a part of this network will certainly contribute to talking about who we are and where we want to go.

Over and above the legislation, we're very pleased with the proposals within this section and the intentions of the new museum to move forward. The creation of a network between museums across the country is indeed timely and was outlined by the president and CEO of the museum just last week before 250 museum colleagues from across the country at our annual meeting of the CMA in Whitehorse, Yukon.

In a time of budget restraints, sharing resources is more important than ever. This is a terrific opportunity to more easily exhibit our country's history, not only in museums across Canada through partnerships, which will be extremely beneficial to the entire country, but also here in Ottawa as a national showpiece. It will provide a platform to easily distribute the large amounts of often unseen artifacts of importance that are currently in storage.

In addition, the partnership role to be assumed by the Canadian Museum of History will provide positive guidance to other institutions across Canada.

Finally, the plans call for a special gallery to be created at the new museum, where other museums can provide exhibits from their local communities representing where history really happened, providing a national platform for telling our regional stories. Over 2,800 museums across Canada tell our country's collective story. Connecting them through a major national institution will greatly benefit museums and the Canadians who they serve and who visit them. This may well be a role model for other national museums, which cannot work in isolation from other aspects of the cultural fabric of our country.

We wish to thank the members of the committee for their time and consideration on this matter.

Merci beaucoup.

[John McAvity]

The Canadian Museums Association or CMA is delighted to be here to provide our advice and commentary on Bill C-49. We are the national not-for-profit association for museums, art galleries, and related institutions across Canada. We have almost 2,000 members located in every province and territory of this country, all of which are dedicated to preserving Canada's cultural heritage and presenting it to the public. Together, these museums welcome close to 60 million visitors per year. They range from large metropolitan art galleries to small community volunteer-run centres.

CMA strongly supports Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act. The mandate and roles expressed in this legislation are consistent with the roles of museums in society.

I would like to introduce Kirstin Evenden, who comes from Calgary. She is the former director of the Glenbow Museum and is now the vice-president of the Canadian Museums Association.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Monsieur Nantel has moved a motion that we extend our study of Bill C-49 by holding two more, two-hour meetings.

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

Thank you, Ms. Turmel.

Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison, thank you for being here today.

As you can see, here with us we have some eminent individuals. These people are very interested in the issue. As a result, I feel that receiving five witnesses after your presentation and that of the minister, is not enough. I would therefore like to introduce the following motion:

That the current study be extended by two meetings to allow the Committee to hear from more witnesses.

This basically means adding two meetings to the study of Bill C-49 in order to hear from more witnesses. I would like us to make a decision as soon as possible.

I have a question for you about what you said with respect to the museum's ability to expand...