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.

Report Stage

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspired presentation.

I have heard a lot of the speeches and questions this afternoon. It is interesting that the last questioner asked whose idea this was as he had not heard anybody in his riding talk about changing the name or recommending that it was a good idea. Once the minister of heritage made the announcement, many people in my riding said it was a great idea and it would be the next generation of a great institution in this country.

With that thought in mind, I should mention that this facility has not been renovated in decades. The $25 million investment in the facility would really boost the quality of the facility, the display space and presentation ability. I wonder if my colleague could tell us how that money would be used.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the investment would be used to renovate about half the space of the museum. Part of it would stay the way it is. The IMAX, the Children's Museum and the First Peoples Hall would stay as they are, but the rest would be renovated and we would truly be proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the very last part of my colleague’s speech, when he said that the government believed in our national museums. It practically sent shivers down my spine.

My question is quite simple. If the Conservatives believe in our national museums, why do they refuse to preserve the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they claim in their speeches that somehow we are trying to change history and show it the way we want. I am so surprised that it comes from their side. Not that long ago, it was their member who insulted our First World War veterans and praised commies.

How can anyone come up with this view of history? Communism claimed about a hundred million victims in the world. How can anyone look at the Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor, look into the eyes of the survivors of Tiananmen massacre, or the children and grandchildren of officers who were killed as prisoners of war with a single shot in the head in Katyn, Russia? How can anyone come with this kind of distorted picture of history?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. Today, I would like to discuss the rich and long history of the museum and its transformation over the years. After all, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

The institutional origins of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are older than Confederation, dating back to 1841 when Queen Victoria granted £1,500 for the “...creation of the Geological and Natural History Survey of the Province of Canada...”. I would like to remind the House that the Geological Survey of Canada, the GSC, was officially founded in 1856, after the Province of Canada had passed an act enabling the GSC to establish a geological museum open to the public. The museum was originally located on James Street in Montreal, where scholars and scientists collected geological, archaeological and biological material. In 1864, the Province of Canada passed an act making the Geological Survey and its work a permanent provision.

In 1877, an act of Parliament ensured the continued existence of the Geological Survey, making it a part of the Department of the Interior. The GSC's official mandate had been broadened to include botanical, zoological and ethnographic specimens, traditions, languages and artifacts. It also suggested that the GSC and its museum be moved from Montreal to Ottawa.

In 1881, the GSC and its museum moved to a former luxury hotel at the corner of Sussex and George streets in downtown Ottawa. The museum attracted some 9,549 visitors in its first year, far more than it had in Montreal. It was in 1890 that the government passed an act making the Geological Survey a department within the dominion.

Construction of the new museum began in 1906. By 1907, the GSC became a branch of the newly created Department of Mines. The GSC museum received approval to add anthropology studies to its official mandate. In the spring of 1910, a new anthropology division was established under the direction of Edward Sapir, which included two sections in charge of archaeological and ethnological fieldwork. By the autumn of that same year, the GSC and its museum occupied the new Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street here in Ottawa.

When fire destroyed most of the Parliament buildings in 1916, the decision was made to house the Parliament of Canada in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. The GSC collections were put in storage until 1920 when the new Parliament buildings were constructed.

In January 1950, the GSC became part of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and the National Museum joined the Department of Resources and Development. The GSC and the National Museum then remained together in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. By 1956, the National Museum of Canada had been subdivided into two branches: natural history and human history.

I would like to also remind this House that in 1968, under the national Museums Act, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was established. The museum's human history branch became the National Museum of Man, and the natural history branch became the National Museum of Natural Sciences. The new National Museum of Man continued to be housed in the Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street. In 1969, the Victoria Memorial Museum building was closed for renovations and museum staff and collections were moved to temporary locations throughout Ottawa.

In July 1980, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was transferred from the Department of the Secretary of State to the Department of Communications. The transfer was made in recognition of the increasingly close links between culture and communications.

In 1982, the Canadian government announced its intention to house a National Museum of Man in a new building in Hull, Quebec. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the CMC.

In 1988, the National Postal Museum became a division of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the majority of the material history collection and staff were transferred. Other parts of the collection, including pieces of art, were transferred to the National Archives of Canada.

In 1989, the Canadian Museum of Civilization opened a new facility in Hull, Quebec. Internationally recognized as one of the world's modern architectural wonders, the complex was designed by architect Douglas Cardinal to reflect enduring features of the Canadian landscape. The world's largest indoor collection of totem poles is housed in the facility's stunning Grand Hall which has also been the site of numerous high-profile receptions for visiting heads of state.

In 1990, the federal government passed the Museums Act. The museum became a crown corporation and officially changed its name to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation which came into effect on July 1, 1990.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the subject matter of many CMC exhibitions, current and past, has been Canadian history. Bill C-49 does not represent a massive change. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of History merely indicates an unequivocal focus on Canadian history, something that I know will be done well for many years to come. It is important to note the historical change to the museum, because the name and mandate of a national museum is nothing new.

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

I remain ready and able to take any questions or comments that any member may wish to pose at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite.

It was quite fascinating to take a look at our history and to see that some progress has been made in the past. We would like that progress to continue, but unfortunately, the government seems to be taking us in the wrong direction. A total of 80% of archaeologists across the country are being laid off, yet meanwhile, the Conservative government is telling us that it believes in Canadian heritage.

If the government really wants to preserve and promote Canadian culture and heritage so much, why has it laid off 80% of archaeologists employed by the public service? Why is it keeping artifacts in storage across the country?

The regions are asking that their artifacts be made available, but unfortunately, there are not enough staff to get the items out of storage. The Conservatives want to rename the museum. However, there is a huge collection of artifacts in storage and we cannot see them.

Why does the Conservative government not invest money in making these artifacts available and visible as a means of celebrating Canadian culture, rather than eliminating 80% of the archaeologist positions across the country?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006 when this government took office, in three parliaments this government has added some $142 million to national museums and culture across this country. In addition, we have created two new museums, one in Winnipeg and one in the Maritimes.

If the member recalls much of my speech to the House, he will recall that there have been huge transformations to how Canada conducts our museums and how we recognize our past, but one of the most important things, at least to the people I know and to my constituents and to Canadians at large, especially the over 250,000 new Canadians who have chosen to come here, is that this would be a museum that would talk to them about how this country was formed, about our beautiful history. That is something that is currently lacking and one of the principal reasons why the bill is before the House and the change in focus as Canada begins to grow into the 21st century.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we face our 150th anniversary, a very special time for all Canadians, would my colleague tell us how people in his riding will celebrate such a special time and how the Canadian museum of history will impact his riding and the museums and facilities that are local to him?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the salient parts of this whole act, and a thing that excites me, quite frankly, is the fact that we have so much right across the country. In my riding, I can think of at least five or six museums that exist and then there are neighbouring museums. One of them is in Stirling, Ontario. It celebrates the agricultural past and present of our country and some of the great advances in agriculture and machinery. I really recommend that Canadians go to the museums in their vicinity.

What this act would allow, and this is what I am most excited about, is the exchange of artifacts from the national museum and bringing in artifacts from the rest of Canada so all Canadians can enjoy them. Canadians come to Ottawa to see some of our national treasures as they are located in a central location.

What a wonderful opportunity for museums right across the country to share their culture and their past with all Canadians and visitors to Canada. That is what the act proposes to do. It is a wonderful opportunity that we should not miss.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the foreshortened debate on Bill C-49. After only one hour of debate, the Conservatives decided it was time to shorten the debate even further by imposing time allocation.

The minister referred to this legislation as having been on the books for eight and a half months. We are not in control of the agenda; the other side is in control of the agenda. If it chose not to bring it forward over the past eight and a half months, that is not our fault. The minister might want to speak to the government House leader to find out why it has taken so long for the bill to come forward.

Members opposite keep saying that we are creating a museum. This bill would not create a museum. It would destroy one museum and out of its ashes build another. It is a good idea. We on this side think a Canadian historical museum would be a good thing to have, but we should not destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which has an entirely different mandate and an entirely different purpose than a Canadian museum of history.

The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is:

—to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behavior 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.

This is a very broad and ambitious goal and the museum has met some of that goal over the course of the past 23 years that it has been in existence.

I have been there. It is an absolutely amazing place. What it puts forward is way more than just history. It is in fact about the culture and civilization of not just Canada, but of many places in the world, and of Canada not just the country, but Canada as it existed before the white man arrived. This is also in that existing human cultural achievements.

The new mandate of the Canadian history museum is

—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.

I emphasize the word “Canada's” history and identity because we now lose the notion of civilization. Canada did not exist officially until 1867. Does this mean we are only to discuss things that happened from 1867 forward, that the contributions of the fact that this continent was peopled by native North Americans long before any of us Europeans ever arrived on the scene? Is that not to be considered as part of Canada's history? It is hard to tell from the statement of mandate of what the intention of this history is.

We have in the Canadian Museum of Civilization an internationally regarded icon of something more than just history, and it is associated with the war museum. In France, there is no museum of war. There is a museum of peace and it too is internationally regarded as a place to discuss something other than historical artifacts leading to war, or historical art leading to war or whatever wants to be discussed. That notion of discussing peace lends itself to an international recognition. The notion of discussing civilization lends us to an international recognition, which I fear we will lose by focusing on only history and only the history of Canada.

In terms of the amendments that were proposed by the various bodies in the foreshortened again committee stage, one of the ones that the minister referred to earlier, was the suggestion that there should be curatorial independence. Curatorial independence means that the museum, whether it is the Museum of Civilization or the museum of history, should be in a position to decide itself what it wants to display, how it wants to display it and whether it should take on controversial displays.

The minister said today in the House, “As the minister, I have never once, nor could I ever interfere with the decision of a museum to put on an exhibit or not”. When he said that, I could not believe my ears, because it was just a few short months ago that an Ottawa museum, the Museum of Science and Technology, put on an exhibit that the minister said, “The exhibit does not fit within its mandate. Its content cannot be defended and is insulting to taxpayers”.

The minister will stand and argue that he did not actually tell the museum not to run it. When a minister gets up and publicly states that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers, he is questioning the curatorial independence of that museum. To stand here in the House today and suggest he has never done it is beggars belief.

When the museum put on that display, it was clearly going to be controversial, a display that the museum itself and its curators decided was important and within its mandate, but the minister interfered.

Is that making a statement publicly that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers somehow not interfering in the mandate of the museum or in the ability of the museum's curators to have curatorial independence? In my view it does. Whether the minister actually pulled the display off the shelves with his own hands is not really the question. The question is whether the minister publicly went against the decision of the museum itself. That is what we, on this side of the House, want to see more strongly placed in legislation as we get the opportunity because of the events of the past year.

The third point I will make is the concerns we have about creating a museum of history at the same time the government has gone about rewriting history. For example, even today, when the minister said that he never did that, yet he did a year ago, is rewriting history. It is suggesting that it did not actually happen.

However, we are concerned we have a government that wants Canadians to be more focused on battles, on wars, on the War of 1812, on the relationship with the British Crown, on the battles that Canada has been in since Confederation and maybe a little before, because we have been talking about the War of 1812.

Twitter uses hashtags to get people interested in a topic, and the hashtag is, “HarperHistory”. That hashtag was created because the Prime Minister started to rewrite history in the House of Commons in question period by making erroneous allegations about the NDP. That hashtag, “HarperHistory” resurfaced again in the past few weeks when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage decided to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects of Canadian history.

There was a breakdown, a comparison of relevant standards of courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions and there were considerable numbers of people responding to the hashtag “HarperHistory” who were—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I just caution the hon. member. Generally speaking, we do not make reference to other hon. members in the House by their direct name. I appreciate the hon. member is including it in a hashtag, but in the same way that members' names are used in reference in citations, we cannot do indirectly that which is prohibited directly.

The member has made reference to it. Hon. members will understand what he means by that, but we do not use the names of other hon. members, except by their titles or by their riding names.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the Twitter hashtag had been, “PrimeMinisterialHistory”, but unfortunately, that is not what it is and in order to accurately state it--and I will not state it again, because I understood your reference--I had to state the word which was the hashtag.

In any event, the concern has again been raised by the Twitter verse that the party opposite is attempting to rewrite history by its review of the standards that Canadian schools are teaching. I am not sure what the boards of education across the country are thinking, but they cannot be happy.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I revert back to my speech of how museums from way back before Canada was the country it is today have transitioned. However, at the end of the member's statement he made a lot of erroneous statements. In fact, in the act itself there is a part that covers research, and this bill would not change the current direction of museums but rather focus attention on Canadian history.

What we hear, when Canada's official opposition talks about this, is that it cannot do away with its view of the world, that somehow learning more about the history of this great country would be a bad thing and that the bill is bad because the Conservatives want Canadians to know more about Canadian history. Members talk about what they would be giving up.

I have to say that, looking at battles such as the War of 1812, had we not been successful we would not be in this place. What is wrong with focusing on the events that made this country? Other countries in the world celebrate their history. For some reason, it would be a bad thing to celebrate Canadian history.

The hon. member needs to—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did say at the beginning of my speech that celebrating history is something we should do, but not at the expense of another museum. If the government wants to create a Canadian museum of history, that is a good thing and we would agree. However, to tear down an existing museum and remove its mandate and purpose only to replace it with another mandate and purpose is misguided. I would wholeheartedly support the creation of a museum of Canadian history if it were not for the fact that we would destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization in the process.