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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Apparently, he is very interested in Canadian history, and I congratulate him on that. It is very important.

However, I wonder what reason there is for changing a winning formula. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada at present. It is absurd, to me, to want to give it a new purpose, because it is the most popular museum. If we change its name and its purpose, it may no longer be the most popular museum. Perhaps the strength of this museum, and what makes it popular, are precisely its present name and mandate.

But let us go further and ask a few questions. The Canadian Museum of Civilization already has a reputation of its own. If we change its name, then we are going to have to make sure that people know the new name and the new direction.

Does the member know how much money will be allocated simply to changing the name and the mandate? I am not necessarily talking about the money that will be invested in new exhibition halls, for example, just the amount of money that will be needed to make the museum known with its new name and its new mandate.

Perhaps the member can quote me some figures.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question about why we want to change what is already working.

All we have to do is look to the south, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. That museum is referred to as America's attic. This would be a version of that in Canada, where we can celebrate what is Canada, what our people have done and what our achievements are. Not only would we be able to celebrate that here in Ottawa as the museum currently does, we would be able to partner with smaller museums from coast to coast to coast.

As anyone involved in museums knows, most of their artifacts and displays are kept in storage. We have literally a treasure trove of great artifacts and displays in storage 90% of the time. This would free those artifacts up. They would be able to travel around Canada and smaller museums from coast to coast to coast would be able to use these displays to attract new people.

Why would we change it? We would be broadening the scope. We would be using this initiative to support small museums from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley repeatedly. He is very learned and a former educator. I would like him to talk about how this would help educators learn more about Canada's history.

In addition to the expansion to the museum, there are some other announcements we have made. The Canada history fund, for example, which will be administered by Canada's National History Society, will honour outstanding students and teachers; the museums assistance program will bring some of these exhibitions to different parts of the country; and the virtual museum of Canada includes a teachers' centre.

Could the member please describe how this could be used as a much better learning tool for students so they can learn about our history?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was a teacher for many years. My background was in history and social studies as a teacher, an educational administrator and someone involved in curriculum development.

One of the things that concerns me greatly in Canada is that currently, only three of 10 provinces require Canadian students to take a history course to graduate high school. The delivery of education is a provincial jurisdiction, but that concerns me as a former history teacher. That means that a lot of Canadians are graduating, and have been graduating, and have not had to take a history course. All the provinces offer history as a course, but students are not required to take those courses to graduate. I think that is a shame.

As a federal government, we can encourage the provinces to deliver some history in their curricula by developing, as was said, virtual online courses for teachers so that they have the resources they need to include this in the curriculum.

If our small museums, as I mentioned, had these artifacts and displays, they could really celebrate what is great about this nation. Those artifacts could be moved around the country. Teachers from coast to coast to coast would be able to take their classes to a local museum.

It is awfully hard for a teacher in the Yukon to take a class all the way to Ottawa to see the Museum of Civilization the way it is now. This would enable that museum to send its artifacts and displays all the way to the Yukon through some of the funding we would allocate for this project. This would free up those artifacts and displays, and that is great for education in Canada.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act.

The purpose of Bill C-49 is to refocus and reposition the Canadian Museum of Civilization and amend the Museums Act to change the name and legislative mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Since 1990, the museum's mandate has been:

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

Bill C-49 changes this mandate. In concrete terms, the changes to the museum's mandate will remove the phrase “critical understanding” and replace it with a general idea of understanding, and replace “human cultural achievements and human behaviour” with a simplistic concept, “Canada's history and identity”.

In short, these changes could detract from the diversity of the experiences that characterize our history, for instance, the effects of colonization on first nations, gender inequality, marginalization based on ethnicity, and so on.

In addition, the sudden and surreptitious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum shows a lack of transparency—yes, once again—even though the mail is an integral part of our history. While the changes set out in Bill C-49 might seem trivial, this closure and the Conservatives' approach to Canadian history make me wary of other nasty surprises.

I believe this museum has a winning formula. It is often a must-see destination on any school trip to Ottawa. This museum touches the imagination of all of the youth who visit it. I am thinking of the Canadian Children's Museum, in particular, whose central theme is “the great adventure”. This museum gives younger visitors an opportunity to travel the world. Exhibit themes promote intercultural understanding. The Canadian Children’s Museum has grown steadily since its inception.

The museum has welcomed over 8 million visitors since 1989, with an average annual attendance of 500,000. It is committed to the promotion of intercultural understanding among children and improving cultural, social, and educational opportunities for children. I recall having visited the museum myself on many occasions and having a remarkable experience every time.

Looking beyond the Canadian Children's Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. That is quite something. I wonder why the Conservatives are changing its mandate. Is it really necessary to change a winning formula? What if I were the owner of an ice cream shop, chocolate was my bestselling flavour and then one day I decided to make strawberry ice cream instead. I think that that would be a very poor marketing decision and that I would be taking a risk.

Dr. Lorne Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck...It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

Once again, I believe that the government is making decisions without thinking about the consequences. I believe that this is part of an effort to promote Conservative symbols: attachment to the monarchy, promotion of Conservative values, and so forth.

Furthermore, the changes will be costly. The administrative cost of changing the name and logo is estimated at $500,000 on top of the more than $400,000 that has already been spent. It makes no sense. I wonder who this will really benefit. It seems to me that there are more important priorities to be dealt with.

The private sector will be solicited for its support. We are not against involving the private sector but, in recent years, things have gotten out of hand at federal museums. For example, almost all exhibit halls at the Canadian Museum of Nature have been named after sponsors in the oil and mineral sectors and, in 2011, an exhibit at the Canada Science and Technology Museum was changed as a result of external pressure.

Of course, private funding is useful for the development of museums, but it must not influence their content, especially when it comes to a national history museum.

When I think of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, my mind turns to the hundreds of thousands of children who go on school excursions to the museum every year. My son has visited the museum several times with his school. He always comes home with lots of stories. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a gold mine of interesting information for young people of all ages, and for adults, too.

The other important thing that disappoints me about this bill is the change in direction of the museum’s mission. In fact, the proposal is to remove research and collections from the museum’s mission, which were contained in the first paragraph of its initial mandate.

The staff who work in the research and collections departments will be “reorganized”, a term that is not really reassuring to museum employees. It will mean that research and collections will take a back seat to exhibition planning and will no longer be based on the work and priorities of museologists. This represents a major shift in the museum’s mission.

The government has no business sticking its nose in these matters. Politicians are neither historians nor researchers, nor are they museologists. Perhaps some members are, but they are a rare commodity. The Conservatives are the ones thinking about making these changes. They are meddling in the museum's affairs.

Why not leave it up to the museologists and their interlocutors, including the first nations, to define the museum's mandate and content.

I know how important it is to have employees who are motivated and passionate about their work to present the museum.

In my region, the Forges du Saint-Maurice are grappling with major cutbacks. This year, tourists and visitors to the forges will no longer get to enjoy a dynamic presentation by guide–interpreters. Instead, they will have to read signs set up to replace staff who have been laid off. It is really sad to see a historic and tourist site of such great significance lose its value because the government is imposing its own ideology.

I would also like to draw members’ attention to another important problem arising from these changes. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in November 2012. We have not yet had third reading in the House. It has not yet gone to the Senate. Yet I noticed on the weekend that the minister was already making announcements as if Bill C-49 had received royal assent.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced a partnership agreement between the Manitoba Museum and the future Canadian museum of history. I repeat: the future Canadian museum of history. It has not yet been approved by parliamentarians.

We in the NDP want the museum's current mission to be maintained. We are asking that the budget proposed for this transformation be invested instead in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history.

The government has to stop doing away with things that enhance our knowledge of history, in particular research and the protection of historic sites.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague opposite. I can tell that a good deal of thought was put into it, and I appreciate that within the context of this debate.

It is a simple question I have. We have a specific piece of legislation here. It is not long. It is a new mandate we are offering for the Canadian museum of history. What is it in the new mandate the member opposite is opposed to? What exactly is it in that mandate? Which word would she take out? What words would she add? What is wrong with the new mandate being proposed in this legislation? Please be specific.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I was not part of the committee that examined this bill, but I can say that my colleagues worked very hard on it. A lot of thought went into our amendments. In fact, there were 19 amendments proposed.

It is not rare for us to work hard in committee, any committee, and for us to propose amendments and for them not to be considered. It is really important that we work together. Too often, we propose things and we are not listened to.

Actions speak louder than words and we saw that in the 2012 budget.

The government has taken $29 million away from Parks Canada. Parks Canada is responsible for 168 historic sites all across Canada. It is important to preserve these historic sites, because they help with archival research and protection. This is what enriches us, and taking money away like this is like taking a step backward, taking us in the wrong direction and to the wrong place.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have many validators for our position. My colleague quoted, in particular, Dr. Lorne Holyoak.

We also have the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Anthropology Society, Canadian Archaeological Association. They have said, “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”.

We have Victor Rabinovitch, president and CEO of the museum for 11 years. George MacDonald, founding director from 1983 to 1988, said, “I was shocked to hear”, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, “claim that the Aboriginal Peoples are excluded from the displays in the Canada Hall”.

The Canadian Association of Universities also backs our position.

There has to be a good reason why these associations are all backing our position, could the member expand on that?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we could go back and forth with quotes from people who were at committee and who were involved, stakeholders in the museum, archaeological departments, but what really bothers people is not knowing. The question is this. Do we have trust in the government? Can we trust it?

My constituents do not have any trust in the government. It is a government engulfed in scandals with the Senate. It allows $3.1 billion to go missing. It is a government that makes changes in omnibus budget bills and years later we are still finding out details. Our children are going to be affected by these changes. Therefore, do we have that trust? I do not think there is enough trust in the government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced a series of new measures to make our history more accessible to all Canadians, particularly our youth.

This announcement exemplifies the government's commitment and dedication to helping Canadians learn more about their history. Following the introduction of Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act, which is designed to change the name and mandate of the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, our government is forging ahead. It is introducing new measures that will help us to achieve our goal of promoting knowledge of Canadian history.

Included in these new measures is the creation of the Canada History Fund, which represents an investment of $12 million. This new fund comprises several elements.

First, the Government of Canada History Awards will be created to honour outstanding secondary school students and teachers who show an interest in Canadian history.

Second, the Speakers Bureau of the Memory Project, administered by the Historica-Dominion Institute, will see its funding doubled to allow thousands of students to meet with veterans and serving soldiers in the classroom.

Third, the Canada History Fund will increase funding to the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes per year between now and 2017.

Fourth, references such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia will receive enhanced financial support to allow for additional Canadian history content. These two invaluable online resources help teachers with their in-class work. This support is important for those initiatives.

For example, this is what Anthony Wilson-Smith, president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, said:

History teaches us how we got to where we are as a country, along with a sense of where we are headed. These new measures give Canadians important new tools to discuss and debate those lessons from our past. We at the Historica–Dominion Institute fully support these important initiatives.

It is clear that the government is honouring its commitment to promote Canada's identity, but that is not all. Starting this year, July 1 to 7 will become Canada History Week.

That week, starting on Canada Day, will be an excellent opportunity for Canadians to explore their country’s history through activities organized at the regional and national levels. We will also provide information on activities organized by history lovers as part of national and regional Canada Day celebrations.

They preserve our heritage, shape our collective memory and stimulate our sense of belonging to Canadian society. However, Canada does not have a national museum offering a detailed narrative of our history. That is why our government is preparing to establish the Canadian museum of history. This future national museum will create partnerships with regional museums to form a network.

The objective is to expand access to the national collection and increase its circulation across the country. In this way, Canadian museums, both large and small, will be able to exchange exhibitions with the Canadian museum of history and access some of the three million artifacts from those collections.

An investment of time and money is obviously required to move exhibitions and artifacts. The third measure announced last week is designed specifically to enhance the capability of certain Department of Canadian Heritage programs to do just that.

The Museums Assistance Program, for example, provides financial support for the work of Canada's museums and museum sector. We will ensure that this program, which facilitates Canadians' access to their heritage and history, plays a greater role.

The Exhibition Circulation Fund, one of the program's five components, assists museums in paying the costs involved in hosting travelling exhibitions. Those exhibitions may come from museums in other provinces or territories or simply from a federal heritage institution such as the Canadian museum of history. For a museum, these expenses usually include packing, transportation and installation costs, special costs associated with security and additional insurance premiums as well as general promotional expenses. As I said, the costs involved in moving exhibitions and artifacts are often too high for small history museums. We will therefore ensure that the Museums Assistance Program enables museums to borrow artifacts from the national collection of the Canadian museum of history to enhance their exhibitions. This activity was not previously funded. In addition, to help the smallest institutions, financial assistance may be provided to cover up to 100% of eligible costs for museums with operating budgets of less than $500,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, do you know there are over 1,700 Canadian museums in this situation? We are also going to make sure that the Museum Assistance Program facilitates the creation and sharing of exhibits about history by eliminating the requirement that exhibits circulate outside their province or territory of origin. This will help to encourage the circulation of historical exhibits to multiple towns in the same province or territory. By expanding eligibility and increasing the percentage of funding granted to small museums, these measures will increase the number of travelling historical exhibitions. Canadians will thus have better access to their history.

In closing, as Canada’s 150th birthday approaches, Canadians deserve a national museum of the history of Canada that will put their treasures on display for the entire world and tell Canadians about their collective history. Canada needs a national institution that tells its story. Canadian museums need to be encouraged and supported in creating a national network that will give all Canadians the opportunity to explore their history. That is what the government of Canada is proposing to us here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him a question. I do not doubt the importance of the history of Canada or the appropriateness of including a little more of it when it comes to teaching history and the associated exhibitions. What I wonder about is how we should proceed. Why are the name and mandate of the most popular museum in Canada being changed? I find this striking, and I am wondering whether this museum will still be the most popular one, with the highest visitation, if the government changes its mandate and name.

What is even more disturbing is that this idea does not actually come from a museologist or a museum director. It was the minister's idea. He undoubtedly has good ideas, but I find it worrisome for a politician to be proposing a new name and a new mandate for the museum.

Does my colleague know whom the minister consulted before drafting Bill C-49? He has said it was his idea, but apart from that, did he consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and museologists?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underscore the leadership of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and congratulate him on his initiative to establish this national Canadian museum, so important for the future.

I would like to come back to the mandate, because I think it is an important point. The Museum of Civilization Corporation will have new mandate that focuses on Canada’s history and identity, and its name will be changed to the Canadian Museum of History, a name that clearly communicates its role.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to know who the Minister consulted before making his decision.

I find it interesting, particularly because one of the questions that we often ask the members of the government concerns why we disagree with a position that is so popular with Canadians. However, not one of the members can tell me whether their own constituents have contacted them to ask them to change the name and the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which from now on will be called the Canadian Museum of History.

I would like to know what consultations were carried out by the minister before he arrived at this decision. I would also like to know why the Conservatives do not all agree on whether it was the minister’s decision or whether the decision was the result of many requests from constituents.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and tell him that this kind of decision is certainly taken in consultation with many Canadians.

We must remember that it is important to support the government’s investment, because it ensures that Canadians from all across the country will have an opportunity to learn more about history and about their own history, Canada’s history. The new museum will sign agreements with museums all across Canada, in order to be able to travel throughout Canada, to give smaller museums an opportunity to display the collections, and to provide all Canadians with an opportunity to see and admire these collections to learn more about our history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments on the Canadian Museum of History.

It was a good idea to reinforce the message that it involves not only a name change for the museum, but also programs that will be travelling to other museums.

He talked about Canada history week, for instance, and the Canada history fund. It is therefore $25 million for the change to the museum, but it is $12 million per year for all these programs.

Could he tell us more about how these programs will go hand in hand with the changes to the museum, so that our history can be told all across the country?