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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important and insightful question.

I would like to remind him that in terms of increasing Canadians' knowledge about our history, only four provinces, namely Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec, require students to take a history course to graduate, and that over 80% of Canadians failed the Historica-Dominion Institute's basic history quiz. Fully 78% of Canadians believe that learning more about the history of Canada would be a significant factor in strengthening their attachment to Canada. A survey supported this finding.

I think we are on the right track. If we want to know where we are going, in our country, we have to know where we come from.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many in this House know that I am passionate about Canadian history, so I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-49, a bill to create a new Canadian museum of history.

The government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians.

However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full story of our country.

That is why we are making a one-time investment of $25 million to establish the Canadian Museum of History. This funding is not new money, but rather comes from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. This new national museum will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about our rich Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history will grow out of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The government is refreshing the mandate and the orientation of the museum. Just as schools modernize the curriculum in accordance with new events and discoveries, the new Canadian museum of history will present a comprehensive story of this country, the best country in the world.

Change is not new to this institution. The history of the Canadian Museum of Civilization began as far back as 1856, with the establishment of a museum by the Geological Survey of Canada. With roots stretching back 157 years, the Museum of Civilization is one of North America's oldest cultural institutions.

As staff of the survey fanned out across the country, they gathered cultural information and artifacts as well as carrying out their main task in geology and science.

Ever since its beginnings from a modest collection the museum has been evolving. Indeed, its ability to adapt and evolve is what has made it so successful.

Just think, in 1862, the Geological Survey of Canada mounted its first ethnological exhibit, a single display case containing first people's stone implements, stone pipes and a few fragments of pottery. Today the Canadian Museum of Civilization welcomes over 1.6 million visitors, on average, each year. It houses permanent galleries that explore 20,000 years of human history. Its program of special exhibitions expands on Canadian themes and explores other cultures and civilizations, past and present.

The museum is also a major research institution, with staff who are leading experts in Canadian history, archeology, ethnology and culture.

In 1968, and with a new mandate, the National Museum of Man was established as part of a group known as the National Museums of Canada. Almost 20 years later, in 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and it subsequently moved to Gatineau, into the fabulous building designed by the illustrious architect, Douglas Cardinal. The building itself illustrates the history of the museum, with a structure that suggests fluidity and flexibility.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization will take place over the next five years, and will provide a number of opportunities to celebrate Canada's history in the lead-up to 2017.

At present, the museum has four permanent exhibition galleries: the Grand Hall, the First Peoples Hall, the Canada Hall and Face to Face, the Canadian Personalities Hall. The new permanent gallery would replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall.

More than 4,000 square metres, or 43,000 square feet, of exhibition space would be renovated to create a permanent exhibition space presenting a national historical narrative. This space would feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. It would be the place where Canadians could go to retrace their national journey and find national treasures. It would be where Canadians could learn about the people, events and themes that have shaped our country's development and have defined the Canadian experience, including key events and episodes from our past. It would tell some of the greatest Canadian stories.

The museum has carried out a series of consultations, online and in person, to solicit the views of Canadians on the stories, people, themes and events that they want to see in the new museum. More than 20,000 Canadians contributed, expressing what they expect of the museum in general, and particularly in the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights:

Canadians want our museums to be comprehensive, frank and fair about our presentation of their history.

They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past.

They want the museum to foster a sense of national pride, without ignoring our failings, mistakes and controversies.

They want to see various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways through different eyes.

I am delighted that the new exhibit space will feature national treasures such as explorer Samuel de Champlain's astrolabe, my hero, the “last spike” from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Maurice Richard's number nine Habs jersey.

At the same time, the president and CEO of the museum has said that the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history “warts and all”. That is an important point. Many episodes in our history are critically important, such as the internment of Japanese Canadians and the situation of our aboriginal people in residential schools. Canadians can learn so much from our history.

At present, there is no mention in the Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression and the conscription crisis. Most important, the Canada Hall does not begin with first peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century. Clearly, this needs to change.

The Museum of Civilization tells the story of human history and identity in Canada. The new Canadian museum of history will be the next phase of that story, helping define us as citizens of Canada and the world.

Why does our government feel that it is so important to focus the interest on Canada's collective history?

In 2017, the best country in the world will celebrate its sesquicentennial, which is 150 years. In the lead up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate and celebrate our history.

A new national museum devoted to our history will highlight our achievements as a nation and help Canadians learn more about our rich and diverse history.

I hope that as many Canadians as possible will celebrate the sesquicentennial in the freshly renovated exhibition halls of the new Canadian museum of history.

I hope all of my colleagues in the House will lend their support to Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you that I will entertain my colleagues' questions with the same respect.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was quite fortunate to take part in the debate on Bill C-49.

We can criticize how much money was spent on changing the name of the museum, a change that no one asked for except the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We can also talk about the changes to the museum's mandate, but I think this is also part of the Conservative trend. I am quite concerned about this trend because it seeks to promote a history of the military that is based on military events, and of the Queen and the monarchy, without any real regard for other aspects of Canada's history.

Last week, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked why we would not promote the history of women in Canada. The parliamentary secretary said, “I have never heard such nonsense”.

You can read it in Hansard. He said it was garbage. I was quite shocked.

Does the Conservative member opposite believe it is important to promote the history of women?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question.

In listening to the debate this afternoon and this evening, I see that a number of opposition members are wondering whether Canadians were consulted on this. In the presentation I just gave, I pointed out that we consulted more than 20,000 Canadians. As far as all the aspects of history are concerned, hon. members can rest assured that the Canadian museum of history will incorporate each aspect, including aspects that some in the past might have wanted to keep hidden away.

Now, I want to challenge the hon. member because she says we are only interested in military history. In my presentation I did not utter a single word about the role of the military. Nonetheless, I do hope this will be part of history, the good and bad alike.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our national museums are of critical importance, which Canadians will acknowledge. Winnipeg, in fact, is going to be getting its first national museum, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We are anticipating that this wonderful world-class museum will be coming to Winnipeg relatively soon, in the next year or maybe a year and a bit. It goes back to Paul Martin, Reg Alcock and others, and in particular, the Asper family, who played a critical role in ensuring that the rest of Canada could benefit by having strong national museums outside of the national capital.

I realize that this is a bit off topic, but it is important to recognize how important national museums are to all Canadians. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what will be our newest museum, which will be located in Winnipeg. It is something about which many Manitobans have a high sense of pride in terms of those who made it happen and in terms of being the city that will host this world-class national museum.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from across the way had such a thoughtful question. It might have been interesting, as he added to the list of Liberal icons, if he had acknowledged that, in fact, the people he named, especially those who sat on the Liberal benches, did not get it done. That is another thing they did not get done.

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is going to open imminently in Winnipeg, was actually put on the boards by this government, which dedicated several hundred million dollars to get it done.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the themes that has emerged from opposition members has been this notion that somehow perhaps the minister will be writing the storyboards at the new Canadian history museum. Could the hon. member, who gave a great presentation today in the House, comment on that and set the record straight?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House and all four, or now five, of our viewers watching television tonight will realize that there is no political interference in the way that history is presented across the country in all our national museums, and that will not change. There will be a greater focus on Canadian history. There will be a greater investment in Canadian history. Canadians, who are thirsty for their story from coast to coast to coast, will bond together and get it done.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, the purpose of which is to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

In order to express our strong opposition to this bill, I would like to begin by reminding the House that this initiative is part of the Conservatives' broader plan to promote certain symbols that they cherish: the monarchy, military values, excessive celebrations of long-ago wars, and so on.

It is also important to note that their version of Canadian history does not include the important history of women, first nations and other histories that are also part of our national history.

Indeed, what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to rewrite the Canadian identity. In that regard, I fully agree with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, whose position is as follows:

...[this initiative] fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy...[it] reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda—that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion. This is a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should be run instead according to sound professional standards. Our past should not be a political plaything.

George MacDonald, the first director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has expressed strong opposition to changing the museum's name and mandate. He sees this as part of an attempt to impose the Conservative brand. According to him, no one in the museum community wanted a museum of history rather than a museum of civilization.

Similarly, another former director and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, lamented the loss of the name Canadian Museum of Civilization. He described it as the most successful brand in the Canadian museums sector. He said it was a well-known brand that was respected by everyone. I would add that abandoning the name Canadian Museum of Civilization is as absurd as abandoning the brand Radio-Canada.

In addition to changing the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Bill C-49 contains a number of disturbing amendments to the organization’s mission. For example, the international mandate of the museum will be a thing of the past. Rather than focusing on Canada and the rest of the world as a whole, the museum will concentrate solely on Canadians, thereby stripping the museum of its mandate to share our history with the world.

In fact, this example truly captures the essence of the Conservative brand. Since the Conservatives came into power, Canada has been on a downward spiral in terms of its influence on the world stage: Canada is no longer seeking a seat on the UN Security Council, the international mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada has been gutted and Canada no longer has a shred of credibility when it comes to combating climate change. The list goes on.

Unfortunately, with the Conservative Party at the helm, Canada has become the laughing stock of the international community and is neglecting the important role that culture plays in Canadian diplomacy.

Moreover, Bill C-49 proposes to reorganize the tasks of establishing and maintaining a collection of artifacts for research and posterity. From now on, rather than being based on the work and priorities of museum professionals, research and collections will take a backseat to exhibition planning.

However, the most serious problem with C-49 is that it prescribes a minimalist approach to the museum based on events, experiences, people and objects. This is a decision that would normally be left in the hands of museum professionals and subject to a debate among historians and the academic community.

I find it worrisome and appalling that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is riding roughshod over the choices of museum professionals. To begin with, politics has no business in museums and, secondly, before thinking about lecturing Quebeckers on history, the Conservatives should start by familiarizing themselves with the history of Quebec.

I am thinking particularly of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle, was unable to identify Guy Laliberté, Félix Leclerc and Robert Lepage.

I think it is a shame that exhibitions on different cultures and civilizations will take a backseat in the future. The museum used to focus heavily on transmitting an understanding of various cultures and civilizations. The museum had exhibitions that varied from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Many exhibitions traveled and gave the Canadian Museum of Civilization its international reputation. Moreover, these exhibitions attracted a great many visitors.

By refocusing the museum's mandate on Canada, the number of visitors could drop and we are definitely losing a cultural asset.

As Dr. Lorn 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. 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 note with some concern that the government has announced that there will be activities to solicit support from the private sector. I have nothing against the private sector. However, I am simply concerned that it will dictate the content of exhibits.

In recent years, some things have gotten out of hand in federal museums. I am referring mainly to the Canadian Museum of Nature, where almost all the exhibit halls were sponsored by oil companies after a former executive with Talisman Energy was appointed to the museum's board of directors. It is rather ridiculous. Members will also recall that the Canada Science and Technology Museum changed an exhibit as a result of pressure from a mining company that sponsored it.

In the case of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the historical and archival documentation plays an important role in determining economic rights, particularly of first nations, and it must not be subject to pressure based on commercial interests.

To sum up, private funding can help museum development, but I have difficulty understanding how we can ensure that private sponsors will not influence the content.

While the Conservatives are busy remodelling the Canadian Museum of Civilization so they can spread their propaganda, I lament the fact that they are attacking other important institutions that are guardians of our collective memory. I am thinking in particular of the cuts to Library and Archives Canada, where more than 50% of digitization staff have been laid off. I am also thinking of reductions to document preservation and conservation staff and cuts to inter-library loans, which enabled all Canadians to access their national library's collections.

We could also talk about the $29 million that was cut from Parks Canada in 2012. Parks Canada is an important vehicle for our historical consciousness. That organization manages 167 national historic sites in Canada. More than 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists and curators have lost their jobs as a result of cuts in recent years.

My colleague from Québec eloquently demonstrated the impact of those cuts on Quebec and its regions when we learned that most of the activities of the Quebec City service centre would be consolidated in Ottawa. Laurence Ferland, former president of Université Laval's archaeology students' association, said that, in addition to harming university research in Quebec City, the cuts would undermine the preservation of monuments and the transmission of history.

When I see these cuts hitting institutions responsible for showcasing our heritage, I find it hard to believe the minister when he says he is changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to improve the dissemination of Canadian history.

To summarize, we are strongly opposed to this bill, which seeks to completely alter the Canadian Museum of Civilization for partisan purposes. We demand that the museum's current mandate be maintained. Canadian history must have a showcase and be promoted, but that is what the Canadian Museum of Civilization already does. We do not need to change the act or the museum's purpose to do it.

We also believe that the task of determining the content of the Canadian Museum of Civilization must be left to museology professionals, not politicians.

Lastly, the government must stop making cuts to the source of our historical knowledge, particularly archival research and the protection of historic sites.

Instead of spending large amounts of money to reshape the museum's mandate, the government would have done better to invest in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history, archives and historic sites and support small museum institutions, particularly with a view to Canada's 150th anniversary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what purpose continuing debate would be, since the NDP members still, after months and months, have not read the bill.

The member said it has no international mandate. I will read just the tail end of the mandate. It says: “...shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”.

Further down, it talks about research. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(f) talks about research. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(h) talks about international exhibits.

The member talked further about leaving it up to the researchers and professionals. This is a quote from the president of the museum. He said:

The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum, led by Dr. David Morrison. 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.

Dr. Morrison has a Ph.D. in archaeology from the University of Toronto. He is very well written. He has over 20 years of experience in doing this, so clearly either the New Democrats have not read the bill or they just do not care about the things that are actually going on and are happy to just continue to tell Canadians mistruths about what is happening.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with this bill, in fact. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has read the bill he is defending.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he has actually consulted Canadians and the following groups: historians, first nations, stakeholders in the Outaouais region and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage within the context of its study on Canada's 150th anniversary.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary name a single historian or a single first nations group that he consulted before this bill was drafted.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing the government does not seem to understand is the lack of confidence this side of the House has in the government's decisions, such as those proposed in Bill C-49. All of the Conservatives' decisions are aimed at redefining Canadian culture and symbols. We see rebranding the Canadian Museum of Civilization as the Canadian Museum of History as another step in that direction.

People have spoken about the lack of consultation. Our heritage critic put his finger on the problem when he spoke about the consultations, which were practically non-existent or done simply to get them out of the way. The consultations were done quickly.

Does my colleague feel that our opposition here stems from our lack of confidence in this bill and in the decisions the Conservatives are making about Canadian history and culture, over and above the changes to the mandate and the other options the Conservatives could have chosen for promoting Canadian history?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just raised a very important point. Bill C-49 has been surrounded by a lack of transparency and consultation throughout this entire process.

I know that my NDP colleagues worked very hard in committee to listen to the witnesses and consult Canadians, but this Conservative government did not accept any of the amendments the NDP suggested in committee.

The Conservative government is lacking transparency and refuses to be accountable to Canadians, which undermines the parliamentary process and the work we are doing here in the House of Commons.

The House resumed 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 without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would amend the Museums Act to create the Canadian museum of history.

I would like to focus my remarks on one of the issues that came up during consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The issue was the reference in clause 9(1)(c) of the bill to the authority of the new museum to dispose of items in its collection. The bill lists a number of ways in which the museum could dispose of an item in its collection. It would be able to sell an item, exchange it, give it away, destroy it, or otherwise dispose of it.

During deliberations by the committee, concerns were raised about the inclusion of the word “destroy”. In this section of the bill, I would like to take a closer look at this and see if I can allay any outstanding concerns that anyone might have about why it is desirable, even necessary, for the new museum to have that authority over its collection.

The first thing I must point out is that this clause does not represent any change to the powers all other national museums have, and have always had, under the Museums Act. As it currently stands, all of the institutions covered by the Museums Act have the power to sell, exchange, give away, destroy or otherwise dispose of items in their collections. Therefore, Bill C-49 would seem to give the new Canadian museum of history the same power over its collection that all of the existing national museums, including the Canadian Museum of Civilization, already have. This would be nothing new.

I would like to reassure the House that this power is not only common for any professional museum, but also absolutely necessary, for a number of reasons. As I have indicated, destruction is only one of a number of ways in which a museum may dispose of something in its collection. I should point out that it is actually fairly uncommon for a museum to dispose of anything in its collection through any means. The fact that museums collect and preserve artifacts on behalf of the public is a duty that museum professionals take very seriously. The dedicated professional staff of Canada's national museums take that duty very seriously. However, the authority to dispose of something in their collections, even if seldom used, is a very important option to have.

A museum might determine that an object may no longer be relevant to its mandate. This is most often the case in some museums that were formed many years ago. As the museum evolves, it may be determined that another museum might be a more appropriate place for a particular artifact. In these cases, the object might be given to another institution in the form of an exchange or gift.

As museum collections grow, it falls to museums to ensure that their financial resources are spent wisely. Therefore, in some cases where a museum has duplicates, it only makes sense not to utilize precious resources to maintain a duplicate object. However, duplicates must always be dealt with in an ethical way. That is why the Museums Act always specifies that any revenue that results from disposal must be used to further the museum's collection.

I would also like to address concerns expressed by some members over the authority of the museums to destroy an object in their collections. I would like to cite the code of ethics of the International Council of Museums. The code of ethics states the following:

Each museum should have a policy defining authorised methods for permanently removing an object from the collections through donation, transfer, exchange, sale, repatriation, or destruction...

Therefore, the International Council of Museums acknowledges that a museum may ethically resort to the destruction of an item in its collection.

This same idea is reflected in the ethical guidelines of the Canadian Museums Association. This guide states:

Occasionally, museums may reasonably plan to destroy or alter objects or parts thereof for research or other purposes; however, the museum’s overriding responsibility is for the wise use of the collection material, with the greatest long- term benefit.

Let me stress that any decision to dispose of an item in the museum's collection and the most appropriate means for their disposal, is made on a case-by-case basis by highly professional museum staff. They have the responsibility to manage their collections in a professional, ethical manner. That is what the national museums already do and that is what the new Canadian museum of history would continue to do. The Museum Act does not depart from professional museum practice. It replaces existing professional museum practice. It gives the national museums the authority to act in the same ethical manner as other professional museums.

We may ask ourselves what would lead a museum to destroy something in its collection. Well, it is unusual, but circumstances do arise.

For example, museum professionals refer to something they call “inherent vice”. Sometimes something about an object or the material it is made from makes it self-destruct or renders it unusually difficult to maintain. An artifact can be made from a combination of materials that over time react against each other, such as combinations of leather and metal, or improperly combined mixtures of pigment and other chemicals in a painting.

On that same issue, from time to time a museum, despite its best efforts, may discover that one of its artifacts has been attacked by destructive pests such as moths. In some unfortunate cases, to ensure the safety of other items, the affected artifact, which has often significantly deteriorated, must be destroyed.

Other objects contain dangers to those working in museums. Until the 1970s, many biologically-based artifacts were doused with arsenic, lead, mercury and some organic pesticides, such as DDT, to keep insects and microbes at bay. Arsenic is particularly prevalent in ethnographic collections.

Finally, sometimes in the interests of science and research, a decision may be made to subject an artifact to something called “destructive analysis”. This is done in instances where the information or knowledge to be gained through this type of analysis is greater than simply keeping the object intact. While destructive analysis can often just affect part of an object, it occasionally results in total loss.

Therefore, there are absolutely reasonable circumstances where a museum can, and should, have the authority to destroy something in its collection. However, in no case is this done lightly and decisions are made by professionals who are in the best position to make such choices, professionals such as those employed in our national museums.

Bill C-49 would allow the new Canadian museum of history to operate in the same professional and ethical manner as our other national museums and other professional museums worldwide.

Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. 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.