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.

Canadian Museum of History Act

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open the debate in the House on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act to establish the Canadian museum of history.

This legislation would change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, an institution with a remarkable and proud history. It is a history that traces its way back to 1856 when it was then known as the Geological Survey of Canada. In 1968, its mandate shifted and its name changed again to the Museum of Man. In 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization and was moved to its current home on the bank of the Ottawa River.

This museum is the largest of Canada's museums. It is the largest both in size, with over one million square feet, and visitors, averaging 1.3 million visitors over the past couple of years. It receives the largest share of government funding of any museum and it is one of the museums with the highest level of self-generated revenue.

While the Canadian Museum of Civilization is our country's most visible national museum, it is not our only museum. In fact, there are over 2,500 museums in communities all across the country, some large, some small, and all these museums tell our stories. They tell them in different ways and in different locations and they tell them in a way that is unique to these local communities.

For example, in the small town of Midway, British Columbia, there is an exhaustive display of material from the Japanese internment during the Second World War. Japanese Canadians living in the region collected materials and put together a narrative of what Japanese Canadians dealt with and suffered through in the south Okanagan during the Second World War. There are countless examples of exhibits like this in museums all across Canada.

This museum describes Canada's history, yet Canada does not have a national institution that connects all of these local museums across the country to tell Canada’s story.

Geographically, Canada is the second largest country in the world, but in terms of population, we are the 34th largest country in the world. Therefore, what unites us together as Canadians? What unites us as a people? It is our languages, our culture, the arts and the ability to tell our stories one to another and to have an understanding of our shared history. A museum devoted to our history will provide a focus on the people, the places and the achievements that bring us together as Canadians.

We are counting down to Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017. The road to Canada’s 150th birthday offers us an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and the achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

Our stories are vast, and they deserve to be told. From Samuel de Champlain’s arrival on our shores to the last spike that marked the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks that took us from east to west and back.

From Terry Fox's journey in the Marathon of Hope that still inspires millions of Canadians today to raise money and fight cancer to Maurice “Rocket” Richard to James Naismith and his invention of basketball to our brilliant scientists like Frederick Banting and Charles Best, these are the people, the events, the stories that inspire us always and need to be told and retold again.

Canada needs and deserves a national institution that will tell the stories of Canada. Canada needs an institution that will independently research and explore Canada's history. Canada needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together as Canadians. Our children need to know more about Canada's past. That is why last year our government announced the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

Let me read the mandate that we are proposing in Bill C-49 that is at the heart of this debate and of this legislation. This is what the new mandate of the museum will read:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

We have chosen not to build a new national museum from the ground up. We are doing that right now in Winnipeg with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We have also established the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, building on an existing institution.

The home of this new museum will be what is currently the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

We will build on its reputation and popularity to create a museum that will showcase our achievements as a nation.

The United States has the Smithsonian. Germany has the German History Museum.

Let me share with the House something I think is really important to understand about the details of what we are proposing here with this new museum.

Beginning shortly, the museum will renovate over 50,000 square feet of public space, roughly half of the permanent and temporary galleries that are currently part of the museum. Those areas of the museum that will remain as they are include the very popular Canadian Children's Museum, the First Peoples Hall and the IMAX theatre. A $25-million one-time investment will allow the museum to make this happen.

It should be noted that the current Museum of Civilization in Gatineau has not been updated in over 20 years. In fact, in the Canada Hall at the museum, aboriginal people are excluded from the narrative that is Canada's history. It is a museum that needs to be updated and needs to be improved upon, and that is what we are proposing.

The museum will also allocate internal resources to the project and will launch a fundraising campaign with the intent to raise $5 million. I am told that the fundraising campaign is already well under way and having success. This investment will be funded within existing budgets from the Department of Canadian Heritage at no new additional cost to taxpayers. It will allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin the transformation that will be completed in time for Canada's 150th birthday in 2017.

More than changing the name, the mandate and the exhibits, more will change. We want to ensure this great national institution, which we have the benefit of visiting in Ottawa, reaches out across the country and connects Canadians. To achieve this, we are building partnerships, partnerships that will be created between the new Canadian museum of history and museums across Canada that have the same mandate, but are doing it at a local level. These local museums will have the opportunity to become official partners of this new great national museum.

In fact, we already signed our first memorandum of understanding with the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria. What this will mean for that museum and other museums across the country is they will have access to the 3,500,000 items currently in the collection at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, soon to be the museum of history. Approximately 90% of these items are currently sitting in storage because we do not have a network to moves these items across the country and share our history. This is a really important move forward to tell our history and allow us to tell our stories to all Canadians.

I am also very pleased to say that since we announced this project, it has received broad-based support from Canadians, including countless historians and people in historical associations from every corner of the country. These are not people, by the way, who frequently agree with our government, but they agree with the need to create a national infrastructure for the teaching of Canada's history.

I am grateful, for example, of the support of Douglas Cardinal, the original architect of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and a very well-known Canadian for all of his life's accomplishments. In response to the creation of this museum, he said, “I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it’s a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada”.

This project has the support of and has been celebrated by Canadian historians as well. It includes the award-winning historian and author, Michael Bliss, who said that it was very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history and he thanked the government for making the museum possible.

Jack Granatstein, who, as many in the House know, wrote the book Who Killed Canadian History? a few years ago said, “This move (to create the Canadian Museum of National History) is exactly what I thought should happen. I'm delighted the government and the museum are doing it”.

Deborah Morrison of Canada's National History Society said, “the potential for the new Museum to help create a national framework for our history is compelling. And the time is right”.

John McAvity of the Canadian Museums Association said, “the renaming of the museum is essential, that it is good news and that it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage and history”.

The Historica-Dominion Institute said, “We enthusiastically welcome the creation of this new Canadian museum of history”.

The Ontario Museum Association said, “We welcome the initiative to strengthen partnerships among museums in Ontario and across the country”.

John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament and a biographer of P.E. Trudeau, said, “Congratulations on the Canadian museum of history”.

That is a great boost for the museum.

From Marie Senécal-Tremblay, of the Canadian Federation of Friends of Museums, representing volunteers from smaller museums across Canada: “We support these changes to one of our country's most important national museums.”

I am also very pleased, and I should highlight this as well, that the museum proposal does have the support of the mayors of Gatineau and Ottawa, Marc Bureau and Jim Watson. They both support this initiative as being important to the national capital region.

As well, many historians have added their names to the list of those who support this initiative: Réal Bélanger, Charlotte Gray, Anne Trépanier, Norm Christie, Yves Frenette, Bob Plamondon, Richard Gwyn, Jane Fullerton, Suzanne Sauvage, Brian Lee Crowley and many more. Again, people who may not be Conservative understand that on items like this we should work together, put partisanship aside and support the creation of institutions that bind this country together.

I think the Toronto Star said it very well in their editorial on this subject, and I quote:

It was welcome to hear [the government] announce...the rebranding of the Canadian Museum of Civilization...as the Canadian Museum of History. Canada's history should be celebrated in [this] revamped museum. ...we want to make history come alive, ensure we don't forget our shared past and [that we] honour our heroes.

In conclusion, I understand that this is an issue that has brought some great debate across the country. However, Canada's history is far from dead. It is alive and well and a story that needs to be told.

It is a true statistic, but a sad one, that in only four of Canada's 13 provinces and territories is it necessary for a child to take a history class to graduate from high school. That is provincial jurisdiction, of course, but it does not mean we should step away from the importance of it as a national government, as a national Parliament. We can work together and do what we can to talk about Canada's history and improve education, by supporting our museums, building a great national museum, uniting all of our museums and working together on this project.

In the past, this Parliament has come together. When a former Liberal government decided to create the Canadian War Museum, people said it was divisive, a waste of money and that we ought not do it now. However, the Liberal government had a vision and said it was the right thing to do. The War Museum is now one of the best museums in the world, rivaled only by Les Invalides in Paris and the Imperial War Museum in London. It is one of the great museums in the world.

We are now asking for what this Parliament has done before when it unanimously supported the creation of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. We were working together, and it is going to be a great institution for all of Canada. This Parliament also unanimously supported the creation of the Canadian Museum for Immigration at Pier 21, in Halifax. It is a great institution and doing good things for this country.

I have approached this in as non-partisan a way as I can. I have reached out to my opposition colleagues in the NDP and the Liberal Party, provided them with the text of this legislation and tried to work with them so we can make sure this museum will go forward and be a constructive piece of Canada's social fabric. We have worked together in the past on institutions. This is a good project for this country, and I hope my colleagues will work with us to make it happen.

A couple of years away is Canada's 150th birthday. We deserve to have a great national institution that will teach Canada's history, bring Canadians together and work toward a celebrated goal of keeping this country united and strong. Support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to congratulate the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages for expressing his deeply held convictions on this plan to dismantle the current Canadian Museum of Civilization. I also have to recognize that the system for promoting the museum's mandate is, in fact, well-stated.

However, when I hear our Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us that he believes Canadians deserve this, I say they do not deserve what you designed, they deserve history. The problem—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member may make his comments, but they must be made through the Chair.

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

You are right, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages to explain to us how we can trust him when he is telling us not to talk about partisanship, although we see that he has favoured a certain part of our history so far, in terms of promotion.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I brought this issue before a parliamentary committee. I have spoken to the member opposite about this project, and I do think that this should be about partisanship. As I said, when we created the Canadian Museum of Immigration, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and when the Liberals created the Canadian War Museum, those were all moments where we were actually able to work together.

He mentioned partisanship. Again, I would read into the record the new mandate. This is what is in the bill, and this is the new mandate of the museum. I do not think there is anything ideological or misguided about this at all. It states:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

That is a mandate that is focused on history. It is open. The Museums Act creates a barrier between politicians and the minister, telling a museum what it can or cannot do on a day-to-day basis. That is what the Museums Act does. This gives the museum a focus, by the way, a focus in a way that I think has long been needed by this museum, and a refreshing of a mandate that will serve all Canadians very well.

It is not just about this, as I said. This is about creating a pan-Canadian infrastructure to bind all of our institutions together so that all museums, not just the museum in the nation's capital, but all museums in the country, will benefit from this proposal. All museums in the country that become official partners will have access to the 3.5 million items in the collection, 90% of which are in storage right now, so we can tell all of Canada's stories, one to another.

We often know our local histories very well. I can tell the House about Captain Cook and Colonel Moody. I can tell everyone about my community very well, and I am sure my hon. colleague can talk about his hometown, but very often we do not know national histories as well as we ought to. One of the things we can do to try to fight that is to build this infrastructure, work together, and get collections moving around the country. Let us do this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken personally with the minister and have heard publicly what the minister has to say about this new museum. I heard what he said in his speech, and quite frankly his sincerity is pretty good. I hear what he is saying and I like his sincerity, but I want to ask him a question. I want to ask him about the fact that recently there was a motion in the committee that talked about the history of this country. It was incredibly prescriptive in how we should go about doing this.

I want to ask him a question, in a sincere way. With regard to this money that he hopes to put into this new museum, is it going towards allowing this museum to put itself out to the rest of the country to create these partnerships? Is it one that is sincere and provides the money for all these museums across the country to share in the history of this country? How will the operations of the museum go forward under this new title? In other words, I do not want this to be simply a rebranding exercise.

I sincerely hope that what he is saying tonight is that he wants to put this museum to the rest of the country and tell a story that is sincere, that is right, but that also has curatorial independence. Are we going to display this to the nation for 2017 and have it be a gem in North America? Is this going to be the case? How is it going to be that with the money he is investing?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. I do agree with my colleague's sincerity and genuine curiosity that this be done right.

First of all, the $25 million will be invested for physical renovations within the museum and also to do the reaching out that he describes. Second, this was an item in budget 2012, but it was not a high profile item.

We have in this country what is called the indemnification program, which is exactly what it sounds like. Over the years, the Government of Canada has had exposure liability of $1.5 billion per year to indemnify artifacts coming into the country and moving within the country. Typically in a calendar year that $1.5 billion is consumed in the first four or five months, and it is usually the large institutions that have access to it. These are institutions like ROM and Glenbow, and other institutions around the country. In budget 2012, which has already passed, we doubled the indemnification fund, from $1.5 to $3 billion per year.

The funding is there. There is $25 million to improve the institution here in the national capital, and there is the indemnification fund that local museums can tap into. If one thinks about what that means for local museums, there is no cost to them. They sign an MOU, become part of this national network, have access to the three and a half million items in the collection, 90% of which are in storage, apply for funding in the indemnification program and host items for the national museum locally.

In a sense, this is all about greasing the skids so we can get stuff moving around the country and local museums can have access to this. Most importantly, it is so local museums can tell narratives that are important to local communities. If they want to do narratives on women in sport or great Canadian scientists or great artists in this country, they can have access to the 13,000 items that are just sitting in the art bank right now. I saw it last night. They can access these things and have them in museums. They can have school kids going through their museum in off hours when the public is not there during early exhibits. They can breathe new life into fundraising for local museums.

That is what we are trying to do. The money is there. The independence is there. It is up to local museums to decide their local narratives and to have access to this bank. This is a good project and it is an important one. That is why, as I said, every museum association in this country has supported this initiative. Every historian we have talked to supports this initiative. Every single editorial, from the Toronto Star to the National Post to Maclean's magazine, has endorsed the bill and endorsed this proposal because they see it as something that is good for this country.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted to hear tonight about the plans to move forward. I had the opportunity within the last month to visit the Museum of Civilization and then to visit a little museum in Clinton, British Columbia, which had an amazing collection from the gold rush times. It was quite a delight to tour this very small museum.

I would like to hear more from the minister in terms of how he perceives that these will knit together. We heard about the opportunity for small museums to bring collection items one way. Will there also be an opportunity to have more of a two-way, and that also includes things like the Japanese camp he acknowledged in his comments regarding Midway? Will there be a bit more back and forth with this plan?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have spoken about with Mark O'Neill, who is the current president of the Museum of Civilization, is an idea to have all partner museums across the country, all those who sign an MOU—the CFOs, the board chairs, the presidents—come to Ottawa to talk about best practices, and to maybe talk about collectively having better curatorial services, working together on ideas to digitize their content and make it more available online. It is not just about partnerships between the national museum and local museums, but partnerships between local museums as well.

We would be surprised at some of the collections in these museums, as the member has referred to about the museum in Clinton. I have seen some incredible collections of remarkable things in museums all across this country. When we have the privilege, as I have had, to visit these museums, we find some real gems across this country. However, we also realize that some of these gems have become stagnant in local museums because they have been there for a long time. We want to breathe new life into our museums, allow them to have collections from other museums in the country, to draw from the national museum, and give all of them new life, new energy and new stories to tell, as they choose them, not as Ottawa chooses them.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening, a number of members have noted the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages's profound conviction when it comes to this bill. Unfortunately, it is strictly because we do not trust the Conservatives that the bill cannot be passed.

Today, I would like to bring the House's attention to some basic contradictions, which are typical of a government that wants to create a Canadian museum of history. It says it is interested in the country's history and wants to celebrate it and make the public more aware of it.

I want to mention something worrisome. This government has done more to hinder people's knowledge and understanding of Canadian history and to undermine research into our history than any other government. It should listen to the historians, archeologists, archivists, anthropologists and ethnologists, all the experts on our history.

This evening, I am not pulling this observation out of a hat, nor am I making it up just for fun. I made this observation after listening to experts on our history, in other words, people who help us learn more about our past. These experts dig into our past in order to better understand it so that we can, too.

These professionals, researchers and experts have told my colleagues and me that their field is in worse shape than ever before. They say that highway robbery masquerading as budget cuts, combined with the federal government's constant, dubious meddling in their affairs, their profession and their field of research, will have lingering negative effects on the work and research that help us understand our history better.

Everything this government does is rife with contradiction. On the one hand, it is so proud of creating a history museum to supposedly improve knowledge of history, but on the other, it is attacking all of the federal institutions that have been preserving, protecting and raising awareness of our history for over a century.

For example, Parks Canada is responsible for maintaining 167 national historic sites, places worthy of preservation because they are historically significant. Parks Canada looks after Canada's world heritage sites. Expert archeologists have helped the agency unearth artifacts from the past, identify them and explain why they are historically relevant. I am delighted to say that there is an archeologist among us today, the member for Hochelaga.

Curators—not Conservatives, mind you, but people who actually care about history—have also helped Parks Canada through their curatorial work. I apologize to the translators for my play on words, which is not translatable.

The Conservatives decided to lay off over 80% of the archeologists and curators who take care of our historic sites and preserve our precious artifacts. There are now only about 10 archeologists working for Parks Canada across the country in all of our national parks, national historic sites and world heritage sites. I should point out that world heritage site status is not a given; UNESCO can revoke that status at any time.

Tonight, the government has the gall to tell us that it wants to promote history even though it is abandoning fragile historic sites across the country. The same government is planning to remove carefully preserved artifacts from Parks Canada's regional facilities. For example, a large collection of artifacts dating back to the days of New France is currently housed in Quebec City. The government is planning to uproot the collection from its home and put it in storage in Ottawa.

That is what the government, which supposedly wants to make history more accessible and more widely known, is really doing.

Conservatives say they are interested in history, but Canadians are not interested in what they say. They want to know what the government is doing. Conservatives like to say they are interested in history but, in reality, they continue to destroy every single federal public institution that is responsible for protecting our history. They have not only destroyed Parks Canada, which is responsible for protecting our 167 national historic sites, as well as Canada's world heritage sites, they have destroyed Library and Archives Canada--we know that, we heard a lot last week--an institution that has been the guardian of Canada's archives for 140 years, both as the national archives and as a national library.

Library and Archives experts, archivists, professional librarians and others are recognized and admired around the world for their work. A few years ago, Library and Archives Canada was an exciting place for those researchers of our history to be. Some people here will remember that there were always exhibitions about Canadian history open to the public on the ground floor of Library and Archives Canada just a few years ago.

Who closed those exhibition halls? The Conservatives did.

Who cut millions of dollars from research and preservation of Canadian history? The Conservatives did.

Who laid off hundreds of archivists, librarians, digitization experts, historians and professionals at Library and Archives Canada? These guys again.

Who destroyed programs such as the national archival development program that supported small communities all over Canada to create their own local community archives, a program that allowed Library and Archives Canada to accomplish an essential part of its mandate? These guys.

Who almost put a complete stop to the acquisition of historic documents and artifacts by cutting Library and Archives Canada's $1 million budget to $12,000 a year? They allowed irreplaceable manuscripts, relics of our history, to slip through our fingers and be purchased by auction houses and unscrupulous speculators and exported to shady warehouses in the United States. Who is responsible for this loss, this drain on our priceless cultural heritage? Who else but these guys, the Conservatives.

After the serious damage they have caused, no one would dare say that the Conservatives care about history. That is hogwash. On the contrary, the contradiction is obvious. The Conservatives are not at all interested in the history of Canada or all of the work that goes into the difficult research required to explain our history. The Conservatives are only interested in spectacular and superficial things, such as seeing a wax replica of John Diefenbaker, cutting a ribbon or walking down a sparkling, somewhat cheap red carpet that a person could trip on. They think that, by supporting anything glitzy and glamourous, they are supporting and preserving history. That is very unfortunate for those who know something about history.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the specific changes set out in Bill C-49. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an institution that has existed in one form or another for almost 150 years. Its collections existed even before Confederation. The museum has a mandate that, for 30 years, has allowed it to be independent and to truly become a world-renowned institution, as well as an important economic driver for the Outaouais region, where it provides many jobs and attracts a large number of visitors.

I would like to read the Museum of Civilization's current mandate. It is important to remember this mission, which has been key to the museum's success for years.

The purpose 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 [I would like to place special emphasis on 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.

The Conservative government, which never wants to jump in when it is needed, but is always prepared to interfere when its help is not wanted, wants to scrap that and replace it with the following:

...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.

What is the main difference between these two mandates? The words “critical understanding” were eliminated. The government seems to have an aversion to the word “critical”. What a scary word. The museum will no longer have the mandate to share its wealth of knowledge with the rest of the world. It will no longer be mandated to carry out its work “throughout Canada and internationally”. The museum will now be interested only in local issues.

I imagine that the Outaouais tourism industry will have something to say about that. Gone are the human cultural achievements and human behaviour. That was part of the museum's mandate, but we are apparently no longer interested in humanity. The government wants the museum to deal specifically with Canadian history and identity, a rather simplistic formula.

Here is what is most alarming: the museum's mandate no longer includes the obligation to maintain collections and conduct research. The Canadian Museum of Civilization was, above all, a museum of collections and researchers. This public institution dates back to 1856. It was initially a place where the Geological Survey of Canada could present its collections. It became a place for anthropologists, ethnologists, geographers and linguists. The museum's entire history is made up of research and collections.

In deciding to change the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the government is casting aside more than 150 years of collections and research tradition. The government is contradicting itself when it claims to care about history but then quashes the work of experts, which is a necessary part of our history.

At this time, over half of the resources at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau have already been assigned to Canadian history. That is why we wonder about the government's real intentions. We are not going to be impressed by a $25 million cheque. The government is sending one single cheque to the museum, usable only once, while tasking it with dismantling and rebuilding such exhibits as the wonderful Canada Hall, which took 20 years to build. This is a renovation project of epic proportions.

Even worse, $1 million has already been committed. A total of $500,000 will be required just for the administrative costs of the change, but $400,000 has already been spent on round tables and Post-it notes, not to mention the promotional materials for the new museum that are already being distributed, even though Parliament has barely started studying the bill.

The reality is that the museum's heavy load and limited resources have forced it to lay off some of its staff. Two weeks ago, the museum cut 14 positions for budgetary reasons. This may well turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg, now that the government is trying to shift the museum's mandate away from its obligations to conduct research and maintain its collections.

In reality, the government is interfering and reshaping the museum because it fancies itself a museum expert. The government, perhaps despite itself, is taking part in the history debates that are raging in academia. The government—a bit naively, I might add—is wading into an academic debate because it wants to abandon the social and material approach to history that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is known for, in particular because of its stunning and spectacular depiction of Canada's history. Those are the very exhibits that the government is proposing to dismantle.

The government is proposing a generic narrative for our history. It wants something linear, something based on the tales of heroes and prominent figures, on biographies, monarchs, colonizers, missionaries, dates and monuments. That approach marginalizes the stories and life experiences of the individuals and groups who anonymously built our country's history from the ground up.

That approach marginalizes the events that make up and underpin our history. Those events cannot be summed up in a date or a famous face or in a museum devoted only to heroes and battlefields. It gives the impression that the government is not looking to create a history museum, but a wax museum.

As New Democrats, we respectfully ask the government to stop acting like a museum expert at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Archivists have repeatedly suggested that the toxic and disastrous head of Library and Archives Canada, Daniel Caron, stop pretending to be an expert in digitizing archives—as he has done at several international conferences—when he is neither an archivist nor a librarian. Similarly, we are asking the government to stop doing the work that experts know how to do and can do better.

Governments should not be deciding what is in our museums. This seems like a pretty obvious principle. Apparently, there are a few libertarians on the government benches; despite the government spending like there is no tomorrow, they have been pretty discreet. However, they might agree with what I am suggesting, that the content of museums should be left up to the experts and professionals; to historians, archivists, ethnologists and curators; to conservators, anthropologists and the people who do the research and the hard work to help us understand our history. The government and we as legislators have no place in determining the content or the orientation of a national publicly funded museum.

I am relying on the words of the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he announced at the heritage committee that in fact he had been planning this new museum himself since at least May 2011. We know that the minister has been a regular visitor at the Museum of Civilization and he was a regular visitor at the Canadian War Museum. Clearly, this does not come from the Museum of Civilization's ethnologists. Clearly, none of the curators at the museum suddenly decided that they were missing Maurice Richard's hockey jersey. Clearly, what happened was that people high up decided to toy with our most important national museum.

This is a completely backwards plan. Instead of listening to the many experts, museum specialists, historians and professionals at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and elsewhere in Canada, instead of consulting first and then moving forward, the government chose to do things its own way and then see what happens.

According to the minister himself, he has been planning this Canadian museum of history since at least May 2011. To hear him talk, it is as though he were building miniature models of the museum in his basement, unbeknownst to everyone or even to the museum.

First the museum consulted with people in the field and then it took the consultations public across Canada. These were held in half-empty rooms or shopping malls, between the Walmart and the hardware store, where shoppers were invited to put colour coded Post-it notes on images of Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Roberta Bondar.

This is no joke. It is true. We asked the minister who he consulted. What interest group, what professional association and, most of all, which first nation and what delegation of Metis and Inuit did he and the museum consult? The minister's answer was a non-response. He said that they proceeded with consultations, but he failed to tell us who they consulted. We did not get an answer.

This lack of transparency occurred on this side of the river, here in Parliament.

We spent months in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage listening to talk of Canada's 150th anniversary. How is it that there was never any mention of this museum plan, when it was in the cards and being prepared all along, and now we are told that it is being planned to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation?

The official opposition is calling on the government to leave it to the experts to decide the content and direction of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, to listen to and consult with the public, and to invite and listen to the representatives of countless professions whose job it is to survey and enhance our knowledge of history.

We also note the predominance of this government's troubling, detrimental and dubious desire to intervene and obliquely meddle in Canadian history and to rewrite our history.

The Conservatives may find it effective and advantageous, for election purposes, to eliminate all traces of peacekeepers and replace them with Laura Secords who run through the forest, but they have no mandate to revise history. No party is mandated to reinterpret and revise history.

We are asking that our history be more than just instances of official commemoration chosen by the government. It must be a window into the past that belongs to all of us, and it should reflect our many complex and multi-faceted journeys, including the history of the black Loyalists, the Winnipeg unionists in the early 20th century, the creators and pioneers of the National Film Board, the War Measures Act and the deportation of the Acadians.

We reject this government's troubling, detrimental and dubious desire to intervene and to meddle once again. We reject the government's tampering with history. That is exactly what hundreds of thousands of Canadians have told us in recent weeks. Having seen the carnage at Parks Canada, Library and Archives Canada and now the Canadian Museum of Civilization, thousands of citizens have signed and are continuing to sign an on-line petition stating that they are fed up with the interference in and rewriting of history.

We are calling on the government to restore funding and stop interfering in federal organizations responsible for preserving and protecting our history. That was their responsibility long before the Conservatives took an interest in the matter.

This evening, we are asking the Conservatives to show that they care about history. They should prove that they are passionate about the past by not interfering with the work of historians and various experts who contribute to our understanding of history. Above all, they must stop gutting the public institutions that promote and preserve our history.

I would like to conclude by moving the following motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to 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, because it:

(a) represents the government’s interference in Canadian history and its attacks on research and the federal institutions that preserve and promote history such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada;

(b) transforms the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the most popular museum in Canada, to give a secondary role to temporary exhibits on world cultures, when it is precisely these exhibits that make it a major tourist attraction, an economic driver and a job creator for the national capital region;

(c) removes research and collection development from the mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, although the Museum is an internationally renowned centre of research;

(d) puts forward a monolithic approach to history that could potentially exclude the experiences of women, francophones, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and marginalized groups;

(e) was developed in absolute secrecy and without substantial consultations with experts, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, Canadians and key regional players;

(f) attacks a winning formula at the expense of Canadian taxpayers; and

(g) does not propose any measure to enhance the Museum’s independence and thereby opens the door to potential interference by the minister and the government in determining the content of Museum exhibits, although this should be left to experts.”

I would like to take this opportunity to say that this motion is seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is often disappointing to listen to the member. He speaks to the very narrow vision of history that the NDP members have.

I know that to this member maybe Laura Secord is not important, but she is important to a lot of Canadians. Canada's achievements in World War I and World War II might not necessarily be important to that member and the members on that side, but they are important to many Canadians, and many Canadians want to hear more about them.

He talked about territorial independence. Clearly, he has not read the Museums Act, because had he read it, he would have seen that it is actually guaranteed. He talked about the fact that international exhibits will not be a part of this. He has not actually read the bill, because if he had, he would have read that it may “organize, sponsor, arrange for or participate in travelling exhibitions, in Canada and internationally, of museum material in its collection and from other sources”. It is right in there.

Members opposite have also had the opportunity to vote, since 2006, in favour of $142 million worth of new investments for our museums, and consistently they have voted against, every single time.

Here we have another $25 million investment for another museum, and again they are saying they will not vote in favour of that. It speaks to the NDP's narrow vision. Anything NDP members want is something all Canadians should want, but if we do not agree with what they want, then everybody else must be wrong. That is not how we have built this country.

There are some three million artifacts in storage in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I wonder if the hon. member would at least agree with me that it is important to bring those artifacts out and to involve museums across this country, small and large, so that all Canadians in all provinces and territories can have access to them. Would he agree it is important that all Canadians have better access to their history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question anyway.

As I said when I answered our colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the plan to create a cross-Canada network of museums may actually be a good one. The committee organizing Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations talked about that.

The problem is not the trailer; it is the car.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He really put things in perspective this evening.

I, myself, am from Quebec City, where all of the people in the archeology unit, all 43 of them, were laid off. In addition, the government is planning to relocate five million artifacts from Quebec City to Gatineau. I have a hard time believing the goal is to get them into more museums. That does not make sense.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. I get the sense that the government wants to take Canada's history out of its global context and focus on something overly local.

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

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

The member opposite says that we do not like Laura Secord and that we do not think she is important. That is pathetic, and it is not true. As I said, the vast majority of Canadians believe that the Conservatives have gone too far in their attempts to erase all traces of the blue berets and replace them with pictures of Laura Secord running through the woods. I am sorry, but the Conservatives are putting more emphasis on one event in particular than clients want them to. That was important to everyone, even to us.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Colleagues, ask me the question properly without any heckling. That said, I agree with you. It is unfortunate, because good initiatives are often viewed with some skepticism.

Now we are facing this head-on. The bill could have brought us all together, but it was introduced by people who care more about propaganda and editorializing, and that is not okay.

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

Mr. Speaker, you have previously admonished the member about the way he addresses the members of the House. He often speaks to members opposite in the second person. He should always address the Chair and never use the second person. This is how we can keep a civil discourse and debate in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, as I keep repeating in the House, members must direct their comments to the Chair and not to the other members.

The hon. member forWellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a quick comment.

I do not support the hon. member's amendment. However, I do support the government's bill. I think it is a good idea to create a new museum. This is part of the museum's natural evolution in Canada.

In fact, this is the fifth iteration of this museum. This museum started off in 1856, with the Geological Survey of Canada. In 1910, it went into its second iteration as the National Museum.

In 1968, it was known as the National Museum of Man. Later, in 1986, it became the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Now, we have the fifth iteration of this museum in Canada.

I think it is a natural evolution, as we approach our 150th anniversary, to refocus this museum, along with new investments, on the very important history of this country. It is a wonderful project the government has initiated in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would remind my colleague opposite that I hold him and his contributions, even those he made tonight, in high regard. Nevertheless I would just ask him this.

Given what we see today in the news about this government, would he really trust it? I do not think so.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher a question.

Does he know how the content for a museum is chosen? Does he know whether it is done by museum experts? For example, could the government override a museum director and decide what a museum should exhibit? I would like the hon. member to answer these questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Obviously, there are qualified people who do this, but there are also people who are put in place.

Am I really being asked to list the individuals appointed by the people opposite to run various institutions like this one, who unfortunately have not made good choices and who clearly were following an editorial line?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the minister for his thoughtful comments, particularly the focus on the national network of history. I know the Bowmanville Museum, the Scugog Shores Museum and the Lucy Maud Montgomery museum in Uxbridge would be happy to be part of this national network to share our stories as a country.

My question to the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher is this. There is a museum in or around his riding called Musée de la Femme. What is he going to say to the board members of that museum when he tells them that he does not feel it is important to share their stories in Ottawa and to share some of our artifacts that are in storage in Longueuil? I would suggest it is a narrow vision and I would like to hear what he will tell that museum.

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

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

I will tell them what I have already said. I hope that the New Democratic Party will be in power in 2015 and that it will have the time to set up something like an inter-museum pass. For the Longueuil women's museum, for example, it would be good to sell a pass for Canada's 150th anniversary, and the museum could keep a portion of the proceeds for administration.

The museum network idea is a very good one. It came out of our study on Canada's 150th anniversary, and there was consensus on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout this evening I have heard this debate, as well as in the last nine years of being here. I have been on the heritage committee since 2005 and I have heard many stories about museums, about curators, about how we deal with history across this nation. I look across the way and see my hon. colleague from Stratford—

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

The Yukon.

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

Relax, you are not there yet.

I was talking about—

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Now you are in trouble.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will say this to the chamber. All the occupants of this chair do not want to engage in the debate. We want the comments and questions directed to the Chair in a neutral way and not to other members in the House. We do not want to have to respond to “you” and “he”. We want to be told directly what members' positions are, and nothing more. We do not want to be engaged in it.

Everybody has done it this evening. There has not been one member on his or her feet this evening who has not breached the rule. I would ask all members to pay attention and direct their comments to the Chair only.

The hon. member for Yukon on a point of order.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in defence of my colleague, that I think I baited him into making a direct comment to me. For that, I apologize both to the House and my hon. colleague across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue by thanking my hon. colleague from Yukon for his graceful intervention.

I mentioned my hon. colleague from Stratford, who was the chair of the heritage committee for quite some time, and he spoke eloquently about museums and what museums are all about. I am glad he is here this evening. On many occasions, he has spoken about the importance of the history that is being told in front of us. Whether it is Stratford, Bunyan's Cove, Gander, Vancouver or Ottawa, which is germane to what we are talking about today, it is by far the most important element of what we talk about when we talk about our history.

Our history is the absolute reflection of who we are as Canadians. I have heard from the minister and the critic from the official opposition, and I find myself in the middle of debate on many occasions trying to figure out how we are going to deal with the context we are going to put this museum in.

I have the utmost respect for the Museum of Civilization and what it has accomplished over the years. As my hon. colleague pointed out earlier, it was the Museum of Man, which later became the Museum of Civilization and so on. That is the important question. Do we take that next step and call this the Canadian museum of history in conjunction with our 150-year celebration in 2017?

On several fronts, there are points to talk about. One, should this museum, this institution, share itself with the rest of the country? Absolutely. It should share itself with the virtues that have been put on this nation by places like Stratford, Yukon or every little town in Quebec.

Cities in Quebec as well. It is very important to all of Canada, not just to one region of this country, but to all of them. It is for Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

[James Lunney]

Vancouver Island.

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

Sorry, Vancouver Island.

I want to say to my colleagues that what has been put forward so far in the debate, as we have heard in two substantial speeches, is that as Canadians we want to illustrate the history of this country, and we want to do it not just from a national narrative. We all cheered in 1980, when Terry Fox ran across this country. He made it to Thunder Bay. There was not one dry eye in this country looking at Terry Fox on that stretcher in northern Ontario as he wept because he could not make it. In fact, from northern Ontario right to B.C., every Canadian in this country completed that course for him.

In addition, we can look at every hallmark in this country with a sense of pride, whether it was winning the gold medals in the Olympics or the events that mark us as Canadians, such as the recent marking of the War of 1812. A great deal has been brought forward to this country in the celebration of the War of 1812, which we should look at.

Now, here is the problem. We get into the debate about whether we should have spent $35 million to do that. We have done it. I am not sure if that was the right dollar amount to do it, but it was certainly worth marking. There are many aspects in this debate regarding Canadian history, and there are many hallmarks and many monuments in this country.

Whether it is the big wooden moose that stands in Goobies, Newfoundland and Labrador, or whether it is the large nickel in Sudbury, these are the hallmarks of our country. We need to look at every aspect of the country, not just for the national narrative but the local narrative as well.

One of the most popular exhibitions in my riding is in Botwood, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is called the snowmobile. It actually has old snowmobiles there from the 1960s and 1970s. Most of them, by the way, are from Bombardier, a Quebec company. When people of Newfoundland and Labrador look at this one snowmobile from Bombardier, they look at it as a hallmark of what is Canadian. It is not just the fact that their grandfather may have ridden on it, but the fact that it is a Canadian hallmark, and the reason it exists in that particular institution is that the person who runs that museum decided that it was worth putting on display.

I think that is the essence of this debate, and I ask my colleagues to come together for this most important issue, which is that the person who runs the shop decides what is displayed because he or she knows more than any of us what Canadian history is and what displays it.

What is a curator? A curator is not just a fancy title for someone who has a degree from a certain institution; a curator is someone who knows the history of our country and, more importantly, knows how to display it. If we take an institution like the Museum of Civilization and tell the next generation that this is a Canadian museum of history, similar to what exists in nations such as the United States of America or Germany or other nations, then we must make sure that the curators and the experts know exactly what goes on display.

In essence, I ask the government if this is the case. Do we now have a museum that has risen from the bottom up? The minister made an eloquent speech about how we display the history of our country; do we look at this and ask the men and women who work each and every day in the field of history if they have told the country that this is what is on display?

It is not just about the history of what was the Dominion of Newfoundland. That is right. We had our own currency in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have our own encyclopedia. My goodness, we even have our own dictionary, and it is a good read, I might add.

The thing is, each and every region of our country displays its history in the way it knows best, so I am excited to hear that the Canadian museum of history is going to share in a partnership across the country to display history exhibits. I hope the minister is sincere when he says that we will create a bona fide partnership. He talked about indemnification, and I sincerely hope and suspect that what he is telling me is correct when he says that the indemnification he is talking about would allow the smallest of museums to participate in exactly the narrative that the Canadian museum of history is about to embark upon.

How do we celebrate 150 years of Canada when it is the second-largest country in the world? There are millions and millions of square hectares in a place that has its own particular nuance in the way it tells its history.

I am a big fan of CBC/Radio Canada, because it tells the story and the narrative of our country.

I love to hear about how some of the greatest organs of this world in the greatest churches of this world were created in Quebec. How does that happen? It happens in a country like this but the story has to be told not just to the province of Quebec but has to be told to the country. There is an equal amount of pride shown in the smallest community of British Columbia and the smallest community of Newfoundland and Labrador that Quebec has an incredible rich history of new France, of how it has developed some of the greatest churches in the world and how it has developed some of the greatest church organs in the world. How do we put that on display? We put it on display when we have a collective, when we have the same attitude and opinion from coast to coast to coast that shows us that it is worth illustrating.

There are certain things that cause me concern. There was a motion within the heritage committee that wanted to study the historical hallmarks of this country, which I agree should be looked at. Why not? However, the motion itself was overly prescriptive in how it would conduct itself.

If I were to ask members what is the most historical and greatest landmark of this country, the greatest hallmark that defines what is Canada, someone would say the War of 1812, the next person would say it was the hockey series of 1972 or it was when Terry Fox decided that his run was over and we decided to carry on that run for him.

Here we go. We define ourselves in all the historical landmarks that we have and we depend upon the experts in the field. I sincerely hope that what the minister has told us tonight is what will be done in the next little while. I sincerely hope that he will be open to looking at this legislation to amend it to say there needs to be a review. How do the institutions of this country, and certainly of this city, the national institutions, whether it is the War Museum, whether it is the Museum of Civilization, which it is right now, conduct themselves every few years from now? They are Crown agencies. They are products of the government but yet they have to exercise their independence.

My colleague is right in the fact that we have to exercise our independence. I am sorry if we are being looked at as being skeptical but why not? Why not be skeptical? We want the independence from the particular government of the day. I do not care what colour it is or what party it is, it has to be done. We are looking to the government and telling it to prove to us that the independence is there.

I heard the minister and the sincerity with which he speaks. I have known him for quite some time and I hope he is correct and right by saying that he wants this institution to be as independent as it always has been and perhaps even more independent than it was before.

He listed several experts and several institutions that like what is going on. As my hon. colleague said, there are institutions that do not like what is going on.

However, I will say this. I am proud of the fact that we are here debating in an honest and earnest manner, such as my colleague from Stratford did as chair of the heritage committee. He spoke so eloquently, not about his party's position on museums but museums themselves, and not so much about who is telling the story but about the story itself. We need to do this from here to eternity. This country, the G8, the G20, there is a reason why we punch above our weight.

It is because we deserve it. It is because our history dictates that we deserve to be at every major table in this world, on this globe. It is not because of us here today. All of us in this House, all 308, stand on the shoulders of the people who brought us to this institution. This House of Commons, in and of itself, is an historical monument. We brought ourselves here on the shoulders of others, no matter what our party.

I come from a riding that was represented for 27 years by a man named George Baker, a current senator. Many other members can say that they came in here after hon. members who spoke about the very same thing as we are today. Yes, it is the issue of the day, but every issue of the day brought into this House was brought forward by an issue that happened yesterday. We managed to build one of the greatest democracies in the world because of that.

I am not saying that we should start a new museum right here in and of itself. Goodness knows, I would love to joke about the Senate at this point, but I will not—I am sorry, to my colleagues—because it is apropos of the day.

However, I will say this. Let us go forward in this debate and make something that is a valid institution. Let us face it, if we make this museum-to-be the Canadian museum of history, not the museum of Canadian history, then we have a gem to offer to the world. This is not just about an exercise in rebranding. This is about offering a gem to the world that tourists will see. I think that if people come here from, let us say, Asia or Europe, as opposed to saying, “I want to go see the Museum of Civilization”, they might just say, “I want to go see the Canadian museum of history”.

Now, I throw that out there, but I can only throw that out there if the independence of this institution is maintained. We have a lot to celebrate in our 150-year celebration.

I will end on this. In 1949, my grandfather campaigned for Newfoundland and Labrador to be independent. That is right. He said “no” to Canada. He has passed away. I stand here today in this House and I wonder what he would say at this point. He was not a big fan. However, I want to prove to him that Newfoundland and Labrador has found itself a home.

Can Canada find a home in this, what is to be the Canadian museum of history, I ask members?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time my colleague put into gathering his thoughts and making an intervention on the museum, but this is not a small project. It is a large project. It is a $25-million investment in the museum itself. We are talking about building a national infrastructure. I was saying to the leader of the Green Party a minute ago that this museum has an annual budget from this Parliament of $57 million a year. One-third of that money goes to research. This is a research museum that reaches out to people across the country. This is a museum that does more than just tell these stories, so it is an important project.

I will give my colleague two points on the point he raised in the last half of his speech about the independence of the museum.

First, as was pointed out by my parliamentary secretary, the Museums Act prescribes that. When the Liberals created the War Museum, there was a great deal of controversy. If the member will remember, it had Hitler's car, and that was a great source of debate. There were many Canadians who thought it was offensive or inappropriate. It was not part of our Canadian narrative. Jewish Canadians found it offensive that it was used entice people to come to the museum. There was a great controversy. The Liberal government of the day was frustrated, but on the other hand relieved, that this was a debate to be had at the museum. The museum officials struggled with it, as Jack Granatstein pointed out in his book Who Killed Canadian History?, but it was an important debate about the Canadian history narrative and the Second World War, how to tell that story, what kind of language to use and those kinds of debates. They happen all the time. The government of the day could not interfere with the museum in that very touchy debate at the time because of the Museums Act, and that is a great thing. Let the museum officials figure these things out. Let them debate them. Let them make mistakes and figure it out and tell these narratives and move forward.

Second, on the issue of independence, specifically with this museum, he would note, and some people have noted as well, that the name we have put forward is the Canadian Museum of History, not the Museum of Canadian History. There is a particular reason we chose that language. It is because Canadian history does not begin in 1867. There are our first peoples, the north, and aboriginal Canadians. Canadian history does not begin in 1867. We have been precise in talking to people about how to actually name this museum in a way that is inclusive of all of the narratives of those who today call themselves Canadian. The amendment and the legislation talk about broadening the discussion on this, within a Canadian lens, and not assuming that for all Canadians their sense of belonging to what is now Canada begins in 1867. We chose that language deliberately, again, to give the museum the independence to design their narrative such that it is not just the political one that begins with the Constitution Act of 1867. We are being very deliberate about this to—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order please. The hon. minister has used up more than 30% of the time allotted for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, if he wants to reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was enjoying that, actually.

I want to thank the minister. He talked about what happened in the case of Hitler's car. I have been there, and I have seen it. It is funny that the minister pointed that out, because I remember at the time being surprised that it was there, because I was sure that it would have raised the hackles of many. However, the fact is that it is a part of history that we need to illustrate in this country and around the world. I agree with him.

I sincerely hope that this curatorial independence is maintained. Some of the people said that some of the language has been changed. They talked about whether this is a critical way of looking at this, and I hope to propose amendments that look at this as well.

Maybe this is a debate that will stand up to the test of time. Maybe we can take this debate on how we do this into other museums,

He mentioned the War Museum, brought forward by us several years ago. I stress that I would not want this bill to be overly prescriptive in how we tell the story about who we are.

We have a major hallmark coming, which is the sesquicentennial. The fact that I have pronounced it at this hour of the night is actually quite stellar, but nonetheless I have. The sesquicentennial is coming up. I would hope that the arm's length attitude the minister has will be maintained. I hope that we will see something like an agency come forward to talk about this 150-year celebration, but right now we have to deal with this, which is, as he points out, the Canadian museum of history. I hope that exhibitions from around the world, such as exhibitions from the Middle East, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and these sorts of things will be maintained in this particular institution. I hope that will be fleshed out during this debate.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the romance between the Conservatives and the Liberals tonight. It is a sight to behold. It is full of amnesia and falsities.

We have the look at this in the context of the government of the day and its behaviour on all manner of files. We have a government that somehow cannot find $3.1 billion. We have a museum here, and with the snap of the fingers, the minister found $25 million. He could not tell the House where the money came from. I do not know if it was in his motorcycle satchel or under his mattress.

This is the way the government deals. I listened to my hon. colleague's soliloquy and his ode to the Minister of Canadian Heritage with quite a lot of interest. I wonder how the member can separate the actions of a government that misplaces $3.1 billion, that spends $1 million renaming a museum, which by all accounts was the most successful museum in the capital region, and then magically finds $25 million to spend on it, when we have people on affordable housing waiting lists and all manner of living conditions we need to fix.

How can the member say in the House that this is a fantastic idea and that he hopes this new museum will have the independence the government never, ever displays a willingness to accord to the agencies of the government that are supposed to be third-party?

I would argue that the member is being a little naive in this instance. I would like his comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member earlier, I have been on the heritage committee for several years now. I have seen it all.

The hon. member talks about naiveté, and that is fine. That is all right. However, I will not stand here and be lectured about what is an actual discussion in this House before the discussion actually takes place.

If the member is such an expert, if he is such a person who decides what is going to be within a particular institution, why would he be so prescriptive? If the member argues that the government is being so prescriptive, why is he being so prescriptive himself?

I understand the member's concern. I understand where he is coming from in having certain trepidations about what is going to be told to us about the history of this country. The member can make a choice. He can either go one way, which is to say that he will listen and debate, or go a second way, which is to close this off completely. Honestly, I am not sure what the alternative is to displaying what is Canadian in light of what is a celebration of 150 years.

Now I agree with the member that no doubt the motion that came from the committee was overly prescriptive. Yes, it was, in many ways. Are we willing to engage in debate about the narrative of this country, or are we not? Do we stand here in this House and actually debate, or do we close down debate and say that we do not want to hear exactly what they have to say and that we want to stand here and just throw out talking points or absolute angst?

Members who are in opposition make a choice. They can either say to the people of this country that this is their opinion, and that is that, or they can say instead that they are going to raise the bar in this country. They are going to raise the bar in this House. They are going to raise the debate. They are going to ask questions. They are not going to cast out just opinions.

I have been here long enough, sir. I have been here long enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have some disagreement with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, but we have always had a good relationship in committee and when we have disagreed, we have been done that in a cordial way.

I am excited to speak about this legislation, but before I do I want to point out the extraordinary work of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I have only been here since 2008, but I have had the opportunity to be a student of politics and a student of our system and I am confident and secure in saying that he is the best Minister of Canadian Heritage that our country has ever had and I will tell the House why.

What the minister understands, and what previous ministers, including those who served on this side understand, is the importance of arts and culture to not only helping people around the world understand how great our country is, but understand that arts and culture is important to the country's economic growth, that it creates jobs and economic activity.

As a result of that, even when the country was going through one of the worst global economic downturns, this government made historic investments in arts and culture. When other G7 countries were reducing their funding, this government, through the leadership of the minister, was increasing funding to the Canada Council for the Arts to its highest level ever. We invested over $140 million in our national museums and we did that for a number of reasons. It is important that Canadians have access to their history and that they have pride in the institutions that are mandated to tell the stories of Canada. This is why we have made some of these important investments.

I have also heard from members of both official parties about the motion that was brought forward at committee. I want to speak briefly to that because it ties into this a bit. They talked about it being overly prescriptive. The motion actually says that we should talk about Canada and its history before Confederation and after Confederation. It says that we should talk about the 20th century and important developments in Canadian history. It referenced some important battles of World War I and World War II.

Why should we talk about that? We should talk about that because significant anniversaries of important battles in Canadian history are coming up for one. Second, there are still people in our country who can give us first-hand accounts of what they faced in battle. This is an opportunity to bring these people before committee before it is too late, hear their stories and celebrate them. It is not meant to be something like the end of it. If members were to read the whole motion, if they do honour to this place, they would talk about the entire motion. I know we will get co-operation.

We want to talk about the people, the places, the events, the things that have helped shape our country. Sometimes those things are good. Sometimes they are things we want to celebrate, things we want to commemorate, but there are instances when things were not good, but we need to remember them all the same. We talked about the internment of Japanese Canadians. We might not be proud of that part of our history, but it is important that we remember it. That is what we are talking about at committee.

We have heard a lot of people talk about how important it is that we go forward with this project. We have heard a lot of historians talk about how happy they are that we brought this initiative forward. We have seen over the last number of years, especially as we approach Canada's 150th birthday, a reawakening of Canadians' pride in their country, in their province and in their local communities. We have heard consistently that there is no way for them to share this pride in a tangible way across the country.

I want to share a story about something in my riding. About 200 metres from my home there was a discovery made in advance of a subdivision being built in the community, which changed entirely the way we think about our first nations, and there has been a documentary on this called the Curse of the Axe. We found, 200 metres from my home, a Wendat village.

Why is this important? It is because this village had 70 long houses. It was not a community of 10 or 12 houses as was first thought, but a city of 70 long houses. Thousands of people lived in this village and it completely changed the way we thought about these people in this area.

The excavators found that in order to support a village of this size the cornfields alone would have encompassed the entire city of Toronto. They found that these people engaged in trade with other nations, again changing what we thought about the relationships between our first nations at that time. It was revolutionary in how we thought of the Wendat nation.

There are no large communities of Wendat still in Ontario. They are now in Quebec. However, we had ambassadors from the Wendat nation come to my home town of Stouffville and they talked about how significant this find was for their people. They talked about how important it was that the rest of Canada and North America understood what they were doing, how they were doing it and how sophisticated they were. They were very proud of this.

We had the team that led the excavations come to our town a number of times and had displays of the Curse of the Axe. Hundreds of people from our community have come to learn about the local heritage that we just did not know about. Our own community was making headlines across North America. In the town of Stouffville, 200 metres from my front door, there was this amazing discovery. Now we have to find a way to make sure that all Canadians understand it so that we can update what people think of the Wendat and tell them how important and exciting this is.

The minister referenced Douglas Cardinal in his remarks. He said:

I love the fact that the museum keeps evolving and growing, and people still feel that it’s a national monument that can expand and serve all of Canada.

This is important because, although it has a long history, at one point the museum was called the Museum of Man. At the time, I suppose, that was okay. However, time moves on. As the member for Ottawa—Orléans points out, there was a time in this country when women were not even considered persons, but time moves on and we are better for it.

We changed the mandate of the Museum of Man, which became the Museum of Civilization. We got together and said that we had to do better and we did. The Museum of Civilization was brought forward and Canadians have been very excited about that. It has done a spectacular job. Canadians can now be as excited about the new museum of history as they had been about the Museum of Civilization, and for many different reasons.

It is a tragedy that over three million pieces or artifacts in the collection of the Museum of Civilization are in storage and not available for Canadians to see. It is a tragedy, especially when we have museums across this country that have made significant investments.

I look at my own community, the city of Markham, which has massive investments in its local museum. The people of Markham understand how important it is to preserve their local history, their culture. They have made massive investments. They are very excited about the prospect of a museum of history so they can share their collections with the national museum and so the people of Canada can understand just how important Markham was to the development of the GTA.

There are 40,000 people in my home town of Stouffville who poured millions of dollars into our museum. They did that for a number of reasons, predominantly because they knew it was a good investment for the community. They knew people wanted to know more about the history of our community, so they put more money into it. They did it also because so many people were coming, they needed to upgrade the facilities so they could host more people.

I looked at my own community. Last year we celebrated something called the Freedom of the Town for the Governor General's Horse Guards, a unit which, in part, has its history in the development of our community.

Even on that there was not complete agreement. There were people in the community who felt this celebration should not happen in because the community was founded by Mennonites, who did not necessarily support things like the war of 1812. We had fierce debate in the community, but ultimately we had the Freedom of the Town and thousands of people came out from our community to celebrate this historic unit.

However, that does not mean the people who disagreed with it were wrong. They disagreed. They talked about it. I may not necessarily have agreed with them, but they got their message out there. It shows just how exciting history can be when we present it to Canadians in a way they can debate, discuss and share. Then they can go to their local communities.

Think of what this could do to local communities across the country when they have the opportunity to see the last spike in their own little town. Think of what that would do for a local museum, the amount of people who would drive to that museum, the people who would be even more engaged to know about their communities and the things that have helped build our country.

Ultimately, we will always have disagreements in this place. It goes without saying. We are elected from different parties. We all have different attitudes on different things. I know full well that although we have different ideas, that all of us fight and argue, ultimately we are all very proud Canadians. We are all people who want to see our country prosper and do better. We also want to ensure that people around the world can understand what has made our country great. That is what this museum will help us do. That is one of the reasons why I am so proud and excited about this.

We also talked a bit in some of the speeches about the road to Canada's 150th birthday and why that was so important, the sesquicentennial, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs pointed out.

That is such an important time for Canada. It will be a time when we can showcase all the great things Canada has done. So many people came to us at committee and said that the 100th birthday of Canada was one of those remarkable things. Everybody talked about Canada's 100th birthday. I am almost jealous that I was not born then so I could have attended some of the 100th birthday celebrations.

We want to ensure Canada's 150th is the same. We want to really help Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand why they should be so proud of our country.

I had the opportunity to visit Yukon with the fabulous member for Yukon, and he took me to his local museum. That was my first visit to Canada's north. The pride he showed as he toured me around and showed me some of the important places in his community was something that all Canadians should know, yet not all Canadians can get to the north.

When I looked at the treasures and the collection in storage at that museum and when I heard the minister talk about the opportunities with the new Canadian museum of history, to share these collections so we could be proud of what we had accomplished, I thought this was an excellent opportunity.

We see upstairs in this place a display of the Franklin expedition. We saw the pride the Minister of Health had because something so important to her community was not being displayed just outside the offices of the Prime Minister. It was being displayed and celebrated in other areas of the world, such as Norway. I had the opportunity to meet with the ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway and to talk about how important this was, how Norwegians were celebrating and wanted to continue to make connections with the Minister of Health's home town. These are things we have to celebrate. These are things Canadians have to know.

I have had the opportunity, as I am sure a lot of parliamentarians have had, to go to Pier 21. My parents came to this country through Pier 21. It is a shame to me, and one of the saddest parts of my life, that neither one of my parents was alive to see me elected. To go back to Pier 21, where they arrived in Canada, and see my parents' names on the manifest of the boat that brought them to this country, to stand on the pier and look out over the exact place they came to, was truly amazing. It was a truly amazing moment for me, and not just me. Others were visiting Pier 21, and it was easy to know who was going back. I could see them standing there and looking around. I could see in their faces how honoured they were to be there and to be Canadians.

We have to celebrate these things and let other Canadians understand. That is why when I hear things about the Historica-Dominion Institute talking to our veterans, getting first-hand accounts and making them available, that makes me proud. It is also talking to people who came to this country through Pier 21 and getting their stories about what they faced when they came to Canada.

My parents came from Italy. My mother always told me that she was depressed for the first 10 years she was in Canada, because the winters were so harsh and the summer was only a time for her to fear what was coming in the winter. It was brutal for her. My father was a very proud Italian, but also a very proud Canadian. He did not understand hockey at all, but he cheered for it, because he knew it was what Canadians did. He could not understand any part of the game, and he always tried to relate it to soccer, but he was fiercely proud of his new country.

Sometimes it takes going somewhere else to realize just how lucky we are and just how special this country is. Going back to my parents' home town, when I was 14, although it was a beautiful place, made me realize how lucky I was to be here. It also awakened me to something then, even that far back. The many Italians who came to Canada did not know enough about Canada. We have all heard stories of tourists who come to Canada in July with skis on their cars thinking it is going to be snowing. We could do a better job.

There is no problem with members disagreeing in the House about history. That is good. Let us disagree. That is what history is all about. It is not our job to write the history books. That is not what we do. It is our job to be in this place, debate, and make sure other Canadians have access to that history. That is what this new Canadian museum of history would do, and that is why I am so excited.

It is not just about a $25-million investment that will update the museum, as the minister said, after many years. Displays have to be changed. It is not just about that $25-million investment. It is not about the $142 million we have already put into arts and culture and into our museums. It is about giving Canadians access to the things, people, places and events that have helped make this country the best country in the world in which to live. Regardless of how we feel about the policies of one another, we can all agree on that. Surely we can all agree on the fact that everybody, not just Canadians, deserves to understand what has made this country so great.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. Some of it was very touching, I have to say, and I would like to thank him for that. He does talk about how he wants to see Canadians have access to their history.

However, I am having a hard time squaring the circle of the minister's rhetoric on the one hand and the government's actions on the other, particularly with respect to the deep cuts in the arts and culture and heritage funds. We have had deep cuts at Library and Archives Canada. In fact, the interlibrary loan program at Library and Archives Canada, which allowed Canadians to have access to a treasure trove of books and documents, was cut by the government. That is no longer available.

How is the member saying on the one hand that he wants to see Canadians have access to Canadian history, when the government cut those institutions that protect, share and collect Canadian heritage to the bone?

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that everything the member said is actually wrong.

As I said in my opening, this government is one of the only countries that actually increased funding to arts and culture during the economic downtown. In fact, it was the only country in the G8 to do so. We increased funding. The Canada Council had the highest level of funding in its history. Even when other governments were cutting, we were investing more.

Over $140 million in new investments has gone to our museums. This project involves another $25 million worth of investments. We are seeing other organizations digitize their collections, including the National Film Board and Library and Archives Canada. It is important to digitize their collections so that other people can have access to those collections. It is not just for those who are here in Ottawa, but people from across the country.

That is what the Conservatives are doing, and we are proud of that. The fact is that the opposition has voted against every single increase to arts and culture that we have brought in.

Despite that, we are going to continue to do it. It is not only about Canadians and helping other people understand how great this country is; it creates jobs, economic growth and activity. We will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me dig into that question, with the greatest amount of respect, of course. God forbid that I should continue the romance.

The member did mention the Library and Archives. One of the programs in Library and Archives, the NADP, allowed local organizations to better tell their stories through digitization, but more importantly through the eyes of an archivist. People who did not have the individual talents to do this were given the ability by way of this particular program.

In essence, the NADP program at Library and Archives Canada was eliminated. On the other hand, we have what it takes to put the history of this country out to the rest of the country through this museum, but with regard to the actions, I am not so sure.

As for the NADP, is there a program on the way to replace that, or are we looking at the continuation of the local digitization being eliminated?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the opposition say it does not want us to make the decisions for independent organizations, so we are not going to do that. However, Library and Archives is going to be a very important partner in the new museum that we are creating here. They are going to be a very important partner in this, and that is why it is so important that we move forward with this museum.

It is not just about Library and Archives Canada. If we talk about the CBC and the National Film Board, they have amazing collections that they are making available to Canadians. I encourage all Canadians to get access to them and to look at some of the things they have preserved.

Library and Archives is going to be very important to this museum. We cannot have a museum like this without involving Library and Archives Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is important to discuss Canadian history. I am convinced that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is offering a genuine opportunity to energize our discussion of history, to do more to get collections out of storage. Although I share misgivings with some members of the opposition, I am prepared to support this bill, but I want to make sure that we put on the record through this debate that future governments and future members of Parliament can look at these debates and understand that someone like myself from the opposition benches supports this initiative but wants to make it very clear that the independence of the curators is enshrined in the legislation. We need to make it very clear that the role of women through our history and first nations through our history is not in any way politicized.

I am prepared to take that leap of faith based on what I see before me in the legislation, separate from all the other things, which the member for Davenport quite rightly points out. Some egregious things have been done in other departments by other ministers, but we are talking today about Bill C-49.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if he is prepared to join members of the opposition in understanding, given the record in other areas of loss of information, loss of Library and Archives, that we are now going to be prepared to take the leap of faith and support this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the leader of the Green Party for her support on the bill. As the minister said, the Museums Act guarantees curatorial independence of the museum.

One of the things I want to reference is the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussion of Canadian history. Part of that study was to make the debates of this place easier for Canadians to access. It is also an important part of history. Let us make the debates of our prime ministers and significant moments of debates in this place easy for Canadians to access so they do not have to search around for hours to find the debates.

I would submit that the debate tonight, although sometimes difficult back and forth, is an important debate because future generations of Canadians, if this comes up again, will want to reference what we talked about tonight. They do not want to have to go searching for hours through Hansard to figure it out. We can do that. That is one of the reasons we brought this study to the Canadian heritage committee. Again, I thank the member for that. That is why history is so exciting. We can disagree a lot of the time on all kinds of different issues, but as long as we tell the story, we are better off for it.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

For better or for worse, I am old enough to have been at Expo 67. It was a highlight to be there as the world was welcomed at the Montreal World Expo, at Man and His World.

I want to read part of the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, to explain how it fulfills its mandate.

...by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, [and this is important] with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements...

My question is simple: why does that not cover the government's objectives?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at Bill C-49, it talks about all the things that this museum is going to have to do, including organizing exhibits both in Canada and outside Canada. It helps to open up our museums, not only the national museum, but museums in communities across this country so that they can share in the collection of the national museum.

One member's constituency has a museum for Exporail, and he talked about how important that museum was to his community. I cannot think of a better way of making that museum more important and more accessible to Canadians than by becoming a part of the new museum of Canadian history. Does the museum right now have the ability to talk about Canadian history? Yes. Can it do a better job of doing that by bringing in communities across this country, by bringing in artifacts, by sharing the artifacts, but also bringing artifacts that are important in the member's community to Ottawa? Absolutely.

We can do better and that is the whole point of this. With a $25-million investment, we will make sure that all parts of this country can celebrate in their history and all the good things that have helped make this such a great country to live in.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

This bill is an attack on an institution that is very important to me, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is located in my riding of Hull—Aylmer.

I am one of those people who is lucky to live in the national capital region, in Hull—Aylmer, who sees the museum every day, who represented the workers at this beautiful museum, who has visited it regularly and who has truly appreciated it. I am saddened to see what is happening at present.

This museum is part of our region's history and identity, just like Gatineau Park, for example, which I am also trying to save. I want to ensure that government legislation will fully protect it. It is an institution that is respected and appreciated by my constituents and everyone.

The Canadian Museum of Civilizations, in its current form, is the most popular museum in Canada. Everyone says so. What a mess the government wants to make of it.

Our museum is a tourist attraction that has economic benefits and creates jobs for the Outaouais. Its special exhibitions on world culture, such as Haitian vodou and ancient Egypt, are an intrinsic part of the museum's popular success in Canada and abroad. What do we want to teach our children and what legacy do we want to leave them?

The museum has proven its worth over the years. The people of Hull—Aylmer are proud to have a world-class museum in their riding.

However, the government is using Bill C-49 to attack the museum's formula for success. It wants to reposition the museum, refocus it on Canadian history and sideline the temporary exhibits that I mentioned earlier.

Because the government is choosing to focus on Canadian history, people are left with the impression that the museum does not pay enough attention to our history, which is untrue. The vast majority of the museum's resources are already poured into exhibits on Canada's history.

For example, the Canada Hall is the most visited area of the museum and contains one of the most acclaimed Canadian exhibits in the country. It took years and millions of dollars to create it, and it seems that it will be undergoing a transformation.

I find it hard to understand why this government is tampering with a winning formula. This museum became famous for its wonderful mix of Canadian history and exhibits on other civilizations.

Canadian history has had an important place in the museum since its creation. The museum has always been open to the world and its cultures, just as Canadians are. Why change that?

Earlier, my colleague spoke about the Yukon. Yes, I have been there. He spoke about the pride of Yukoners. Yes, I have met the people who work to preserve our legacy and our heritage. Government cuts mean that all of that heritage is being storage in poorly ventilated, unheated hangers, where it is deteriorating. Is that the legacy we want to leave our children, the public and the world?

The government argued that the changes it wants to make to the museum will make a positive contribution to the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. No one has a problem with using the museum to showcase the 150th anniversary. However, using the 150th anniversary as an excuse to change the mandate and focus of Canada's most popular museum worries me, especially given that this government has spent tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to rewrite our collective history and bring it more in line with Conservative values.

The proposed changes are all the more incomprehensible because no one asked for them. No one in the region was consulted before the minister announced his intentions.

The government has gotten into the habit of acting unilaterally, which is very unfortunate for Canadians and very unfortunate for parliamentary democracy.

The public consultations had nothing to do with finding out whether people wanted us to change our museum's mandate, and everything to do with finding out what people wanted to see displayed in the new museum. Back where I come from, we call that putting the cart before the horse. No wonder people spoke out against Bill C-49.

The NPD is not alone in worrying about how out of control things could get if Bill C-49 is passed. In November, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the CAUT, which represents 60,000 university teachers, publicly expressed concern about overt political manipulation of the museum.

The CAUT's executive director had this to say:

[This] initiative...fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy.... [This] initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda.... This is a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda....

I have heard the same concern expressed by the CAUT expressed by a number of my constituents. I received many emails, letters and comments on Bill C-49. An overwhelming majority of my constituents are against the government's plan, and since the museum is in their riding, it seems to me that this government should take their opposition seriously.

I will give a real example of the kind of email I received. One of my constituents, Alexandre Pirsch, told me that he was concerned about Bill C-49 and asked me to speak on his behalf in Parliament. He said that he has had a family membership at the museum for four years and that he does not see himself reflected in the changes that the government wants to make. He said he was dismayed when he learned that the Canadian government wanted to change the mandate and name of a museum that has meant so much to him. He even wrote that he was thinking about not renewing his family membership.

I have received many emails like that.

One of the problems with Bill C-49 is the proposed mandate, which sets out not only the museum's general direction, but also the historical approach it should adopt. Normally, decisions about the type of approach adopted by a museum are left up to museum specialists and historians, specifically to avoid political interference.

The approach set out in Bill C-49, which is based on events, experiences, people and things, is restrictive. It does not leave any room to showcase important developments in our shared history, such as gender relations, colonization and first nations, and environmental changes, for example.

In April, I asked the minister a question about the loss of unionized jobs at the museum and the money that has been spent to change the mandate of the museum before the bill has even passed. In his response, the minister criticized us for not supporting what he described as an investment in culture.

This “investment in culture” the minister was talking about is the $25 million that will be devoted to implementing Bill C-49. I want to say something about that. If ever there was a government in the history of Canada that cannot brag about championing culture, it is the current Conservative government. This government has been making cuts to culture at every turn ever since coming to power.

That $25 million will come out of Canadian Heritage's budget, which has already been reduced as a result of this government's cuts.

The minister also refuses to confirm where exactly this $25 million will come from, and what programs will suffer from the reallocation of funds.

As for the Conservatives and culture, a study conducted by the Canadian Conference of the Arts indicates that funding for Canadian Heritage and cultural agencies had been cut by $200 million, which represents 6.1% of the federal budget for 2012. That is a lot of money.

In 2011, the Conservatives had already reduced investment in culture by $177 million, or 4.5%. Do not try to tell me that this government invests in culture. It is simply not true.

At this stage:

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau, that this House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #692

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer's speech because the Canadian Museum of Civilization—I will continue to call it that for now— is in her riding. It is also in my region.

It does not seem to have occurred to the minister, and most of his Conservative government colleagues, to find out what the public thinks about this. In fact, this took almost everyone by surprise. The Museum of Civilization is one of the best-run museums in the country, if not the best. It is extraordinary successful and is world renowned, yet despite all that, all of a sudden the government announced that it was going to change the museum's name and mandate on the pretext of the upcoming 150th anniversary celebration.

Like me, my colleague must be receiving a huge number of letters, emails and communications from people in her riding. I am getting them too, even though the museum is not in my riding. I do not know what to tell these people because I can sense a political move. We spoke a lot about this government's lack of credibility, which makes us distrustful of any new suggestions it makes.

I would like the hon. member to explain why this government, through its then foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon, promised the Outaouais Chamber of Commerce that it would move the Canada Science and Technology Museum to the Hull side of the river. That never happened, but—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

Both of us, along with our colleague from Pontiac and members from the surrounding area, have been sharing information and concerns. In the past, the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised to move the Science and Technology Museum to the region. I thank her for raising this point.

With everything that is going on with the government right now, with the cuts we are seeing, with the lack of services across the board, people no longer understand what is happening to their region. They no longer understand what is happening to their museum. They are saying that they love their museum and that they should have been told what was going to happen to it.

We know that we cannot call it our museum in the national capital region, but it is part of us. It is very important to us. This is unfortunate. Once again, we could have worked together. This could have been done with the schools, students and families. We could have talked about what we wanted to happen, but no, once again the government is imposing its choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly unbelievable what we have here. If there is a bill that is over 10 pages, it is too long for those members to read. They talk about closure and how much they want to debate and the first opportunity they get they try to close down debate and go home. It is unbelievable the hypocrisy that comes from that side. They do not want to talk about things that are important to Canadians.

I know the member has a tendency to say one thing in the House, but then another thing when she communicates to the people in her riding. For instance, I know she takes credit for the tax cuts that we have given to families. Therefore, could she give some insight as to how she will be communicating to her riding, in her householders, about how she actually really supports this, like she supports the tax cuts that we have given for Canadian families? Although she voted against it, really she supports it, so she says in her householder.

Could she give me a sneak peek of her next householder and could she explain to Canadians why the NDP members are so averse to working late at night, if they want to give back some of the $160,000 that Canadians pay us to be in—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is quite late, but the government member is saying that we are talking about closure, when how many times have we had closure? On every bill. It is truly amazing that he is talking about it.

I can understand it is quite late but talking about the issue, if it is so important for the Conservatives to work with Canadians, they should have consulted with Canadians first on the museum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from Hull—Aylmer has to say about the consultations held in Montreal, which were an incredible sham. I believe that the member is fairly familiar with Montreal. The consultations were held the same afternoon in two underground shopping centres in Montreal, Promenades Cathédrale and Les Cours Mont-Royal.

Does she think those were good places to hold public consultations about this?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am somewhat familiar with Montreal. They consulted Montrealers in the city's downtown area, in underground shopping malls, on a Sunday, when many tourists visit the area.

If they really wanted to consult Montrealers, that was not the place to do it. Any member from Quebec could tell you that. They could have suggested places and maybe could have participated in a good consultation, but no. It was held underground in downtown Montreal.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak because what I have heard is not entirely correct.

The kind of people who would have been consulted at Cours Mont-Royal are quite capable of giving an opinion on a museum.

I am very familiar with the museum the member is talking about. I am from Montreal, but I currently live right next to the museum and I have visited it many times. When my friends would come to Ottawa, I always encouraged them to see the museum.

My question is for the member. She said that it was a regional museum. I have visited this museum many times and I have never seen anything about Gatineau or Hull. There is a big focus on heritage; however, I have never seen anything specifically about Hull or Gatineau.

Furthermore—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have time for one answer.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight.

I am sorry that the hon. member misunderstood. In my presentation, if members were listening, I was clearly talking about an accessible museum that is known around the world and visited by tourists and people from across Canada. It is also used by our students in the region for school trips this time of year.

I am very familiar with what our museum represents and what it does. All my colleagues are as well.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced a very promising bill for Canada, a bill about a Canadian museum of history that the City of Gatineau, historians and the museum's architect wholeheartedly support. This museum will facilitate a better understanding of our history.

My question is very simple. Why refuse to acknowledge Canadian history when conventional wisdom tells us that a population that does not know its history cannot know where it is going? Why are the New Democrats being so stubborn? That is so disappointing. Why are they stubbornly refusing to acknowledge Canadian history? Is the member ashamed of her history? I, personally, am proud of the history of the Canadian people.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate must continue. It is just starting to get interesting.

Members have talked about the fact that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is a history museum. It is true that parts of it focus on history. I feel that the group I mentioned in my speech said it best. Quite often, if people do not trust the government or the people trying to make changes, an environment of mistrust is created. We cannot work like that.

If consultations had taken place, things might be different. I have said that many times.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Resuming debate. Before we call on the hon. member for Palliser, I will let him know there are five minutes remaining in the period allocated for government orders so he will have the remainder of his time when the House next resumes debate on this question.

The hon. member for Palliser.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

It is nice to see full benches on the other side enjoying a fun-filled evening. Certainly, we are pleased that they are here. It would be rather quiet without them.

I am glad to speak on Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. The establishment of the museum would provide Canadians with an unprecedented opportunity to learn about and appreciate the richness of Canada's history.

Much consultation has happened and information was gathered up before the construction on this building. There was face-to-face consultation, a web page was set up and there were hundreds of hits on the page with ideas on what the museum should house and how it would be arranged. The consultation was extensive.

The legislation would change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and begin a transformation that would be completed over the next five years in the lead-up to Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. Let me be clear. Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value that they hold for all Canadians. 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 Canadian Museum of Civilization is an institution to be proud of. It is one of Canada's most popular museums. It is important to understand that this is not the end of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is the beginning. It would be given a new name and indeed a new mandate.

Let me read the current mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization:

...to increase...appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing [and] maintaining...a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada—

This is a mandate that states its collections do not have exclusive reference to Canada.

Our government is proposing a new mandate for this museum. Let me read it as it is described in the legislation. It states:

...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.

This new mandate would allow the museum to create a national narrative of the history of Canada for all Canadians.

We should think of this initiative as a rejuvenation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This significant investment would allow a major renovation of more than 43,000 square feet of permanent gallery space, some of which has been in place since 1989, in order to present a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada to Canadians and to the world.

It is important to note that this legislation would not affect the internal workings of the museum. The museum's board would remain intact. The Canadian War Museum would continue to be an affiliate.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Palliser will have five minutes remaining and the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

It being 12 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Ajax—Pickering.

The establishment of the Canadian museum of history will provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn about and appreciate the richness of Canadian history. I will quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press on October 22, 2012:

The new vision reflects the country's growing self-awareness and the realization that a knowledge of history is the basis of an informed citizenry.

I would like to continue by addressing some of the statements that have been made by members of the opposition during this debate. This debate is important and if we are to make good use of our time it is important that we clarify some of these key issues.

First and perhaps most important, there is the issue of the need for independence for the new museum. This has been brought up several times during the debate. Let me be clear. The arm's-length nature of the museum is protected both by its status as a federal crown corporation and because section 27(1) of the Museums Act clearly states that no directive can be given to a national museum with respect to cultural activities and programs for the public and research. Despite these facts, it has been suggested in this House that the government is “wading into academia”, proposing a generic narrative of our history and interfering with the work of experts.

This presumes that the accomplished staff, management and board of trustees at the Canadian Museum of Civilization would let this happen.

I will quote Michael Bliss, a prominent Canadian historian, who stated:

Look at the museum’s record. It has been run professionally and governments have not told it what exhibits to have. I expect that the highly professional management at arm's length from the government will carry on.

The governance structure of the museum will remain intact. The Canadian War Museum will continue to be an affiliate. The corporation will continue to exist, but with a new name and a new, clearly focused mandate. There will be no interruption of the corporation's ability to operate and no impact on the status of the employees, officers and trustees. I am confident that the management and staff that made the CMC a great museum will make the Canadian museum of history an even greater museum.

The museum will continue to host major international exhibits. It is not true, as stated by one of my colleagues, that the museum will no longer have a mandate to share its wealth and knowledge with the rest of the world. The mandate of the new museum is explicit. One of the purposes of the new museum is to “enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”. This specifically authorizes the museum to continue to offer other programming with a more international flavour, such as international exhibits.

It is not true, as stated by a member of the opposition, that the museum's mandate no longer includes the obligation to maintain collections and conduct research. The powers of the new museum are unchanged from those of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, including the power to maintain collections and conduct research.

The museum will increase its activities, working closely with a network of Canadian museums not just to make the national collection available through loans and travelling exhibitions but also to provide a permanent venue, an additional 7,500 square feet at the new museum for other Canadian museums to showcase their collections and contribute to the national narrative.

I must also point out that the changes to the mandate proposed for the Canadian Museum of Civilization are completely consistent with the strategic directions first approved by the museum's board of trustees in 2009, in particular the following direction, which states:

...broaden its national collections and its curatorial research to better reflect and present national narratives, symbols and achievements through the human, social, cultural, military and political history dimensions of Canadian life.

I am excited about the new Canadian museum of history and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the passage of the legislation that will make it a reality.

In closing, I will once again refer to Michael Bliss, who says “it is very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly focused on Canada's history”.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it is true that museum employees will be autonomous, why did the minister make his decision without even consulting Canadians or experts?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the word “autonomous” means that they can do it on their own, and if the minister granted autonomy for the staff to do that, then what is the question? They asked for autonomy and they have autonomy. I think that is fair enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses the term “autonomous”. I want to ask him about this, because it seems to be thrown about here. The independence and the autonomy of this particular board and the curators in this institution are at question here. We have to realize that curatorial independence is most sacrosanct in this, no matter what we do to change in name or to change in narrative. I agree that artifacts should be shared with the rest of the country, but it comes down to that central independence that is what they need.

I would like the member precisely, within the legislation, to tell the House exactly where that curatorial independence remains despite these changes. Where is it in the legislation exactly?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to quote chapter and verse as to where this issue rises, but I will share this with the member. It is now in place. The new museum will indeed have curatorial opportunities like the old museum did. There is no change. It is a lateral kind of move, so to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quite eloquent in the way he described the creation of the new museum of history. When we speak in the House, we often refer to what matters to our local constituents. As we approach Canada's 150th anniversary, I know that his constituents, like mine, are looking forward to being able to celebrate that great history of our country, a century and a half of one of the oldest democracies on earth. We have great heroes we need to celebrate and we will celebrate.

I wonder if the member could expand on that and talk about the importance of the museum and what it will mean to his constituents to finally have a place they can go to that will expand on our knowledge of our great country.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an expanding museum. It is important for us to note that the government has increased funding to the museum, up to a 20% increase over what we supplied for the last budget year, so there is a definite amount of money going into it for planning for the 150th anniversary of Canada. We know that the museum will take a lead role in setting up all the activities for the 150th. There is money set aside to support that, without additional money being earmarked. It is going to be handled through the internal economy of the budget as it exists today.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my colleague, the member for Palliser, the very name of whose riding honours a great historical Canadian hero. I think his speech was very much in that grand tradition that has given us this tremendous country of over 10 million square kilometres and the opportunity to fashion a Canadian museum of history that will do justice to the length and breadth of that history.

Our government supports heritage institutions and organizations through a range of measures to increase their professional knowledge, skills and practices and to enhance their ability to preserve and present Canada’s heritage and history.

We do this so Canadians will have access to, and an enhanced appreciation for, our museums’ treasures and our collective legacy, not just here in Ottawa and Gatineau, but across the country.

In the upcoming years, we will give particular consideration to initiatives that will celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary, and the Canadian museum of history will play an important part in this celebration.

With the establishment of the Canadian museum of history, we are providing long-term access to heritage collections so that Canadians will have opportunities to learn about Canada’s history and heritage and appreciate the many events that have shaped our country’s identity.

The museum has created an online forum that gives Canadians the opportunity to provide their input on the defining chapters in our country's history. It will also introduce a new process linking Canada’s network of museums to the Canadian museum of history, so Canadians in all regions have better access to our shared history.

Mr. Speaker, you and all our colleagues in the House are quite aware that in Canada we have hundreds of regional and local museums and museums with a specific mandate to honour the history and roots of our regiments, our naval forces, wars that Canadian soldiers took part in, our natural heritage and our industrial heritage. With the linking of all these museums across the country to the Canadian museum of history in the nation's capital, we will all be able to enjoy this heritage even more.

Marie Senécal-Tremblay from the Canadian Federation of Friends of Museums said, “This new museum will allow smaller museums to showcase their collections better and make them more accessible to far more Canadians and visitors”.

That is why there will be fundraising activities to solicit support from the private sector to complement the government’s investment of $25 million.

In order to support the government's investment, and to ensure that Canadians from all regions have an opportunity to become more familiar with Canada's history, the new museum will sign agreements with other museums across the country, in order to: organize mobile exhibitions outside the national capital region; bring exhibitions from the regions to the Canadian Museum of History; share expertise; and loan artifacts and other materials from Canada's national collection in order to enhance the exhibitions of local museums and their educational programs.

We are almost all very familiar with our regional history; however, here in Canada, we are not all very knowledgeable about what goes on in other provinces, in other regions, or in bygone days when there may not have been an established community in our particular region. Not everybody has in-depth knowledge of the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not everybody knows what transpired to open up the great north of British Columbia.

As a result of these exchanges and mobile exhibitions, Canadians from all regions will be become better acquainted with the history of other localities.

I would like to remind members that the government's commitment to celebrate the history and heritage of Canada, and the objectives of the Canadian Museum of History, will be supported by the many existing programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

For example, the Canadian Heritage Information Network already administers two of the investment programs of the Virtual Museum of Canada. Together, they invest approximately $2.2 million annually in the development of digital heritage content by Canada's museums.

Are all members familiar with exhibitions such as “For Valour: Canadian Airmen and the Victoria Cross”, developed by the Air Force Heritage Park & Museum in Manitoba? The exhibition showcases the fascinating stories of seven airmen and their experiences during the First and Second World Wars. It goes without saying that the Canadian aviators were among the best in the world during both world wars.

Consider also the McCord Museum's "Where To Draw the Line?", based on Quebec editorial cartoons from the period spanning 1950 through 2000. This exhibition tells of the rich history behind the events that made headlines in Montreal over that period. For most of that time, Montreal essentially considered itself the capital of major political events in Canada.

The support programs for the Virtual Museum of Canada will allocate a portion of their annual budgets to proposals in relation to the main anniversaries that will take place from now until 2017. Approximately $2 million will be invested in these projects.

There will also be the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program, an invaluable program for small regional museums and national museums alike. This program will give them the opportunity to enjoy Canadian and international treasures.

In addition, exchanges among museums will create new opportunities for Canadians, as Ms. Marie Lalonde, the executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, noted. According to Ms. Lalonde, with the new museum's co-operation, local museums will now be in a better position to offer their visitors special exhibitions and initiatives that would otherwise be impossible.

In the run-up to 2017, the Canadian Conservation Institute will encourage clients to submit applications for the treatment of artifacts that are of special importance to their community and that may be associated with key moments in the history of Canada.

Let us talk about Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and all their colleagues from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, western Canada and even Newfoundland, because Newfoundland attended talks for a period of time. Those people knew their history, that of the War of 1812, of the British and the French empires, the history of Europe and the history of Asia and the Americas, relatively recently rediscovered by Europeans.

The quality of their contribution to the history of Canada was determined by the quality of their understanding of that history. That is what we want to give to a new generation of Canadians by means of this museum and the connection we are making between the museum and the 150th anniversary of Confederation, which will take place in a few years.

Our government is proud to have adopted several measures that will help preserve and celebrate Canada's history and heritage. Those measures include tax incentives to encourage Canadians to make donations to the museum and to charities, $5 million in new annual funding for summer internships at the museums, $100 million allocated between 2008 and 2013 to the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Nature, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the National Arts Centre to meet the capital and infrastructure needs of four of our national museums and the National Arts Centre.

The list is long and the task a major one, as is the ambition of our program and policy, but we are dealing with this country, its land, its history and the diversity of our backgrounds.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would only point out that with this bill, the Conservatives are relying on an approach to history that will celebrate heroes, leaving out women as well as everything that involves Canada's diversity. This bill also represents a contradiction in the Conservatives' approach, in light of the budget cuts they have specifically made to the institutions that preserve our heritage and culture.

Could my colleague explain why the government wants to change, even reduce, the mandate of one of the most popular museums in the country?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be more wrong.

I just quoted two renowned women in Canada who gave their unequivocal support to our agenda. Obviously, many of the 20,000 comments we received through the consultation process were from women. Canadians do not want to diminish, but rather to enhance our understanding and the strength of our identity as it relates to the role of women throughout our country's history. This was very clearly expressed to us.

The government will make sure that Canada's diversity is reflected in everything our museums do. That is why this government was the first in Canadian history to turn Pier 21 in Halifax into a national museum focusing on the immigration of women and men to Canada. Is the hon. member not aware of our initiatives in this area?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of independence.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he can point out within this or related legislation where curatorial independence will be maintained after the passage of this legislation.

As well, does the member feel that there should be a review after a certain period of time to help maintain that independence?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the independence of the current Museum of Civilization has been maintained, in curatorial terms, at every step, and it will continue to be maintained under an independent and very professional board.

Our Parliament has the responsibility to legislate for national museums. That is what we are doing. We are responding to an extremely loud and multi-faceted set of enthusiastic comments from Canadians who want to know more about their history.

All my life I have faced newspaper articles, professors and teachers who lamented the loss of Canadian history and the lack of knowledge of Canadian history, not just of my generation but of generations before and after.

This museum is our attempt to put the mandate back into the hands of professionals to retell that story, and to tell it more richly, more broadly and more deeply than ever before.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be around funding.

We have heard from opposition parties that our government has not funded arts and heritage. I know that in my own riding I have made numerous announcements of funding for the arts and for heritage. Could the member for Ajax—Pickering provide us with some further information as to our government's funding for arts and heritage?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to mention some of those very large numbers that have been put into budgets by this government for museums.

There is $142 million for museums, a 20% increase in the budget for the Canada Council and $100 million for the construction of a new human rights museums in Winnipeg, which will show an entirely different facet of our history. These are new initiatives. They come in addition to our commitment to telling the story of immigration at Pier 21 and to the Canadian Museum of History, right here in the national capital. It will be a centrepiece in that growing portfolio of very powerful vehicles for maintaining our identity and for telling our stories.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

As an archaeologist, I really wanted to be able to talk about the proposed changes to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Bill C-49.

There are major differences between an anthropological museum and a history museum. Either the Conservatives do not understand this difference or they want to give the museum a much narrower mandate to better manipulate the institution, or both.

Bill C-49 introduces major amendments to the museum's mandate. The current mandate talks about establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest. That sentence is completely missing from the new mandate. The museum's current mandate talks about working throughout Canada and abroad. The new proposed mandate only deals with Canadian history and identity.

It is important to understand that Canada is and was influenced in the past by the rest of the world. I see that this new narrower vision does not do justice to that.

According to the amendments proposed by Bill C-49, the museum's approach would be limited to understanding and appreciating just dates, events, historical figures and objects. This approach, which is completely outdated in the social sciences, leaves out a number of important aspects of a society's development. A study of historical heroes often leaves out women, children, aboriginal peoples and minority groups, not because they did not have an impact on our history or make cultural contributions. No, it is because unfortunately this impact is too often left out in the Conservatives' approach.

All kinds of moments and processes in our country's history could be lost because of this approach. For example, the development of the Lachine canal in Montreal and its role in the industrial revolution in the rest of Canada; the poor treatment of Polish settlers in the west who, left to their own devices, had to build dugouts to survive the winter; the fact that slavery existed in New France; the evolution of women's rights; and the evolution of the rights of the workers who built our economy.

Allow me to use a few archaeological examples to illustrate my remarks. Artifacts, in and of themselves, are interesting, but they only reveal a portion of the important information. The context in which the artifact is discovered is just as important.

In Mobile, Alabama, in the early 18th century, the lives of the colonists from New France were very difficult, yet in a carpenter's house, archaeologists found a cup made of fine porcelain, an object rarely associated with a worker in a colony where life was uncertain. In attempting to understand why such an object was there, the archaeologists realized that to survive, the French settlers forged an alliance with the Spanish, who had access to imported goods from Asia thanks to their trading posts in Mexico.

The cup itself was magnificent, but the context laid bare its true history, which involved neither heroes, nor any date or event of great importance. If the approach to research and other areas favoured by the Conservatives at the Canadian Museum of Civilization is adopted, this kind of information will never become available.

Another example is our rich aboriginal heritage. It did not start with the arrival of the Vikings 1,000 years ago. It began at least 12,000 years ago when the ancestors of the aboriginal peoples first set foot on Canadian soil. Under the proposed new approach, with its narrow focus on characters, dates and events, most of this heritage will be swept under the rug, not to mention the oral traditions handed down from one generation to the next by the aboriginal peoples.

When the Canadian Museum of Civilization was built, its originators recognized the important contribution of aboriginal cultures to culture in general, and so they chose an aboriginal architect, Douglas Cardinal, to design the museum's structure.

The Conservatives have a bad habit of being led by preconceived notions, which they try to back up with so-called evidence, after the fact. For example, the Conservatives stated that the museum focused more heavily on, and allocated the lion’s share of its resources to, non-Canadian exhibitions. That is not true. At least 70% of the exhibitions presented in recent years focused on Canada.

Nevertheless, Canada's history was also influenced by that of other peoples, and museum goers really enjoy international exhibitions. These international exhibitions attract visitors who, in turn, visit the Canadian exhibitions. It is a win-win situation. For example, the exhibition Tombs of Eternity – The Afterlife in Ancient Egypt drew 240,714 visitors to the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I am going to quote a passage from the museum's website regarding another exhibition:

Museum of Civilization reaches out across Canada and around the world Thanks to the phenomenal success of The Mysterious Bog People and other outreach projects, the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s travelling exhibitions program is connecting with a remarkable number of people worldwide.

Together, 10 of the CMC’s travelling exhibitions attracted 445,315 visitors between May 2005 and September 2006...

The Mysterious Bog People opened in Vienna, Austria, last week after a tour that began in Germany, with stops in England, the Netherlands, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and, of course, Gatineau...The total number of visitors worldwide could top 1 million during The Mysterious Bog People's presentation in Vienna.

The success of the CMC’s travelling exhibitions program underscores the importance of international partnerships in organizing successful exhibitions. The Mysterious Bog People, which reveals the fascinating early history of northwestern Europeans, is the result of a collaborative effort between four museums in Canada, the Netherlands and Germany.

“Such international exchanges help forge strong scholarly and people-to-people ties between countries,” says Dr. Victor Rabinovitch, President and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. “More important, they deepen our understanding of other societies, and enable us in turn to share Canada’s rich culture and heritage with the rest of the world.”

Outreach activities also help the CMC display national treasures for Canadians from sea to sea.

This is forgotten with the new approach. The collective heritage of Canadians and human kind will be undermined.

The Conservatives say that they consulted Canadians about the new mandate of the museum. I said that their modus operandi was to go with a preconceived idea and then try to come up with the facts to back it up. That is how they proceeded as well with their consultations.

The minister made the decision to transform the museum and subsequently, people were consulted about certain aspects of this process. Canadians, and much less professionals, were never asked if they wanted this transformation. The department issued the following release, and I quote: “Representatives from the Museum are travelling the country asking Canadians what they would like to see in this new exhibition.”

Moreover, Canadians were asked to choose from among a limited number of events they wanted showcased within a predetermined timeline of 1,000 years, starting with the arrival of the Vikings. Among other things, this timeline excludes the Laurel culture which was already using copper in northern Ontario 3,000 years ago. This is a rather interesting fact, given that very few aboriginal peoples used metals.

Museum workers have already had to contend with staff reorganizations. The government has imposed changes and incurred spending related to the new mandate, even before the bill has been adopted. It has already begun to spend our money to make these changes which have not yet been approved by the House. This is arrogance, pure and simple. As always, the Conservatives want to impose their vision, but this time it is even worse. They want to rewrite history.

They spent $28 million to commemorate the War of 1812. This celebration of a long-ago war was completely out of proportion. Most of our history is a peaceful one. We survived few armed conflicts to become the nation that we are today.

Canadians do not want a politicized version of their country’s history. Decisions about the mandate of the museum and the content of its collection must be left to independent professionals, not to politicians.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. Why change this institution when no one has asked for this? Why spend $25 million to bring about this change, when more financial support should instead be given to small museums? Where will the department make cuts to find the $25 million?

If the Conservatives believe that Canada’s history is so important, why are they slashing $29 million from Parks Canada’s budget and eliminating 80% of all archaeologist and conservator jobs? Why have they cut all three research positions that relate to first nations’ national historical sites? Why have they cut deeply into the Library and Archives Canada budget?

The museum has built its reputation on research. Archeologists and historians have had access to primary source documents at the museum for their research for 135 years, or since 1877, at the museum’s predecessor, the Geological Survey of Canada. Researchers are very concerned. The collections are a huge resource for them.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to make significant cuts to research and the acquisition of collections not directly related to exhibits? Unfortunately, that is the message sent by the recent abolition of the position of vice-president, research and collections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member actually read any part of the bill before her. First of all, she talked about curatorial independence. Obviously, subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act actually guarantees that in legislation. We are not touching that.

If we look at Bill C-49, what part of paragraphs 9(1)(a) through 9(1)(p) does she disagree with? How do they differ from the act that currently governs the civilization museum? If we look at paragraph 9(1)(e), it talks about travelling exhibits, both in Canada and internationally. Paragraph 9(1)(i) establishes and fosters liaisons with other organizations that have purposes similar to its own. Paragraph 9(1)(j) talks about staff working with other museums across the country. In paragraph 9(1)(k) it goes further and talks about how we can work with other museums to get these collections out there.

I am not sure she has actually read the bill. She talks about all the things she does not like in the bill, but they are actually already protected by both the Museum Act and this proposed act. What specifically in the new bill does she not like that was in the previous act?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am familiar with the bill.

We heard earlier that the museum is at arm’s length. However, the minister has already imposed changes. What will prevent the minister or his department from making other changes?

There is a culture of terror with this Conservative government. What will stop it from continuing in this manner with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as it already does just about everywhere else?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with how the member started the premise of the whole thing, but I would like her to go back to that question one more time. I am here trying to seek out the break between what was curatorial independence, as the member pointed out, in subsection 27(1), and what is about to be changed by this legislation. I think she just mentioned amendments. I did not get the whole thing. Could she try that again?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fine to have a law, but that usually does not stop the Conservatives.

They will continue to exert pressure on people. They could influence a museum director, just as they could an archives director, for example. We know what happens next. The same thing will happen. There is a culture of terror among the museum’s employees.

Why would it stop with this bill?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it might also be relevant to ask whether the Conservative members know where they made cuts and whether they are aware of the consequences of how their new measures are affecting the country, for example, in terms of culture or heritage.

I am particularly thinking of the 80% of archeologists who were laid off. Only ten or so are left to take care of 167 sites in Canada. This bill seems to be an attempt by the Conservatives to make it seem they care about culture.

Does my hon. colleague share my concerns?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree.

The government has indeed eliminated many archeologist jobs, but the preservation of artifacts is also a concern. Quebec City, for example, has one remaining archeologist, while two were moved with their collection here to Gatineau.

Moving the collection here to Gatineau is itself a major step. When a collection is moved away from its researchers, it ends up being neglected. I worked in archeology labs where forgotten boxes just sat there gathering dust. The risks to a collection increase substantially when it is moved away from where it was found.

In addition, these artifacts are not being preserved right now. A metal artifact that is not cared for will break down and rust. The same applies to objects made of wood or bone. The preservation of our heritage objects is therefore in considerable jeopardy.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak 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.

The primary purpose of this bill, in the heritage minister's words, is to refocus and reposition the mandate of the present Canadian Museum of Civilization. Thus, the Conservatives want to eliminate the museum's functions of creating and maintaining a collection of objects for research and for posterity. They want to change the museum's orientation and only focus on Canadians, rather than covering both Canada and the rest of the world. Finally, they want to 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.”

When the government announced its intention to close the Canadian Museum of Civilization and create the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, I feared this reform would be just like the others the Conservatives have given us: it would look inward, manipulate the facts, use history for partisan purposes and avoid consultation when implementing broad reforms.

When I saw the bill, many of my fears were realized. This bill reflects exactly what we have been criticizing the Conservatives about for years. This action may well lead to more missteps and cost overruns at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Before I go any further, I must make it clear that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is not being redesigned in answer to a need expressed by the general population or by the people in the field. No problem has been decried by anyone at all. No, this is all a simplistic initiative from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who chooses self-promotion over the interests of the Canadian people. Instead of doing something about the flagrant needs for funding in arts and culture, the Conservatives have chosen to take $25 million from the operational budget of Canadian Heritage, just to showcase the minister's whims.

This decision was made in the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage without any transparent or open consultation. In fact, the Conservatives refuse to reveal just which stakeholders they consulted, what the consultation process involved, and what the findings were.

It seems that no stakeholders in the Outaouais were consulted. Not even the mayor of Gatineau, the city where the current Museum of Civilization is located, was approached by the government for his input on the issue. Thus, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not think it useful to contact the people most closely affected by this reform.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada, with 1.2 million visitors per year, and $15 million in annual revenue, some of that coming from admission fees. Its exhibitions present the whole world and attract everyone's interest; they enable us to keep learning all the time.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage did not take account of these facts, did not engage the community in his plans, and is trying to write the end of this success story. The whole country is proud of the museum's success and its fame is worldwide. The haste with which the government has started this process may spoil this success and limit its impact.

I also think we should question the Conservatives' perspective on history and the way they want to utilize it, as well as the mandate they would give to the museum. This vision clearly reflects the inward-looking attitude typical of this government. Rather than opening up the museum to the history of all civilizations, the government prefers to use this institution as a tool to promote militarism, glorify the monarchy and rewrite history for partisan purposes.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to impose a linear view of history that is miles away from current educational practices, which tend to focus more on understanding and critical analysis.

In their efforts to deform or reform Canadian history, control history classes—which should be managed by the provinces—and promote militarism and the monarchy, the Conservatives are proving that they are completely out of touch with reality and the concerns of Canadians. They should leave it up to the real experts in the field to determine what direction to take in order to ensure a proper understanding of our history, rather than imposing a narrow, partisan view of history.

As a final point, implementing this bill and other Conservative actions on heritage matters deserve our attention. While the minister wants to spend $25 million on self-promotion, the government has cut $29 million from Parks Canada budgets.

Over 80% of Parks Canada archeologists and curators have lost their jobs. The number of professionals working in conservation dropped from 33 to eight. This means that about 20 or so people will be responsible for managing 30 million artifacts in the Parks Canada collection.

How can the minister stand up in this House and speak so highly of Canadian history, when his government's decisions are undermining the conservation of Canadian heritage and the protection of our historic sites?

As the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, James L. Turk, pointed out: “If the government is genuinely committed to Canadian history, it should restore funding to Library and Archives Canada...” The government should restore its support for regional and local archives, and restore funding to protect and enhance Canada's historic sites.

On the contrary, by spending $25 million of Heritage Canada's budget, even more money will be taken away from other funding areas. This situation is completely unacceptable.

To conclude, Bill C-49 is a huge mistake. By making new budget cuts to credits that have already been granted, the government will jeopardize heritage so it can move ahead with creating the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. This decision is purely ideological and does not take into account the reality of the situation or the real and immediate heritage protection needs.

I therefore urge members to reject Bill C-49. Let us make an outward-looking museum, an outward-looking history and an outward-looking population a priority.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the point that I do not think the NDP read any part of the bill. She talked about territorial independence. Subsection 27(1) states:

No directive shall be given to a museum under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including (a) the acquisition... (b) its activities and programs...; and (c) research with respect to the matters referred to in [the] paragraphs...

The actual mandate of the museum states:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

What part of those two things does she disagree with?

What part of section 9, which is the capacity and powers under this bill in comparison to the existing Museums Act with respect to civilization, does she disagree with? She cannot talk about all of these things, which are completely wrong. I am asking for her to give some specific areas where she disagrees. Does she disagree with the current Museums Act, which guarantees curatorial independence? Does she disagree with the mandate which talks about people's better understanding of Canadian history and world and other cultures? What part of that are you not in agreement with?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not get to say what I agree or disagree with.

The hon. member for St. Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely cannot agree with so narrow a vision of history. We are again witnessing this government's taking control. There is a risk that it will eliminate a part of history simply to create a politicized version of the museum. We must also fear that the government is not leaving room for autonomy and that it is truly controlling. We cannot trust the government.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is the Conservatives' judgment. They put a lot of effort into celebrating the War of 1812, yet this war should not be celebrated. It was a catastrophe in which Canada lost approximately 30% of its territory to the Americans. The great hero of this war disobeyed orders and abandoned our aboriginal allies from the other side of the Detroit River, leaving them to be massacred by the Americans. There is nothing about this war that should be celebrated. I am concerned that these people are able to decide how history is interpreted. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

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

I would like to answer him by simply saying that we are in favour of recognizing a multi-faceted history. For example, a history museum located on the ancestral lands of the first nations, such as the Inuit or the Metis, must reflect their history and their voice.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, that previous question demonstrates the difference between members of this side of the House and Canadians and the NDP. NDP members are actually embarrassed by our military history. They do not want to talk about it.

The War of 1812 is important because it, in part, guaranteed the French factor in Canada. It led Canada on to a different relationship with its first nations. I think that is worth celebrating.

I am proud of Vimy Ridge and proud of the Canadian sacrifices in two world wars that helped guarantee our freedom and have given them the opportunity to be in this place and to debate, yet those members are embarrassed by it. We are going to celebrate that.

More specifically, what part of what I read with respect to the mandate of the museum do you not agree with?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary has now twice directed comments at the individual member of Parliament as opposed to the Chair.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves an essential question about this bill. We have wondered about it and we have asked it before. That question is: are the Conservatives genuinely and seriously interested in history? One has to wonder.

In closing, I am wondering if the mandate of one of the most popular museums in the country really needs to be changed and maybe even reduced. What is more, why do the Conservatives want to change a winning formula?

Once again, I think that it is obviously for ideological reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, a bill which would create the new Canadian museum of history.

The road to Canada's 150th birthday offers Canadians from coast to coast to coast an opportunity to celebrate our history and the achievements that define who we are as Canadians. This government is determined to make the most of these opportunities to celebrate our history, and our national museums play a key role in that undertaking.

Museums are considered by the public to be highly trustworthy sources of information about history and can provide valuable learning opportunities for Canadians. However, our museums are also major economic drivers, attracting tens of thousands of tourists in all regions and in both large and small communities, contributing to the $78-billion tourism industry. A single blockbuster exhibition can generate more than $30 million in incremental tourism revenues for the surrounding region.

This government has created two new national museums in the past four years, both outside of the national capital region. They are the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in Winnipeg, and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, in Halifax. This has marked the first time in 40 years that a new national museum was created and the first time that a national museum had been located outside the national capital region.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was to have mentioned that I am splitting my time with the member for Oakville.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value that they hold for all Canadians. 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. Mark O'Neill, president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation said “The Canadian Museum of History will inspire...a greater understanding” of our Canadian identity. “Canadians, as well as visitors from around the world”, will gain “a deeper appreciation of Canada's unique and fascinating national journey”.

However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full narrative of our nation's history. That is the reason my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, announced that the Government of Canada would establish the Canadian museum of history, a national museum that would provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn about and appreciate the richness of Canadian history.

For Canada, 2012 was an eventful year. We celebrated the 95th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the bicentennial of the War of 1812, and her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. This year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Arctic Expedition. In 2014, we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War.

I know the opposition members are asking why this government feels it is important to focus the interest of Canadians on our collective history. In 2017, this country will celebrate its 150th birthday. In the lead-up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate, and celebrate the wealth of our collective history. The statistics are concerning. Only four Canadian provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, require a credit in Canadian history to be mandatory for graduation. There are 82% of young Canadians surveyed who could not pass a basic Canadian history exam. This is not acceptable.

Let us begin the celebration of the 150th birthday of our country by reminding the citizens of this great nation of the events, people and achievements that make this country unique. Let us remind Canadians and the world that the following are all Canadian inventions: the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell; the electron microscope, James Hillier and Albert Prebus; the snowblower, Arthur Sicard; the snowmobile, Armand Bombardier; the Canadarm, Spar Aerospace; and insulin, Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

Let us inform Canadians in the world about the Hudson's Bay Company, the Bluenose, the Empress of Ireland, the Franklin Expedition and the Canadian Arctic Expedition. Let us celebrate the Battle of Vimy Ridge; the Falcon of Malta, Buzz Beurling; and World War I flying aces Billy Bishop and Billy Barker. Let us reflect on the accomplishments of pianist Glenn Gould; poet Pauline Johnson; Mary Two-Axe Earley, who fought to have her aboriginal rights restored; and John Peters Humphrey, who wrote the original draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Let us remember that this land has been continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, in Alberta, a World Heritage site, was being used while the pyramids were still under construction. Anthony Island, another World Heritage site, was first inhabited thousands of years ago. L'Anse aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, contains the ruins of a north settlement dating from the 11th century. Ours is not a short history.

It is perhaps time that we paused to reflect on what has made this country what it is today. The Canadian Museum of Civilization sought the opinions of Canadians, both online and in nine cities across the country, on the personalities, events and milestones that truly tell the Canadian story. The fact that close to 20,000 Canadians responded speaks to the importance of this new museum.

The Canadian museum of history will 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 presents our country's treasures to the world.

In conclusion, I hope that as many Canadians as possible will take the opportunity to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, in the freshly renovated exhibition halls of the new Canadian museum of history, a museum that highlights the national achievements and accomplishments that have shaped this great nation.

Let me again quote Mr. O'Neill, who said, “There has been no place that Canadians can point to and say this is where we can go to discover who we are as Canadians. This is a place where we can see how we, as Canadians, got to where we are now. Starting today, Canada will have a place like that”.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to thank my colleague for pointing out that the first national museum ever built outside the national capital region is the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in my riding . I also want to recognize and pay tribute to those who raised funds to bring that about. MPs would be interested to note that the Museum of Natural History and the people of Winnipeg have raised more money for that museum than all the other museums in Canadian history combined. Approximately $150 million of private money has gone into that museum.

When there was a 10% cost overrun, we were told to have a tag sale and raise some more money. When there was a 100% cost overrun at the Museum of Natural History in Ottawa, the federal government simply wrote a cheque totalling hundreds of millions of dollars.

My question is simple. Why is there a double standard for these museums outside of the national capital region? Second, how much money in total are they spending to renovate the Museum of Civilization? Why has the construction started before they even have the enabling legislation passed?

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank hon. colleague. True to his point, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg is a great example and testament to this great nation and what we as a country have done successfully. I applaud all of those who contributed to make that museum the success that it is today. It is an opportunity for people from around the world to come and see what is truly remarkable about our nation.

I have a couple of quick comments and then I will be done. The amount spent to date is $1 million. That amount was applied to all of the work that was done in preparation to determine the future of what Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Should he wish it, the hon. member for Don Valley West will have three minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on this question.

It being 5:31 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Don Valley West had three minutes remaining for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks from the hon. member for Don Valley West, and forgive me for correcting his history.

I am an enormous fan of Alexander Graham Bell and his many inventions and achievements within Canada, of which the telephone was not one. That was invented when he still lived in the United States. He did, however, move to Nova Scotia, where he invented and oversaw the first manned flight of an aircraft in the British Isles. He also invented desalination equipment and pioneered in genetics of sheep in order to encourage the birth of twins.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he has any idea of how we actually put into operation the museum of history bill in order to get the artifacts, many of which belong to Alexander Graham Bell, to museums across Canada where people can enjoy them. How will that actually take place?

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

Mr. Speaker, the operational part of the museum would be handled by people who are third party and independently instructed to do that.

However, let me say that this is an important bill. I am a proud and passionate Canadian. I am very proud to represent this bill today, to stand up on behalf of Canadian heritage, to talk to the history of our great country and to celebrate people such as Alexander Graham Bell, as mentioned by my friend, and so many parts of this country that make us so proud.

As we approach our 150th birthday, we have an opportunity to celebrate Canada as a nation, and I encourage her to join me in that celebration.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member across the way and that he is a committed parliamentarian. He takes his job seriously. However, it strikes me that the process that was used to arrive at this place with Bill C-49 is something less than democratic.

In other words, we had a committee that looked at many of the issues of Canada's 150th birthday. We invited countless witnesses, spent countless taxpayers' dollars and countless months on this study. However, not once do we hear about the rebranding, the renaming and the costs attached to a project to do that at the Museum of Civilization.

Suddenly this announcement was made after the study was done. Apparently it came to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages in a moment of inspiration while he was riding his motorcycle.

I wonder if the member, as the representative for Don Valley West, thinks that is how democracy should proceed in the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that this bill was first introduced October 12. In fact, I think it was the day before the bill was actually introduced that the opposition members from the NDP openly declared that they would not support the bill.

As a Canadian, I can say that I had the privilege of introducing my own private member's bill, an act respecting the national flag of Canada, which I was extremely proud of. In this House, in the centre of democracy of our great nation, it was the NDP members who stood in unison and voted against an act respecting the national flag of Canada. I think that speaks clearly to the intent of my friends on the other side.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill tonight is history. I think we should look back on our own history for a moment in this debate on this important initiative.

More than 60 years ago, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, the Massey commission, issued the most significant cultural report in Canadian history. That commission was chaired by Vincent Massey, then-Chancellor of the University of Toronto, who later became Canada's first Canadian-born governor general. I would just mention in passing, he is my mother's second cousin.

The terms of reference for that commission stated that “it is desirable that the Canadian people should know as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions; and about their national life and common achievements”. That report also noted that Canada lacked two essential institutions, a national library and a national historical museum. The National Library of Canada was created in 1953.

Today, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-49, a bill that will finally fulfill the dream to create the Canadian museum of history.

Why does the government consider it important to increase Canadians' knowledge of the history of Canada? Polls indicate that 92% of Canadians say that they are interested in Canadian social and cultural history, and yet only 40% of Canadians could pass a citizenship exam that tests general knowledge of Canadian history. This gap is troubling and puzzling.

Canada has a long and rich history. Our land has been continuously inhabited for more than 10,000 years. The Vikings visited our shores more than 1,000 years ago, and successive waves of immigrants endured the harsh environments of this huge land and made this country their home.

People continue to choose to make Canada their home. We are a nation of immigrants. Discovery and adventure are in our genes. We have an unlimited number of stories to be told, events to celebrate, people to admire. These stories tell us who we are, and how we came to be so blessed. They also guide us on how important our values are, the ones that help us accomplish so much.

Canadian history is not short. Canadian history is not boring. It is as interesting as any other national history in the world, and even more so. It is full of courage and romance. It expresses struggle and sacrifice. We should take pride in and celebrate it.

In four years, we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. This is a time to focus on people, places and achievements that bring us together as Canadians, an occasion to celebrate and take pride in all that makes Canada unique, an opportunity to explore and celebrate Canadian history. That is why the Massey commission called for a national museum in 1951, and that is why the government is creating one with this bill.

This government understands that our museums are uniquely positioned to make Canadian history come alive for all Canadians. That is why we have, despite a period of global economic uncertainty, maintained support for our national museums, continued to support Canadian museums through the museums assistance program, increasing funding by $4.6 million annually for student summer internships, and doubled the financial capacity of the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program.

This program would allow the 3.5 million artifacts in the national collection to be shared with the hundreds of museums across Canada, so all Canadians can experience their history and their culture. Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, says that local museums would now be able to “offer their visitors distinctive exhibits and initiatives that would otherwise not be available”, thanks to the partnership with this new museum.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. 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. This national museum would be a focal point for Canadian history, with more than 43,000 square feet of permanent exhibition space presenting a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada.

In addition, 7,500 square feet of the museum would be reserved to showcase Canadian history exhibitions developed by other Canadian museums.

As the members opposite well know, the museum has already held a series of consultations with Canadians online and across Canada. More than 2,500 people took part in round tables and targeted discussions and more 16,000 people voiced their opinion online on a wide variety of topics regarding the exhibits and artifacts that would be on display in the museum.

Contrary to what the opposition claims, this would be a museum for Canadians, about Canadians and developed by Canadians. This is an exciting non-partisan project supported by Canadians of all political parties. To quote John McAvity, Executive Director of the Canadian Museums Association, “The federal government is sending a strong message that museums play an important role in our society.”

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. It would help us better understand that our history is living and shed light on why there are 30 million people around the world at least who would like to come to Canada to settle and begin anew.

Canadians deserve a national museum and infrastructure that tells our stories. I am proud of this initiative. I am particularly proud of the fact that we would achieve so much by making a relatively modest investment in the expertise and experience of the Canadian Museum of Civilization while using existing resources to create the new museum.

The Canadian museum of history would be a birthday gift to the citizens of Canada, a gift that would continue to contribute to our nation's legacy for decades to come.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented on our support or non-support for the bill. I come from the Northwest Territories, a land where people have lived in certain areas of it for about 30,000 years. I think my hon. colleague said that we are land of immigrants. In reality, where I live, the Chipewyan tribe, there were 90,000 people before the coming of immigrants who through the passing of disease dropped that population down to 10%. This changed things quite a bit for those people. Those people occupied Canada very completely.

When my colleague made his history speech in the direction he has, it does not give me much assurance that the Conservative government has the right attitude to take forward with the history of Canada. In the history of the Canada that I represent in the Northwest Territories, people have lived for 30,000 years. Large indigenous populations roamed and took care of the land for thousands of years before the immigrants. If the member does not understand Canadian history, how does he expect the rest of Canadians to understand history? How does he expect us to have any comfort with what he says about history?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had read the bill, he would understand that the title of the bill is the Canadian museum of history. It is not the museum of Canadian history. The history that would be displayed in this museum will go back more than 10,000 years. We are not just studying history. We are not just having displays about history as of Confederation. It would cover all aboriginal peoples and first nations and their history as well.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and it was very enriching. As my colleague described this museum, it would enrich and not only that, educate Canadians about our history. As a former teacher for 23 years, I taught math and science for the most part, but all of my students really did not know what they needed to know about Canadian history.

Could my hon. colleague please expand on that?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a story I tell in Oakville. I have told it for the last two years in Black History Month. It is a story I have never seen on film. I have never seen it on television. It should be filmed and it should be television.

It is about William Peyton Hubbard, who was a councillor in the city of Toronto in the late 1800s, early 1900s. He represented the wealthiest part of the city of Toronto, and he was re-elected 14 times and became acting mayor of the city of Toronto in the early 1900s. He was known as “Old Cicero” because he was such a gifted speaker.

This story might not sound very interesting or very amazing. The amazing thing about William Peyton Hubbard was that he was a black man. He was a black man, acting mayor of Toronto in the early 1900s when the American people did not even get civil rights until the 1960s.

It tells a lot about Canada and Canadians. He was educated in the Toronto Board of Education, which was fully desegregated in the time when he was a little child. His grandparents were escaped slaves from Virginia.

This is a story that needs to be told. This is the kind of story that we can tell in our museums and have artifacts to tell that story in museums across Canada.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Oakville.

I want to ask about another museum that I, and I think many Canadians, consider to be very important. I am referring to the Canada Science and Technology Museum, part of which is on St. Laurent Boulevard in Ottawa. It was converted from a depot for the Morrison Lamothe bakery and still decades later is still in the same location.

I think all Canadians are very proud of not only Canada's accomplishments in science and technology, but as the member points out, it is about science and technology; it does not have to be Canadian.

Is it a priority for the government, after decades, to turn its mind toward perhaps something a little more on the right level for the country, in Ottawa, a science and technology museum of which we can be truly proud?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the minister and I cannot speak for the government except to say that it would be a wonderful thing to have a major key science and technology museum.

The question is, where would it be? Would it be in Ottawa or should it be in some other city? We should be talking about those matters. We should be considering it in the future.

This museum, the one we are talking about in this bill, is focused on Canadian history. However, it is something we should talk about going forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I see the government moving forward with significant changes to the museum. It is one thing to simply rebrand and change the name. I know the government is in tough times financially. It has the largest deficit in history, which it is having a hard time bringing down, and we have the 150th anniversary of our nation coming up. Perhaps it has decided it cannot build a new monument to recognize that point in time in history, so the best thing to do is to take some kind of institution that already exists, which is our magnificent Museum of Civilization, and rebrand it.

From what I can determine from Bill C-49, that is mostly what the bill would accomplish.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the page, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, with whom I am very pleased to do so.

If one looks into the depths of the bill, we are moving away from proudly having a Museum of Civilization, which had a mandate of not only showcasing to Canadians. Thousands upon thousands visit the Capital every year to go to the museum, which was designed by, I am very proud to say, Mr. Cardinal, an internationally renowned architect. It is a masterpiece of architecture renowned worldwide. The good news is, I think he is being continually engaged, and I hope he is, to ensure that any changes to this monument are in keeping with the incredible design he put in place.

Apart from changing the name from the Museum of Civilization to the museum of Canadian history, we need to delve more into exactly what the government is up to. There are changes in the legislation that change its mandate. The mandate right now includes doing research. I think it is in clause 8 that this mandate to do research has been removed to become the museum of Canadian history. This raises the question of who then will do the research for these displays.

If we look in more detail at exactly what the proposal is, and I refer back to the speech by the minister about his intent in this legislation, apparently there will be a major fundraising exercise. There was a reassurance given to Canadians that they did not have to worry because not one more cent of taxpayer money would be spent on this monumental exercise toward the celebration of 150 years of Canada and that we would be move toward partnerships. What that raises for me is in the language. We saw that word “streamline” in all of the budgets and throne speeches of the government.

The Conservatives have two favourite words. One is “streamline”, which basically means fast-track and get rid of any legislation that might slow things down. The other word is “partnerships”. It appears that the new way of recording history in Canada and displaying it is going to be in partnerships. With whom? Will that be the way we will now do partnerships with our university institutions, so that, increasingly, research in our country has to move from basic research to applied research and they have to partner with major corporations?

Why is this of grave concern? There has been a lot of talk by the minister, and by the other Conservative members lauding the bill, that it will be a whole new way of doing business and there will be greater linkage with the small local museums of our country. There seems to be a short memory of what the government has done to the small local museums. I sat in the House when the government went through and erased the support to all the small local museums in our country.

Therefore, that leaves us with who can partner and who will be able to take advantage of these mechanisms. My understanding is there is some kind of a mechanism where monies can be transferred back. I stand to be corrected, but it seems to be that the mechanism whereby we will have these exchanges back and forth is if museums have enough money to put upfront to begin with, they too can display our national treasures and then they eventually they will be paid them.

However, if they are small museums whose funds are cut, how will they put up the dollars? More important, these are our national treasures. I know that from going to many of the events in the Art Gallery of Alberta, a lot of money was put into it and donated and given by various levels of government to ensure we could now borrow art internationally. The museums have to ensure their facilities are properly humidified and so forth.

Therefore, there is not a lot of clarity in here about exactly who will be paying for the transportation, displaying and packaging up again and sending back to Archives Canada, which raises another issue: who exactly is going to undertake this research? Now the newly called Canadian museum of Canadian history will not do the research and Archives Canada will no longer do the research. Who exactly will do this research? Is it the people with whom the museum of Canadian history will partner? Will we have the Suncor Energy display of the history of environmental protection in Canada? Who knows who will be displaying the history of first peoples in Canada?

I am a bit concerned about the remaking of the Canada Hall. People always ask how I like Ottawa and I say, “How would I know?” I tell them I never get to see Ottawa because I am always working hard for them. However, the last time I went to the Museum of Civilization, which I still like to call it, I remember I went specifically to the display of Dr. Yee. He was a Chinese herbologist who was a personal friend of my father's. Sadly, Alberta did not say it wanted Dr. Yee's herbal shop. To its credit, the Canadian Museum of Civilization took that, and it is displayed in the museum. Every chance I get, I go up and see Dr. Yee's shop and I think about my father and his relationship with this wonderful man.

Is that going to be gone? What is going to happen to this collection of information? Are we starting at zero? Who is going to make this decision?

Have we been making new appointments to the board? With the establishment of the new museum of Canadian history, are we going to have a clean slate for the board? We know where those appointees are coming from in the current government. Perhaps we will wait until after the next election and have failed candidates and have them appointed. I do not know.

I have a personal friend in Edmonton who is a textile conservationist and she used to be on the Canadian Museums Association board. She has a lot of valuable expertise. I look forward to following up with her and finding out what she thinks about these changes, especially on the removal of the research dollars.

Here is another interesting fact. The website for the Museum of Civilization no longer exists. I went to website to see what the Museum of Civilization offered and all the sites were gone. I did find one remaining site, and that was for visitors. When people visit the museum, they can put up their review and 256 people out of 350 found it excellent. People already think it is an incredible experience. Interestingly, in the comments they filed, most of them appreciated the aboriginal display.

It raises a lot of really important questions. Of course many of us are very saddened, and I know those who work for Canada Post are going to be saddened. Apparently, we are expunging the Canadian Postal Museum. Why? I do not know.

As I understand, there was $25 million spent on rebranding and consultation after the fact when the government had already decided what the name would be. I had hoped to share the very interesting process that went on when there actually was the in-depth consultation with Canadians about renaming the Museum of Man to the Museum of Civilization, but I will save that for questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that the website does actually exist. I was looking at it on my cellphone. However, I guess it speaks to the fact that yet again the member does not know what she is talking about. I would refer her to proposed section 9 of the bill, which says:

undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research;

The member talks about the museum not having a mandate to do research. Wrong. It does, and it is on page 3.

She talks about the curatorial independence, and if she actually read the Museum Act she would find that:

No directive shall be given to a museum under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including

(a) the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities

(b) its activities and programs for the public...

and research with respect to the matters referred to in the other paragraphs guaranteeing curatorial independence.

The member is wrong on financing. We have given $142 million. She is wrong on research. It is wrong on there not being a website and wrong on the curatorial independence.

Is there anything that she was actually right about? No. Did she actually even read the bill, because that would actually help.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually did read the bill, and perhaps I will read it to the member because apparently he has not. If the member read the bill, and if he was provided notes on the differences in the bill, he would read the changes to section 8 of the Museums Act. The phrase “maintaining and developing for research and posterity” is removed.

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

Because it is in section 9.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

He clearly does not even want to hear an answer to his question.

If the member had actually read the bill, he would realize there also is a change in paragraph 9(1)(f).

Yes, most of the provisions are exactly the same, which raises the point of why on earth the Conservatives changed it. When we look at it in detail, the way it reads right now, paragraph 9(1)(f) says “undertake and sponsor research”. It is proposed to be changed to “undertake or sponsor” which raises the question of lesser interest by the government in actually financing the museum.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for raising two very important and interesting points in her speech.

She spoke in particular of Mr. Cardinal's absolutely remarkable architecture, which represents Canada's landscape and the influences that shape our country. It is known as a museum of civilization, and Mr. Cardinal reflects and acknowledges the Canadian landscape in his exceptional architecture.

She then talked about the incursion of private business interests into the affairs of a public institution. I would like her to discuss this a bit more and get her views on the issue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear yet what the changes exactly are to the museum, whether they are external or simply internal, or whether there have actually been consultations with anyone who has been involved in deciding how the displays would be changed and who is actually going to finance these displays.

One other thing that is important for a museum is that we maintain an archive. I mentioned one example of a display in there that is very important and very near and dear to me and to my family. The severe cuts to Archives Canada and very severe cuts, 80%, to the archeological work of Parks Canada, raise the question of where this new information on history, archeology and so forth is going to come from. What about finances for storage? What is going to happen to the former displays?

We look forward to the museum changing and displaying the history of Canada. Frankly, I hope it includes more information about the Fathers of Confederation, one of whom is from my family. I look forward to information on that and why they became involved in trying to make this a stronger country.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it were not so depressing, it would be laughable. The bill before us does an extremely good job of representing the Conservatives’ attitude towards knowledge, learning, education, science and even Canada's place in the world.

Allow me to summarize the situation. Let us discuss the role of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in maintaining a collection of objects for research and for posterity. Done. Finished. That is precisely what the Conservative government is all about. To hell with research and to hell with posterity. This disdain for posterity can also be seen in its environmental policy.

The museum's mandate, which until recently was to cover Canadian and global content, has suddenly lost the second component of its work. It is no longer a matter of telling people abroad about our history and about who we are. Now, we care only about ourselves, in a narrow vision of what our interests are from a minimalist standpoint.

Reading over the bill, I wondered in fact if it had been written by the Minister of International Cooperation, because it has his usual trademarks.

Not only that, but the museum’s current mandate refers to critical understanding. Critical. What a nightmare for the Conservatives. Anything critical, even a critical mind, is not something they are fond of. No problem. They simply got rid of the word “critical”, just as they would like to get rid of criticism in general.

As if that were not enough, they are changing the museum’s name. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is history. In my time in the House, my impression has been that “civilization” is another word that the Conservatives do not like much. It is worth noting that the exhibitions on cultures and civilizations, which are extremely popular, will now have to play second fiddle.

The tragedy is that the Conservatives’ scorched earth policy is not only affecting the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists, librarians and scientists, and are shunting basic research aside. The list appears to be endless.

Even in my riding , they are on the attack—that is the only word to describe what they are doing by scuppering the Biosphere.

Since there are many similarities between the Biosphere file and that of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, I will take the liberty to speak for Hervé Fischer, president of Science pour tous, and a group of Quebeckers who recently released a letter on the subject, from which I will quote the following:

On the heels of cuts imposed on the Biosphere in July 2012, the federal government is now laying off most staff and putting in employees from the meteorological services. The Environment Museum will not survive. Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review its mandate. Some public access will be retained, it would seem, but what form will they take? How can a museum like this one be operated without staff? Such is the fate reserved for this emblem of Montreal! Inaugurated in 1995 as the result of an agreement between the city of Montreal and the federal government, it became the sole environment museum in North America in 2007. Today, we bear witness to its painful demise.

Goodbye to museologists, educators, interpreters, designers and technicians! Too bad for visitors from here and elsewhere. Gone are the major events that left their mark at the site, such as Cousteau’s Calypso, Vittorio’s drawings and children’s craftwork around fire hydrants, the Recycling Artists Eco-Fair, and so on. Disappointment awaits those classes of young people who were warmly greeted and were offered activities that were both recreational and educational. The same goes for the others from all over Canada who could gain video conference access to educational activities in their mother tongue.

[Drastically reduced] public access to the greatest architectural masterpiece by Buckminster Fuller...The Biosphere’s fate extends beyond tourism. Environment Canada was a major source of scientific and technical knowledge. The Biosphere could have continued disseminating this knowledge to the public, which is something that clearly does not appear on the list of priorities of the current government...As museum and heritage institutions are on the chopping block, the end result is that young people will be losing irreplaceable expertise...A sad fate indeed.

I would like to point out that one of my proud constituents, Mr. René Binette, president of Écomusée du fier monde, will present a resolution to the Canadian Museums Association this week. I am sure the association will also address the issue of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I would like to comment further on the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I would like to echo James Turk, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I fully share his point of view. In his opinion, this decision is a mistake. It needlessly eliminates the largest and most popular museum in Canada. Some parts of the current museum will be integrated into the new Canadian Museum of History, but others, such as the immense Canada Hall, the largest and finest social history display in the country, will not be. If the government really wants to highlight Canada’s history, it should restore funding for Library and Archives Canada, renew its support for local and regional archives and reinstate the budget for the protection and improvement of historic sites in Canada. Once it has done so, it can then envision creating a museum of history with a totally independent board of directors that would ensure the institution does not become a vehicle for government propaganda.

In fact, just as Canadians said about the Biosphere, the only thing you can say is “what a sad fate”. I hope that all Canadians who are concerned about this situation will join us in opposing the bill as strongly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to keep hitting on this topic because it is quite clear to me that the NDP has not read the bill or does not understand it.

The same member referenced, yet again, the fact that there is no mandate to bring this museum internationally. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(e) talks about “Canada and internationally”. I would ask the member to actually read that section. Paragraph (f) talks about the importance of research. I would ask her to read that section.

The member for Western Arctic talked about our first nations who have been here for 30,000 years. What about them? He clearly has not even read the name of the new museum. How can they understand the bill if they have not even read the title of what the new museum is going to be called?

The purpose of the new Canadian museum of history is to enhance Canadians' knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of events, experience, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity. It is also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures. How can you possibly not support that mandate—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to address his comments to the Chair and not directly at his colleagues.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that if anyone has not understood something here, it is my honourable colleague. He has really not understood the points that I mentioned.

Previously, promoting Canada’s image abroad was part of the goal. Of course, we are keeping an aspect such as the understanding of the history of the world by Canadians, but this element of promoting our image abroad has disappeared. Of course, there is a research element. A museum cannot exist without a research element. A distinction must be made.

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

There was not.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

My colleague says that I said there was not, but I never said that. This proves once again that he really has a problem with listening.

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

You said there was not. That was your first statement in the first five minutes. You do not know what you are talking about.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

If he remained quiet, if he stopped talking and listened to me, perhaps he would be able to understand the point that I am trying to make.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the member there, because I see some other members rising for other questions and comments.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a museum of Canadian history. Our country was built on two great institutions: the railway and the Royal Mail. It is impressive to see this government, which boasts about promoting Canada's history, gut two institutions: public rail transportation and Canada Post.

Could the member comment on the fact that one of the first things to be sacrificed in this new museum policy will be Canada Post?

I can see a member who has the gall to laugh about the disappearance of a Canadian institution like the post office. It shows just how un-Canadian he is.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what my colleague said about the fact that institutions like railway transportation and the Canadian Postal Museum are being gutted or greatly harmed. The government has dramatically slashed the budgets of programs that support archivists across Canada, even though these programs cost almost nothing. These are people who preserve our collective memory, whether in terms of transportation, postal services, work or other areas. The government is undermining institutions from the bottom up.

I am also in full agreement with my colleague in finding the arrogance and laughter of our colleagues on the other side of the House disturbing, to say the least.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with my good friend, the member for Leeds—Grenville.

I am delighted to rise to speak to Bill C-49, which will create the new Canadian museum of history. In my remarks tonight, I would like to focus on why it is so important to have a national museum dedicated to Canadian history.

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

We have all heard the statistics. Canadians lack knowledge of our history and wish that they knew more about it. Although more than 75% of Canadians feel that learning Canadian history strengthens their attachment to the country, fewer than 50% are able to pass a basic citizenship exam that tests general knowledge of Canada, and only 26% of youth aged 18 to 24 know the year of Confederation. Only 37% know that the Battle of Vimy Ridge was fought in World War I, and only 76% of Canadians are embarrassed about the lack of knowledge Canadians have about their history. Something obviously has to change. Our children deserve and should know more about the long and complex history of this great nation.

The establishment of the Canadian museum of history will give Canadians the opportunity to learn, appreciate and feel proud of the richness of Canada's history. The museum will chronicle our country's national achievements. It will explore the major themes, events and people of our national experience by bringing history to life and providing the public with a strong sense of Canadian identity.

Our government believes that it has a solemn responsibility to wisely manage the money Canadians send to us. That is why we chose not to build a new national museum from the ground up but rather to build on the reputation and popularity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to create a national museum of history that will showcase the national achievements that have shaped this great country.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is set to begin a progressive transformation that will be completed over the next five years and will lead up to Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. The Canadian Museum of History will 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 story and presents our country's treasures to the world.

Members might ask what this transformation involves. The government investment will allow the museum to undertake the renovation of almost half its permanent exhibition space. The result will be more than 43,000 square feet of permanent exhibition space, due to open in 2016, presenting a comprehensive and chronological history of Canada to Canadians and to the world.

It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First People's Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum.

To complement the government's investment and to ensure that Canadians in all regions have new opportunities to learn about Canada's history, the new museum will sign agreements with several museums across the country to travel exhibitions outside the national capital region, to share expertise and to lend artifacts and other material from its collection to enhance their local exhibitions and educational programs.

To quote Michael Bliss, a Canadian historian and award-winning author, this new museum is a “terrific opportunity” for our local and provincial historical societies as well as our national organizations.

Understanding that not all Canadian museums have the ability to accept large travelling exhibitions, the new museum also plans to work with those institutions to develop travelling exhibitions tailored specifically to their needs. These institutions will also be able to borrow artifacts from the new museum.

The new Canadian Museum of History will not only open its collections to museums across the country but will also provide a showcase for Canadian museums. To increase its capacity to host travelling exhibitions created by museums across this country, the museum will renovate 7,500 square feet on the street level floor of its main building to create a new temporary exhibition gallery. These exhibitions will help the Canadian museum of history to tell a truly national story and connect the treasures that are scattered in local museums across the country to our national narrative.

Between now and 2017, the museum is planning a series of temporary exhibitions that will highlight its new mandate and will build excitement about the changes in its programming.

In terms of how Canada's history is presented, some have wondered if there is a move afoot to present our history in a way that favours a partisan approach. I would remind everyone that the Canadian museum of history will remain a federal crown corporation and will continue to operate at arm's length from the government. The board of trustees and the management of the museum are responsible for determining exactly how the museum will present Canadian history.

Our government has established a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history. That is true. Having done that, we will leave it up to the capable management of the museum to make its decisions about the implementation of that mandate.

I would like to note that the museum reached out to Canadians, in person and online, to seek their opinions and ideas. The Canadian Museum of Civilization even launched an online forum located at myhistory.ca. The museum also carried out a series of cross-country consultations that gave Canadians the opportunity to give their opinions on the personalities, events and milestones that truly tell the Canadian story. In total, more than 20,000 Canadians contributed their ideas to the website, panel discussions and round tables all across Canada. We are delighted by this level of engagement. By the time we celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, Canadians will have a new museum dedicated to the history of this country. It will be a celebration of our history and the achievements and accomplishments that have shaped this great land.

This is a great opportunity for young and not so young Canadians alike to have a better sense of and get a better share in our history. We will be able to share the collection gathered at the museum here in Ottawa with other museums across the country, whether they be large museums that can benefit from large exhibitions or some of the smaller museums in smaller communities, like those in my riding of Wild Rose or in Kenora, as my friend from Kenora has just pointed out. Lots of communities across this country will have an opportunity to have the exhibitions travel to their parts of the country so that they can experience them first-hand. Of course, we will see some of the great pieces in some of the museums across the country come to the National capital region to be shared with people here. It is a great opportunity for all Canadians. It is a great opportunity for many of the museums across this country, whether they be large or small.

It is also a great opportunity to see the stories of our Canadian history told. We have a very rich history. Look at some of the amazing feats of soldiers, in particular, in World War I and World War II. I believe that some of those battles were the coming of age of this country. I have had the opportunity to visit some of the places where those battles took place. That is certainly not an opportunity all Canadians have. I wish they did.

Museums that will benefit from the travelling exhibitions are the places where Canadians can learn about these significant parts of our Canadian history. It is a great opportunity for Canadians and for all museums across the country to share our Canadian history.

I will conclude by encouraging all members of the House to join me in supporting this worthwhile and responsible piece of legislation. I will quote John McAvity, the executive director of the Canadian Museums Association. He said that “the renaming of the Museum of Civilization...is essential”, that it “is good news”, and that “it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage [and] to their history”.

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

Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, as I was listening to the member opposite, it was only at the very end that I understood the real reason why they want to emphasize great military victories.

However, just before that, I heard him say that it was a great opportunity. Indeed, it would be, if we could forget the fact that they are destroying the most popular museum in the region to convert it into a museum of history and the national showcase for the 150th anniversary. It is true that this anniversary is a great opportunity for the museum to perform this kind of role.

On my last visit, there was a magnificent symbolic image showing Parliament as it is today and a first nations village on the other shore in Gatineau, right where the museum is now located.

What precisely does he have against Canada Hall in this exhibition? The museum, as it is now, already represents our history.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out an inaccuracy in the member's preamble.

Although our military history in World War I and World War II, and fighting some of those battles, are a key part of Canadian history, there are certainly many other aspects of Canadian history that are very important as well, which would be showcased at the museum.

There are things like the last spike, which was not only the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway but also the completion of tying this great country together with the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald. There are things like the journey of Terry Fox, who continues to inspire Canadians today with his marathon of hope. There are things like the iconic hockey sweater of Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, which is the reason I wore number nine when I played hockey. Those are the kinds of people, events and achievements that inspire us and bring us together as a country, and I would point that out to him. I also want to point out that in creating the new Canadian museum of history, we would be encouraging Canadians to better connect to our history.

However, the things the member was trying to claim are just not accurate. The museum would continue to be able to make its own decisions about how it best meets the mandate that the government has given it. I just do not buy into what the member was saying at all. I believe this is a great opportunity for Canadians.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to the thank the member for Wild Rose for his hard work as chair of the tourism caucus and certainly for that eloquent speech.

I find the censorious tone of the NDP's debate on this piece of legislation quite interesting because, as the member for Wild Rose said, this is about telling our stories. The ever-shrinking number of northern members on that side of the House should appreciate that sometimes out in the hinterland we feel like our celebration of Canada is not properly reflected in some of these big city museums like the one across the way.

This piece of legislation specifically lays out as a mandate the opportunity for us to share and celebrate the rich histories that we have, for example, in the great Kenora riding, and to bring some of that our way. I think that is very important.

I wonder if the member could expound on that a little bit more, contrary to the interests of the members across the way.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my friend for Kenora because did touch on a very key thing here, which is the ability of the museum to be able to share those collections with some of the smaller communities. I think he is absolutely right. When we look at the members of the opposition, they do not represent some of the large rural ridings like his in Kenora and mine of Wild Rose in Alberta. They do tend to represent more of the large cities—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Davenport on a point of order, and a real point of order, I hope.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do have ridings represented by NDP caucus members that are—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Wild Rose, if he wants to finish.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to have these museums in some smaller communities all across this great country share in the stories and the history that would be contained in this museum here in the national capital region, to be able to see some of the artifacts from those museums in smaller communities brought into this one, shows the opportunities here for Canadians to build a better connect to their sense of shared history and to connect to the parts of their history from all across this great country.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight here in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. Our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value that they hold for all Canadians.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, we have an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. As a country, we have evolved considerably over the last century and a half, particularly with regard to culture.

In June 1951, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, better known as the Massey commission, recognized that the development of Canada's culture was challenged by three key factors: a small population scattered over a massive amount of land; our relative youth as a nation; and a robust cultural presence from our neighbours to the south. Sixty years later, we are still taking steps to fulfill the Massey commission's mission to do “what can make our country great, and what can make it one”.

An important step in meeting this challenge would be the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

Do members know that there are some 2,500 museums in communities across Canada? Most of us have museums in our ridings. In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, there is a museum or a local heritage building that displays our stories in almost every single community. Some museums are large and many are small, but most are run solely by volunteers, who are the lifeblood of our cultural institutions. No matter the size, I am sure that every member of this House would agree that our museums are crucial guardians of our heritage.

As a government, we know that museums play a vital role in our society. They protect our rich and diverse heritage and make it accessible to both Canadians and visitors from around the world. Along with the artists who commit are experiences to memory through any number of artistic media, digital media, music, books, visual art, those who care for collections that tell the story of our past are vital to helping us to understand who we are. These collections also hold the keys that will unlock the significance of events taking place today, for future generations.

There is no question the Canadian public also understands the importance of museums. A 2011 study by Léger Marketing found that 90% of Canadians believe that museums provide a valuable learning experience about our collective heritage, while 78% feel that learning more about Canada's history would help strengthen their attachment to Canada.

Our museums are an important economic driver in this country by attracting tens of thousands of tourists in all regions of the country. Museums contribute significantly to our $78.8-billion tourism industry.

The Government of Canada recognizes the vital role that museums play as part of our cultural landscape. We have a strong record of supporting museums, even in a period of global economic uncertainty. In these challenging times, some governments have made decisions to heavily cut their support for culture. This government is one of the few in the world that did not cut funding for arts and culture during the global recession. That is something that this government and all of us on this side of the House are very proud of.

Bill C-49 is another demonstration of the value that our government places on the museum sector.

Since 2007, the government has increased funding by $4.6 million annually for student summer internships, more than doubling the number of youth able to explore museum careers. Many of the young people who are working in museums today will choose careers in museology and in doing so, become the custodians of our collective past.

In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, I know of a young man who was hired to catalogue a collection from the Gananoque museum. He is looking forward to a career in the museum industry and I know he has taken a great deal of interest in the artifacts that we have there.

As part of the government's economic action plan 2009, we added an additional $60 million over two years to stimulate the economy by investing in cultural infrastructure through the Canada cultural spaces fund.

I know that in eastern Ontario we contributed some money to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, which is the operator of Upper Canada Village. I actually used to be the chair of that agency before I was elected to this place.

In the discovery centre funded with the aid of this fund, people can see much of the celebration and commemoration of the War of 1812. The November 1813 Battle of Chrysler's Farm will be re-enacted this summer at Upper Canada Village. There were many of these re-enactments last summer across eastern Ontario and in the Niagara region to commemorate that important war, which was the fight for Canada.

With respect to the bill, there is additional funding as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that museums across the country upgrade their exhibits and preserve their collections so that they are accessible for future generations. Canadians want and need to know more about our collective past in order to understand the united, strong and free country that we are today.

An important step in upholding our cultural heritage is the creation of the Canadian museum of history. The time is right to highlight our history because less than four years from now we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. Ours stories are vast and they need to be shared. That is why the government is building on the reputation and popularity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. As it transitions to become our national museum of history, it would give Canadians the opportunity to discover, appreciate and understand our collective past.

In establishing the Canadian museum of history, we would be taking an iconic institution in the national capital region and making it a nationwide network that would enhance the production and reach of exhibitions focusing on Canadian history.

The network would also benefit smaller institutions that, once they comply with a series of criteria, would become affiliates that would be able to borrow or co-operate on collections, programs and exhibits. As partners and affiliates, local museums would have access to important pieces of the nation's museum collection, which includes some three million items.

In a spirit of partnership, our national museums would develop a temporary exhibit space to welcome collections from its partners in the various regions of Canada.

This country deserves to have a national institution serving as its history's hub. We deserve to have a Canadian museum of history.

The government's one-time investment of $25 million would allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin a progressive transformation that would be completed over the next four years. The museum would also launch a $5-million fundraising campaign to support its new mandate.

I assure all of my hon. colleagues that the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, would remain an integral part of the new museum.

On the road to 2017, let us continue to celebrate everything that makes Canada the united, strong and free country that we are today. We have many wonderful museums showcasing specific aspects of our history. Our government wants to help them work together to weave a national narrative that is educational, entertaining and enlightening. The network of history museums being established under the leadership of the Canadian museum of history would help accomplish this. 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 presents our country's treasures to the world.

This is a very important bill. Many people in my riding are looking forward to it. I have already had discussions with some of our local museums and they are anxiously awaiting this bill to be passed and are looking forward to the opening of the Canadian museum of history so that they can have the opportunity to partner with the museum.

There are some displays at the Arthur Child Heritage Museum in Gananoque this summer. There was a travelling display of the War of 1812 in Ottawa at the National War Museum. I had the opportunity to take my young son to see that before it closed down. My oldest son, who is 12 years old, took a great deal of interest in many of the events that went on last year to commemorate the War of 1812. However, when I took him to see the display, which so enlightened us as to the different aspects of that important part of Canadian history, it demonstrated to me that showing off our national history helps people understand what our Canada is about today.

Therefore, I encourage all members to pass this bill.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has contributed in a very fair-minded way to the issues on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. While he sat on that committee, he participated in the study of Canada's 150th birthday. We brought in countless witnesses and asked them how best to celebrate and honour Canada's 150th birthday.

I would like to ask him if ever once there was a witness who said we should do what is proposed in this legislation. Was there one witness who came forward to committee during that study who said that we need to change the mandate of the Museum of Civilization, that we need to spend money on it, and that we need to narrow the mandate and change the name? Did anyone ever suggest that to committee?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague worked hard on that committee as well.

We heard from a lot of witnesses, and so many of the witnesses told us they wanted to see us celebrate Canadian history when we get to Canada 150. This is a great example of what we can do to celebrate that history.

We heard from people who wanted to celebrate back history in Canada. We heard from many different groups that wanted us to do things at the local level and to celebrate that history.

This is a wonderful way for us to have a hub here in Ottawa. This is a wonderful way to have travelling exhibits go out to the rest of the country and have exhibits come into this national hub museum. It is a wonderful idea. I encourage the hon. member to support this legislation so we can get this done.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, science and technology is an important part of Canada's history and the world's history.

My hon. colleague, who lives near the Ottawa area, knows the principal museum for this national museum on St. Laurent Boulevard is a converted bakery warehouse that has been there for decades.

I want to ask my hon. colleague whether it is a priority of the government to create a museum on the level of the Smithsonian to honour and celebrate Canada's accomplishments and the world's accomplishments in science and technology? Is that a priority for the government, because it is part of our history?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague makes a good point. It is important that we celebrate science and technology. I was a young student at Gananoque Secondary School growing up, and our class did go to that museum and I did learn a few things when I was there. As the member pointed out, I am very close to the national capital. It is important that we celebrate science and technology, but this legislation is about Canada's national museum of history.

We should have a good look at what the hon. member is talking about, but I encourage him to support the bill so we can get this part done.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all across this country, many students and many families are not able to see artifacts because they are hidden away in places that a lot of people do not get to.

It is wonderful going into the 150th anniversary of Canada that we have this Canadian museum of history.

Could my colleague please expand a bit on the importance of the artifacts and the displays that would be going in and out of the Canadian museum of history?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for all of her hard work.

My colleague brought forward a great consideration that has been dealt with in this legislation: not all Canadians have the ability to come to the nation's capital on a regular basis to see these displays. It is a wonderful idea to have these displays go out across the country and to have displays come to Ottawa from across the country. I cannot see why there would be any opposition to the bill. It is a wonderful way for us to celebrate our national history.

The government is putting a priority on this. We are putting money into it. The bill has to get through the House in order to go ahead. I cannot understand why any members in the House would not want to celebrate Canada and our history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-49 which will establish the new Canadian museum of history.

It will come as no surprise to Canadians that our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value that they hold for all Canadians. 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.

This government cannot overstate the important role that Canada's national museums play in preserving and sharing the Canadian story. Museums reach out in a myriad of ways to all communities across this great country, through travelling exhibitions, publications and online programming. Indeed, the digital age has expanded the reach of heritage institutions in this country and around the world. It has made it possible for us to share our stories in a way that was never imagined.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

The Canadian museum of history, like all our national museums, will reach out to Canadians and share our history through new digital initiatives. However, this is only one aspect of the Government of Canada's approach to capitalizing on the digital aid in service of Canada's history and heritage.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw to the attention of hon. members another important tool that the government has established to preserve and share our history, the Virtual Museum of Canada. The Virtual Museum of Canada was created as a result of the close partnership between Canada's museum community and the Department of Canadian Heritage. At the leading edge of this initiative is the Canadian Heritage Information Network, a special operating agency of the department.

The Canadian Heritage Information Network is a national centre of expertise in the use of digital technologies by museums, and it has been assisting our heritage community in taking full advantage of new digital technologies. The network and virtual museum are well-known and recognized as models by heritage communities in Canada and abroad.

The Virtual Museum of Canada receives millions of visits annually, from over 200 countries. It includes a detailed directory of more than 3,000 heritage institutions. That directory also allows Canadians and tourists to better understand and access these valuable repositories of our history.The Virtual Museum of Canada is also home to Artifacts Canada's inventory of almost four million objects and nearly one million images that showcase museum collections nationwide.

The Virtual Museum of Canada is also a highly interactive learning tool and resource for Canada's schools, teachers and students. Its teacher centre brings museums into the classroom. It offers teachers access to museum collections in the form of digital learning resources created by educators and museum professionals. It offers them a secure and customizable space to create and share lesson plans with each other and to interact with students. The teacher centre currently has over 3,000 registered users, students and teachers, and provides access to over 1,700 learning objects.

One example of a learning object collection is the one produced by the Royal Ontario Museum called “Shaping Canada: our voices and stories”. It provides teachers with the opportunity to demonstrate, by examining key artifacts, so we gain insight into Canada's collective history. At the end of the day, the Virtual Museum of Canada is essentially Canada's national online museum. It is designed to enable museums to work together in the development of an important and visible online presence. As its name suggests, the Virtual Museum of Canada is currently home to over 700 virtual exhibits, promoting the content of Canada's museums.

Connected with those exhibitions are more than 150 interactive resources, including “History matters”, which presents a series of audio and video podcasts, as well as short engaging stories of historical relevance. Both of these programs invite the viewer to say why history matters to them.

This is an absolutely fascinating aspect of the Virtual Museum of Canada. I urge all members to take a peek at it, at virtualmuseum.ca.

The range of virtual exhibits available for viewing, free of charge, of course, to everyone visiting the site, is extraordinary. The stories they tell us about our history are important, but they are not always easy. One example is "The Beginning of a New Era: the Quiet Revolution" , produced by the Musée québécois de culture populaire de Trois-Rivières. This fascinating online exhibit chronicles the in-depth political, social and cultural transformation that took place in less than a decade in Quebec, in the 1960s.

A further example is the exhibit presented by the Air Force Heritage Museum, in Winnipeg, entitled "For Valour: Canadian Airmen and the Victoria Cross" . This exhibit tells the amazing story of seven Canadian airmen who were awarded the Commonwealth's highest decoration, the Victoria Cross. It allows the viewers to imagine themselves flying in a bomber at 20,000 feet in total darkness, only to have their aircraft strafed and rendered inoperable by enemy fire. In the midst of this experience, we learn about the bravery and sacrifice of individual Canadians who earned our nation's highest honour. This story is even more compelling as we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I.

I could go on with more fascinating examples of stories of our history that are brought to life through Canada's museum and the Virtual Museum of Canada. I would encourage everyone here to explore them online, as millions already do.

The point I would like to make in closing is that the Virtual Museum of Canada shows that there is not just one way to preserve and share Canada's history with Canadians. The Canadian museum of history will be an important addition to that toolkit. It will provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support this new museum and to support Canada's history. Let us pass this bill as expeditiously as possible. I am sure that my friend, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, will have more to say on this subject after a few questions and responses.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member, who has just given us a very interesting virtual tour of the museum.

A member mentioned earlier that there were local museums in his community. We all have historical societies in our communities that recount Canada's history.

The member then asked, given that the Canadian Museum of Civilization fulfills the mandate of telling Canada's history, just as the Canadian War Museum, the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology, and all the local museums do as well, what possible purpose could be served by changing the role of a major popular museum—the Canadian Museum of Civilization—whose very broad mandate is to assist and support local museums? How could this government provide more assistance to the local museums that recount our history while supporting the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that in my riding, they receive moneys from the Department of Canadian Heritage every now and then, as do many ridings across the country, to help the museums carry on with their various projects and to build.

It is quite simple. In our country, which is so rich in its heritage yet is young compared to some European countries, we need to concentrate on our Canadian history. While not forgetting those things that made us great and while not forgetting the world around us, we need to better help us remember, appreciate and understand some of the trials and tribulations our forefathers went through to create this wonderful country.

As I go around my riding, and as I speak to parents and teachers and students, I find that because of the curriculum we have today, there does not seem to be the concentration on Canadian history there used to be.

The member talks about museums in the various ridings in the country. There would now be an opportunity for the museum of Canadian history to share with other museums artifacts in Ottawa and to receive artifacts from around the country, some of which are one of a kind. We could bring them to the nation's capital so that all visitors and all Canadians could see them.

That is the value I see. We can build on that and be very proud of it. I think it would add greatly as we celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The Canadian Museum of History Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not get to ask a question of my colleague from Leeds—Grenville, so I will ask it of the member for Northumberland—Quinte West. The member for Leeds—Grenville said something I found very interesting. He said that the main hall of the museum would remain as it is to commemorate the first peoples of Canada. I would have wanted him to elaborate on that and to perhaps share with us the origins of such an assurance in terms of who made it, when and whatever else could be found out. I understand that it may not be a fair question to the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, but I am putting it to him in case he is aware of the origins of the assurances the member for Leeds—Grenville gave us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question. There would be roughly 50,000 square feet renovated in the public space, roughly half of which is currently permanent. The member is correct. There are areas of the museum that would remain as they are. In deference to the member from the Northwest Territories, I can assure him that one of those areas is to remain the First Peoples Hall. The others are the very popular Canadian Children's Museum and the IMAX theatre. We are all very much aware of the IMAX theatre, that great Canadian invention.

There would be a $25-million, one-time investment that would allow for renovations and changes to the current hall. These are very important moves. The investment would be funded from within the existing budget of Heritage Canada, at no additional cost to the taxpayers. It also would allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to begin a transformation that would be completed in time for Canada's 150th anniversary.

I hope that is the answer the member needed. Those are assurances that there would be some permanency to some existing parts and some changes as we begin to concentrate on the history of this great country of ours.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-49, Canadian Museum of History Act.

We are all aware of the key role that culture plays in the life of our communities and in the lives of all Canadians.

The arts, culture and museums contribute to our quality of life, strengthen our identity and support our economy.

In Canada, culture is diverse, multi-faceted, thriving and reflective of Canadians and their country's geography.

Canada, the second-largest country in the world and 34th in terms of population, is united by its history, its official languages, its films and music, its sports and the ability to share common cultural experiences.

The Government of Canada recognizes the key role played by museums in the cultural community. Our support for museums remained unwavering despite the period of global economic uncertainty that we experienced. Over the course of this difficult time, a number of governments throughout the world all but took away their support for culture. We took another path. Our cultural community continues to receive the stable funding it requires.

Moreover, our government has increased funding for the Canada Council by 20%, the biggest increase in decades.

Our government knows that investing in culture and heritage is crucial to maintaining a strong economy.

We are here today to talk about the establishment of the Canadian museum of history.

Canadians, although spread out across an immense and awe-inspiring land, are united through their ability to share their stories. Our stories are many and varied, and they are worth telling.

A museum dedicated to our history will showcase these people, places and achievements that unite us.

The country needs a national museum that will tell the stories that make Canada what it is and that will carry out research and explore our history. Current and future generations need to be better acquainted with Canada's past in order to better shape its future.

Moreover, there are many people who are in agreement with us. Mr. Michael, a reputed Canadian historian and author, remarked that the new museum is a tremendous opportunity for our local and provincial historical societies and for our national organizations.

A nation's history is also shaped by its culture, and Canadians value their culture.

In a recent public opinion survey commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage, nine out of 10 Canadians said they believe that the arts and culture contribute to the quality of life of their community.

Canadians are generous when it comes to culture, which is further testament to the importance that they place on it.

In 2010, Canadians dedicated $108 million and 97 million volunteer hours to arts and culture. Arts and culture, in addition to our museums, are at the centre of Canadians' lives.

Over 90% of Canadians agree that cultural experiences are an important way of bringing together people who are from different cultures and who speak different languages.

In 2012-2013, Canadian Heritage arts programs supported 781 projects that benefited 687 communities. Millions of Canadians across the country enjoyed access to cultural experiences.

I should also point out that 87% of Canadians believe that culture is a key part of their identity—what it means to be Canadian—and how they express this.

To illustrate what culture contributes to the economy, I remind members that culture accounts for approximately $46 billion of the gross domestic product, which is almost 4% of GDP, and 630,000 jobs. The arts non-profit sector alone creates approximately 22 full-time jobs for every million dollars invested.

Our culture is vibrant, original, diverse, and international in scope. It attracts investment. It attracts talented artists and tourists.

The Canadian market is relatively small and the competition created by products from the United States and other countries is very strong.

All the more reason to encourage creativity and innovation—two major drivers of prosperity—which contribute to the success of arts and culture.

Throughout Canada, cultural ambassadors, and innovative and creative industries contribute to the success and dissemination of our homegrown culture. The book industry is a prime example. Canadian publishers generate revenue of over $2 billion annually and employ approximately 9,000 people. Over 300 Canadian publishing houses can be found in approximately 80 cities across Canada.

We are familiar with the remarkable creativity present in Canada's musical scene. Counted among these artists are, of course, Paul Anka, Diana Krall, Arcade Fire, Celine Dion and Coeur de Pirate. There are also a whole host of artists from various backgrounds who bring to life our festivals, continue to be creative, and record highly successful songs.

Canada is ranked third in the world when it comes to exporting musical talent. Every year, the Canadian music industry generates revenue of approximately $3 billion through the sale of the music of recording artists, various productions, commercial radio, and performing rights.

What can be said of our film industry? This year, there were Oscar nominations for Rebelle by Kim Nguyen, a screening at the Cannes film Festival of Chloé Robichaud's Sarah préfère la course, and the list goes on. Our films are viewed and enjoyed worldwide. In 2011 and 2012, the Canadian film and television industry's production volume reached $5.9 billion and generated approximately 132,500 direct and indirect jobs across Canada.

Every year, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the organizations within its purview invest over $2 billion in arts, culture and heritage. Our government has protected this investment because arts, culture and heritage are important to Canadians, their quality of life, their communities, and to the health of our economy.

In closing, I would like to remind members that Canada's history is crucial to our identity, that it must be recounted, defended and celebrated. That is why we are proposing the establishment of the new Canadian Museum of History. I therefore call on members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of Bill C-49.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to see that many of my colleagues on the government side are passionate about history. What a pleasant surprise.

They might want to control history, but they are nevertheless passionate about it. I too am passionate about history; history is fun. It is all well and good to want to ensure that our history, our museums and all of our artifacts are readily available to all Canadians. However, to make that possible, do we really need to destroy an institution that has not only proven itself across Canada, but is also internationally renowned? This is significant.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a work of art, and works of art must be carefully preserved. Is the government member capable of understanding that? I am asking him to meet me halfway. There are some crucial things in that museum. The Canadian Postal Museum is excellent. It represents an important part of our history.

Can the member explain why it should be sacrificed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I am also passionate about history and I understand his concerns. That is why our government has invested $25 million in the Canadian museum of history, to ensure that it enjoys a prosperous future and that it can convey this much cherished history to all Canadians.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with everything the hon. member said, in terms of the statistical data, about arts and culture, what it contributes to the economy and jobs, and its importance as the soul of our nation and in defining who we are as a people.

While this has absolutely nothing to do with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, I would like to ask the hon. member why, if his party believes so strongly in arts and culture, it proceeded to cut it so terribly over the last six years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I would remind the member that on top of the money invested, Canadians also donate 97 million volunteer hours to their museums, history and the arts.

This demonstrates how concerned Canadians are and how passionate they are, considering that nine out of ten Canadians support arts and culture. That is why our government will continue to invest in these programs and ensure the sustainability of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for articulating so well how important culture and heritage is for our Conservative government. Also, this is a very important time in history, bringing us together as regions. This is an excellent way with the museums that will connect Canada.

We will have partnerships with the Canadian museum of history and museums across Canada that will have the same mandate at local levels. We all have these precious museums in our ridings across the country, and the local museums will have the opportunity to become official partners of this new national museum.

When the minister speaks about this new museum and how we will share collections, that too is such an important part of the mandate because of things we do not realize we have.

I travel quite a bit now across the west, as a member of Parliament, and I have yet to see some of the sharing of the collections, but I understand one of the collections is in Winnipeg, the Hudson Bay collection. It would be so great, and probably most of us do not know it exists.

I want to emphasize how important it is, sharing of collections, and how important that will be for connecting Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her relevant comment.

As I said, the arts, culture and music contribute to our quality of life, strengthen our identity and support our economy. We care about our assets, beautiful film productions and songs that are timeless, inspire us and enrich our lives.

Culture in Canada is diverse, multi-faceted, thriving and reflective of Canadians and their country's geography. I am sure that my colleague will agree with me that it is an added value for us to have the opportunity to immortalize these great moments and wonderful achievements in a museum that will be a reflection of Canadians.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand before you and Canadians on behalf of the people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto, to represent them in this debate on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

It bears saying that the last week or so in the House has been quite a time. We cannot really divorce the context from the bill. We have a government that is in the middle of the biggest scandal in Canadian politics since the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Legislation that touches on Canadian history in the context of a government that has consistently sought to compromise the independence of third party cultural agencies raises questions of whether it has the trust of Canadians, the trust of the House, notwithstanding the vote. We know it has the vote.

However, we are talking about vital cultural institutions. We are talking about how Canadians tell their stories. We are talking about how Canadians see themselves in their stories. We are talking about access to the breadth, width and depth of the Canadian story. It is a story that is unfathomable, but in fact the question remains here, in the context of what has been going on in the House, what kind of trust Canadian people have in the government to pursue an agenda that has consistently included attempts to rebrand Canadian history in the image of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservatives are spending taxpayer dollars advertising on Hockey Night in Canada for programs that do not even exist. There is just a nice blue logo that connects that ad to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Canadians are no fools. They can see through this and they are concerned. It is a brand that is in tatters today. Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, Bruce Carson, Arthur Porter, not to mention the guru—

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member of Parliament is a little off the topic. We are talking about museums and the importance of the new mandate for the museum. I would think he would have lots to offer having a cultural background, as he talks so often about his talent and abilities to sing or play guitar. I would think we would hear more about talent.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule him out of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the hon. member for Davenport is entirely on point. It seems his party wants to make the Senate history.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will address the point of order from the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification. Given the range of debate we have had on this topic and the other bill earlier today, the member's speech, in fact, is probably a bit more relevant than some of the other speeches we have heard. There is a theme that is running through his comments that make it at least indirectly relevant. However, I would encourage him and all other members to try to address more specific points in the bill before us for debate this evening.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the public trust. When we are dealing with sensitive issues like the telling of our story and the mandate of a museum, which has been the most popular and well-attended museum in the national capital region with professionals who worked there for years and years to build up its reputation not just in Canada but internationally, it suggests that if the Conservatives are to make these changes, they better have some good reasons which would benefit all Canadians.

I bring up these issues because we see time and time again a government that lacks transparency and has no commitment to accountability. I mean, the Conservatives have lost $3.1 billion. It has fallen away somewhere and they cannot seem to find it.

I also want to talk about the way in which the bill came about. I see some hon. members across the way shaking their heads because they do not like the truth about how they spin Canadians.

We in the heritage committee were sent on a journey to study how best to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday. We interviewed countless Canadians. They said many interesting things, but never did they say that we needed to change the name of the Museum of Civilization. No one came to us and said, “Folks, you really do this. There's a real problem here”. No one ever said that, not once.

However, we did hear from many people who came before our committee from small archives and museums across the country. They said that if the government did not do something to help them out, that their archives and museums were on the verge of dying. Their curatorial workers are getting older, and the average age is well into the fifties, but because of deep cuts that the Conservative government has made to cultural industries in our country, and its contempt for the independence of third party agencies, fewer young people are going into this sector.

Now the Conservatives are telling Canadians that they are going to share this vast treasure trove of historical artifacts with all the little museums and archives across the country, but none of them have the capacity to receive that stuff. Not only that, there is no cost attached to the bill. This from the prudently fiscal government, but, oh yes, it lost $3.1 billion. I do not know if I mentioned that.

However, all of a sudden, out of thin air, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that he found $25 million in the Department of Heritage to spend on this museum. He said that it was not coming from any other program and no other program was going to suffer. However, he does not tell us where the heck the money was in the first place. Not one time have we actually had accountability and transparency on Bill C-49.

When we start to talk about bills, especially ones that change the narrative or at least try to describe it in a different way, we want to consult with Canadians. That is what the heritage committee is supposed to do and, in fact, we did. Then, the minister, while riding his motorcycle, had a vision. His vision was to change the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization. Then he doubled back, maybe he popped a wheelie, drove back to Ottawa and announced that the government was changing the name of the Museum of Civilization. He announced how much money the government would spend on it. Then, after that, he proceeded to public consultation. I know I am still kind of new here, but that is a little on the backward side.

The entire $25 million one-time contribution comes directly out of the Canadian Heritage budget, but the minister has refused to explain where exactly the money comes from or what heritage programs will lose funds to finance the contribution.

This is the game of deception the government is now famous for. The Conservatives cannot find $3.1 billion. It is lost. No one can say where it is.

This is a government that guts environmental protection of our lakes, rivers and streams but spends millions on a fake lake in Toronto. It refused to support the NDP's national housing strategy, but spent millions on gazebos in Muskoka to help re-elect one of its vulnerable ministers.

In fact, the minister responsible for housing told Canadians that the issue of affordable housing had been solved, since interest rates are at historic lows and Canadians can now buy houses. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality of life for folks who live in Toronto, who live in my riding of Davenport, who struggle day in and day out to afford their apartments, their homes. Families cannot find suitable and affordable housing. Seniors are barely hanging on in their homes, and young people are facing an incredibly unstable future without access to full-time, stable jobs.

The government decided the change the name of the museum at a cost of $500,000. It added about $400,000 more for its bogus consultation, which happened after the fact. That is why I call it bogus. It had already made its decision. It already knew exactly what it was doing. The plan was in the minister's motorcycle satchel.

This is how things are supposed to work in the House of Commons when it is not dominated by the anti-democratic reflexes of the government. We consult Canadians. We craft legislation based on the consultation. We table legislation in the House, debate it and finally, if the legislation passes, earmark the money and spend it on the program.

The government says it is going to spend $25 million to narrow the mandate and change the name of the Museum of Civilization. It says that the money is just lying around. Where was it all this time? It spent almost $1 million on a party and a consultation process, but the consultation came after the decision had already been made. This is an insult to Canadians. However, this is what we have come to expect from Conservatives.

In Davenport, for example, and this is on the point of consultation and transparency, people are only too familiar with this lack of consultation. For 50 years after a nuclear fuel processing facility had been operating in the riding, no one who lives near it knew what was going on there. The company's operating licence, however, clearly stated that it must keep the residents informed. It did not, and the government is okay with that.

That is why Conservatives have refused my request, on behalf of the community, to reopen the licence to give residents their lawful opportunity to participate in the process of public information.

Cultural communities and citizens of varied backgrounds came to us at the heritage committee. They talked about their stories and their concern about a dominant culture in which there is no space for them to talk about their issues and their history.

With its one-sided and triumphalist approach, the museum of history could run the risk of presenting a monolithic vision of Canadian history, unrepresentative of its diversity. This is particularly of concern to me. More than half of all residents of Toronto were not born in Canada. Their stories, their struggles, their triumphs, their hopes and their fears are the lifeblood that courses through the veins of Toronto. Immigrants' stories are heroic stories.

Recently I had the honour of being present at a ceremony marking 60 years of Portuguese immigration to Canada. The history of the Portuguese in Canada, particularly, in Toronto, is incredible. It is built on hard work, fidelity to family, love of home country, and a deep faith and commitment to Canada. It is a story of the collective achievements of a community, many members of which came to Canada with very little and contributed so much.

Will this story be told in Canada's museum of history? Will the great stories of Canada's multinational, multi-ethnic immigrant community have a place there? Will it be up to the whim of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and his buddies on the board?

There are many stories and many parts of our history that many Canadians have little trust the government would be interested in presenting at this history museum.

The fact that we are even discussing whether the Conservatives would be interested in them underlines the real problem of independence. We know already that the Conservatives have tried time and again to interfere with the independence of cultural agencies.

We have great stories. We have troubling stories too. We have stories of the history of feminism in Canada, for example. We have the tragic story of the Komagata Maru. We have the On to Ottawa Trek. We have the story of Norman Bethune, for example; the Riel rebellion; the story of co-operatives in Canada, which is a phenomenal story; and of course, the story of the first peoples of Canada.

There is concern, not just here on this side of the House but across the country, that the government has a very narrow vision of what is Canadian history and that the Conservatives want to prescribe in this new museum a vision of Canadian history that is not the full picture. That is the concern. There is very little the Conservatives have said during this debate to allay the fears of many.

Some people may think that some of these concerns about telling the stories of new Canadians and immigrants are misplaced. However, when we look at the Conservative record on immigration, for example, we have a lot to be concerned about. While the New Democrats want to reunite more families in Canada, the Conservatives' radical overhaul of Canada's immigration system is turning this country into a less welcoming place, making it even harder for families to reunite in Canada with overseas spouses, children, parents and grandparents.

Here is what the Conservatives are asking families to face: waits as long as nine years to reunite with loved ones; a misguided two-year freeze on reunification applications for parents and grandparents; and arbitrary rejection of visitors visas, with no chance for appeal, preventing many family members from attending weddings and even funerals. Meanwhile, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants to address Canada's long-term economic needs, the Conservatives are prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages.

This is no way to build our country or our communities. If we want to grow a 21st century economy, we will need to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. Making family reunification a central priority in our immigration system is one of the ways to go.

This is part of the context in which we are debating this bill. If we do not have a sense that the Conservative government will play a hands-off role in cultural agencies, and if we do not have a sense that it understands the importance of families and family reunification in our immigration system, how can we trust them to allow the full story of who we are as a country to come out in this new formulation of the Museum of Civilization?

The bill would closely follow the Conservative attempt to interfere with history as taught in classrooms, clearly interfering in provincial jurisdiction. We have heard these comments tonight about the apparent lack of attention to history in Canadian schools. Sometimes some of these members should perhaps consider running provincially, because that is a provincial jurisdiction.

This spring, Conservatives on the heritage committee attempted to study history in provincial classroom curricula, focusing on battles in military history.

We understand the need for a balanced rendering of history devoid of any political interference. Too often, though, we have seen the current government reach into cultural institutions and attempt to compromise their independence. In fact, the Conservative cabinet, if Bill C-60 passes, will attempt to dictate rates of pay for non-unionized workers and terms for collective agreements at many cultural agencies, including the CBC and the Museum of Civilization, or as it will soon be called, the museum of Canadian history.

For the Conservatives, it is always a race to the bottom, though, on the environment, on ethics, on transparency in government and, most importantly, on wages.

The government is ideologically committed to pushing wages down, breaking unions and privatizing key cultural institutions. This ideology fails the people of Canada and Toronto and urban workers in cities across the country. Almost 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot find full-time, stable employment. They work part time, freelance, on contract or are self-employed. They have no access to benefits, workplace pensions or job security.

Our cultural institutions are not only the repository, the incubator and the teller of our shared stories. They contribute enormously to our local and national economy, providing employment to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. In fact, the arts and culture sector contributes between $60 billion and $80 billion of GDP to the Canadian economy. However, when key employers, such as the CBC and the NFB, are cut to the bone, life gets much harder for workers in the cultural sector.

We need to frame this debate in the context of other cuts that have happened to cultural agencies. When the government talks about its interest in sharing Canadian history, a community of librarians and archivists right across the country scratch their heads.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have incessantly targeted Library and Archives Canada, a federal institution and the keeper of our collective memory. They have imposed modifications and irreversible consequences on our knowledge and perception of Canadian history, firing half of Library and Archives Canada digitization staff, cutting staff in charge of document preservation and conservation and eliminating the interlibrary loan program, which provides access for all Canadians to their national library collections.

These are the kinds of cuts that underline the fact that the Conservative government has done the most to prevent access to Canadian history since the $450-million cut to the CBC by the Liberal Party in the nineties.

We need to focus on maintaining the independence of these agencies. We need to stop wasting taxpayers' money. We need to introduce much more transparency so that Canadians understand where the money is coming from and how it is spent and that their history is not going to be dictated by ministers of the Conservative government.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, in defence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in asking where the taxpayer dollars are coming from, I will quote him from yesterday. He said, “How many more NDP MPs are not paying their taxes?” and he said “...the NDP will come clean on how many MPs are avoiding paying their taxes”.

The minister has been very transparent about how important this is, and he asked people yesterday to pay their taxes. That is how he is going to get it. It might be incremental, but he will be getting money for the museum.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member asked a question or answered one that no one was asking. The member's supposed question did not actually get to the point. The point is this: Where did this money come from? Where is the $3.1 billion? How can a government spend $50 million on gazeboes just to get a minister re-elected? That is what Canadians want to know.

Canadians want to know how the chief of staff to the Prime Minister can cut a personal cheque for $90,000 to a senator who is under a cloud of suspicion for inappropriate expenses to the taxpayer. That is the kind of issue that underlines the lack of trust Canadians have when the government starts reaching into cultural institutions and mucking about, which is what it is doing here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Davenport's cynicism about the museum of history. However, I am prepared to vote for this.

I would agree with the member about the record of the Conservative administration. One of the first moves it made in relation to museums was to cut the free truck service that delivered exhibits in climate controlled vehicles, taking exhibits from one part of the country to the other without cost to museums. We have reason for skepticism.

We all know that in history, history is written by the victors. As Winston Churchill once said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”. It is not the first time people have been worried about politicians writing history that is favourable to them.

I would like the hon. member to explain to me why he is concerned that there will be political interference when the legislation, as I read it, provides independence for the curators of the museum from political interference.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I am skeptical is because it does not matter what is written in the legislation; the government is going to do whatever the heck it wants to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the allusion my colleague made in his speech to the fact that we can actually be surprised that this government claims to like history so much, when the Conservatives have recently dismissed close to 84% of archaeologists.

I would like to tell my colleague that on the Museum of Civilization's website, there is a description that says a lot about the museum's current mandate. It gives us the feeling that our country's history is already very well represented in the Canada Hall.

Does he not think that all this debate and all this discussion is pointless, because if they had simply agreed to roll out the red carpet for the current exhibition in the museum's Canada Hall from the beginning, we would all have agreed with this wonderful initiative?

The problem is that they want to completely redo the historical narrative that is already housed in the museum right now. He should go and see it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question and also for his fantastic work as vice-chair of the heritage committee.

It is important to underline that this museum is already a jewel in the crown of Canadian culture. As usual, the Conservatives are looking to fix a problem that does not exist. However, in this particular case, the problem is their problem. The problem is that they want to redefine the way we relate to our cultural institutions and redefine that relationship so that it flows their way, to them.

This is a government that is intent on muzzling scientists and librarians, for goodness' sake. It is, in fact, a government intent on muzzling Canadian voters as per scandal upon scandal in the last election.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 150th anniversary of Canada, what a unique opportunity this is to showcase our great country and our great history.

I know from being a teacher for 23 years that, in many of our schools across the country, our history has not been taught. There have been so many other subjects that were very important. Some of the students cannot even name the prime ministers of Canada. This is an opportunity for small museums and people in different places to be able to get to see exhibits that they never had the opportunity to see before.

I cannot understand why, in the House, we hear all this rhetoric going back and forth off-topic about this wonderful museum. Can the member explain to me why he cannot support Canadians learning more about their history and enjoying this opportunity, approaching the 150th anniversary, to showcase Canada as the great country it is?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, great countries usually have great democratic traditions, to which they hold tight and which they fight to protect. That is what a great country does.

What we see here with this piece of legislation is that the democratic process was turned upside down. In fact, this was a decision made arbitrarily by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That should concern the member and it should concern the member's constituents. If we do not stand up in the House, fighting for the democratic ideas and ideals that Canadians hold dear, then we have got a serious problem.

The Conservative government has a serious problem. It is not committed to democracy the way that Canadians believe our Parliament should be committed to it.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question because I am little concerned with the word my hon. colleague from the government side just used, “showcase”.

I do understand it is important to show the world, the people in the country, and our young people the great things about our country and our history. However, one of the valuable things about history is the ability to learn from our mistakes and to admit our mistakes. If we simply use the word “showcase”, we may be potentially not reaping the maximum benefit of remembering our history.

I was wondering what my hon. colleague thinks about that.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his contribution to this debate and so many debates in this House where he comports himself with a great amount of decorum.

The issue here is that Canadian history is vast and deep. Some of it is controversial. Some of it means important things to some groups of Canadians and different things to others. The last thing we need here is to have politicians reaching into our cultural institutions. The last thing we need is to have these things become politicized and attached to the politics of the day.

I also want to just underline that there is nothing in this bill that suggests that this great sharing of Canadian history, which I would argue the government is not committed to, is actually going to happen.

They are all going to have to back to their ridings and explain the government's complete and utter failure to deliver on this, because it is going to cost a lot more than $25 million to share this history, especially given the fact that so many archives and museums across the country are short-staffed and do not have the capacity.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

It is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act. Our government recognizes the vital role that museums play in our cultural landscape. We have supported them consistently even during the period of economic uncertainty the world has just been through. During that difficult period, some governments chose to make severe cuts in their support for culture, but we chose another path. Our government is one of the few in the world to have refused to withdraw its support for arts and culture during the global recession. Instead, we chose to maintain our support and even increase it, in some cases.

Since 2006, our government has invested an additional $142 million in our national museums. Additionally, the House should know that, since 2006, our government has made key investments in the museum sector. That includes the creation of two new national museums, the Canadian Human Rights Museum, which is very important for the people in my riding and for all Canadians, and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, as well as increased funding for summer work placements for students in small and medium-sized museums.

We are fortunate to have more than 2,500 museums of all sizes across the country that enable Canadians to discover our history. Our government is committed to ensuring that the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments continue to work together to enhance Canadians' appreciation for their history and heritage.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian Museum of History will make it possible to encourage such linkages, reinforce existing partnerships and create new ones within the network of Canadian museums. in order to share our heritage.

Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, said that co-operation with this new museum will make it possible for local museums to offer special exhibitions and initiatives to their visitors that they would not have been able to offer before.

Creation of the Canadian Museum of History and support for Canadian museums are the government's priorities. Surveys have shown that 91% of Canadians think that museums provide a precious learning experience and teach us about our shared heritage. Canadians are convinced that Canada's governments should help protect and preserve Canada's heritage. More than 83% of Canadians feel that museums are the most reliable source of historical information.

With regard to the national economy, members should be aware that Canadian museums welcome close to 30 million visitors a year. The 13 million Canadians who visit museums across the country every year make a significant contribution of $78 billion to Canada's tourism industry.

Canadians believe that museums provide an opportunity to learn, and they are interested in Canada's social and cultural history.

We are well aware that various museums across the country focus on specific aspects of Canadian history and that they are in the best position to do just that. However, at the national level, Canada does not have a museum that provides a detailed account of our history. For these reasons, the government is introducing a bill to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history, a hallmark of Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history seeks to improve the knowledge, understanding and appreciation that Canadians have for events, experiences, people and things that have shaped and that reflect the history and identity of Canada, as well as Canadians' knowledge of world history and culture.

The government will invest $25 million in existing funding to allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to renovate nearly half of its permanent exhibition space by 2017. The new museum will also hold fundraising activities to solicit the support of the private sector.

Through existing resources and new partnerships with other Canadian museums, the new museum will also launch a series of large, travelling, temporary exhibits that focus on Canada's history.

The new Canadian museum of history opened a dialogue with Canadians on the country's history and the transformation process through a dedicated website and consultations in nine Canadian cities. Over 20,000 Canadians participated.

Clearly, the Canadian museum of history will be an excellent resource for promoting Canada's history and heritage. We are pleased that the House supports the amendments to the Museums Act so that we can offer another opportunity to celebrate Canada's heritage.

For us, the key element is this: while other countries have made cuts to culture, our government has protected funding for all of our museums; however, the opposition voted against those measures. That is a shame.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on the quality of her French. It is always nice to see that language courses and the bilingual skills of our political staff are improving.

That was a very nice and pretty speech, but my problem is that it regrettably reflects too much of an agenda. It is part of a strategy to determine what the history of Canada should be.

The government does not want to give Canadians a picture of Canada's history, it wants to impose its own history. It wants to destroy the Canadian Postal Museum although the post office is a historic institution that was instrumental in building our country.

How can the hon. member reconcile the two?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. However, I must correct his mistaken impression. What I said was that the House of Commons needs the truth.

For example, while many other countries made draconian cuts to their investments in culture, we made additional investments.

Canada's history is very important to Canadians, including the members of the House, our constituents and all future generations.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind. The Conservatives' plan to rename and rebrand the Canadian Museum of Civilization is a clear indication of their desire to direct, hijack and control a message.

I agree that it is important to talk about history. However, recent history shows us that the Conservatives do not do anything without a partisan agenda. The Conservatives' celebration of the events in relation to the war of 1812-13 was riddled with anachronisms.

I can understand wanting to promote history. However, why do so by rebranding the Canadian Museum of Civilization and changing its important mandate? This museum is known across Canada and around the world. People came to Canada to visit this important museum. As a result of the new direction the government is taking with the museum, many things will be lost and the government will control the message.

I would like the hon. member to assure me that the new museum's message will not be controlled and that the museum will not become a Canadian museum of Conservative propaganda.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. Let me clarify the difference between my colleague and our government. We are proud of Canada. We are proud of every aspect of our history, including our country's founders and our two official languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight on the bill about the museum of Canadian history. As a person who has been a professional educator for 18 years, I have taught every grade in the classroom, from fourth grade to graduate studies at the university level. I have served as a vice-principal and a principal of public schools as well. It is great to be here to support the bill.

It is a bill that supports the teaching and education of history to many thousands of Canadians, from one end of this country to another. When we think about the way history is being taught in Canada right now, some improvements are needed. I think it is disgraceful that we have only 3 out of 10 provinces which have the teaching of history as a required course for graduation. That means 7 out of 10 provinces from coast to coast to coast have history courses that are taught basically as an elective. I do not understand how we are going to reach the potential that is Canada, the potential that our nation can achieve, if we do not teach the next generation where we are from and who we are.

This needs to change. We all know that teaching and curriculum development is a provincial jurisdiction and mandate, but what can the federal government do to support the education of our young people and the teaching of history in Canada? I think the bill is one step forward to make sure the citizens of Canada, the next generation of Canadians, have a greater opportunity to take a look at Canada and understand who we are and where we come from. If they have a better understanding of that, they will increasingly have a better understanding of who we can be and who we will be and how we are going to reach the great potential that is Canada.

The bill is about who we are and who we can be. Whether our ancestors came to Canada across a land bridge from Asia, or they first set foot in North America to exploit our great cod stocks on the Grand Banks, or they established settlements in Annapolis Royal and survived scurvy and, of course, the harsh winters, or whether they built Acadian dikes and established agriculture on the east coast of our country, or they escaped religious intolerance in Europe for more freedom for their beliefs in this country, or they escaped slavery in the United States and escaped to Canada through the Underground Railroad led by great Canadians like Harriet Tubman, or they avoided the potato famine in Ireland and immigrated to Canada, or whether our ancestors, like some of my ancestors and the ancestors of the Minister of National Defence, sailed to Canada on the Hector with the Camerons, the MacNeils, the MacDonalds and the MacKays, or they immigrated to Canada from China to help develop the railway which united this country from coast to coast, or they fled Nazism and the Holocaust in Europe in the thirties and forties, or the totalitarianism and the Communism in the Cold War in Eastern Europe, or whether they simply sailed up to our shores as refugees from Vietnam, this museum will stand for all of them. I support this museum and I support this legislation.

This is our story. It is a Canadian story. Canada is the world's home. We have accepted Canadians from across this globe who are coming here to seek their fortune, prosperity, and to avoid persecution. They are coming for freedom, to be able to respect the religion and beliefs they want to respect. Canada respects all of these people who immigrated here. We are going to have a museum which reflects that respect, those beliefs, and the history that is Canada. As the second largest nation on the planet, with a relatively small population and vast natural resources, our future is bright.

Canada is a beacon of prosperity, and when we look across the world at the economic struggles that many of our neighbours are facing, we truly are a beacon of hope. We truly are a light at the end of the tunnel. Canada is experiencing a better recovery from the greatest depression since the Great Depression of the thirties than any other nation in the G8. Thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, we are emerging from that recession in a stronger position than anyone else, positioning our country for greatness for generations to come. This ability to help people coming to Canada, to help people who have lived in Canada for generations, understand where our nation was founded, how we have grown and where we can go is what this museum is all about. That is why I support this museum.

People from across the country have to come to our national museums, whether it be Pier 21 in Halifax or whether it be in Ottawa, and see what is contained in their national museums. This museum will work by partnering with museums all across the country, from Terrace, British Columbia to Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia to Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Small museums will be able to have artifacts in storage from these large museums.

I understand 80% of the artifacts of some museums at any given time are kept in the attic or kept in the basement. We will free those artifacts from the attic. We will free them from the basement. We will move them across the country, so literally thousands and thousands of Canadians, who have never had the opportunity to see these artifacts, to see what the history of this nation truly is, those who would not have the finances to travel from one end of this nation to the other, will be able to experience this in their home town, in their home communities and their home museums will be able to exploit this to help build the resources they need to celebrate their individual culture and history as well.

It is a win-win situation for our small museums and for all Canadians across the country. That is why we are putting forward this legislation. That is why this plan will best serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether they are rich or poor, they can see the true Canadian cultural experience right in their home town museums.

That is why we support this legislation. That is why Canada, small museums and small communities will prosper from this legislation.

What might be contained in some of these communities? What might be able to travel? Artifacts from Marconi's radio, Bell's telephone. We might have something from the Canadarm.

We could celebrate great Canadians like Harriet Tugman, as I mentioned before, and the underground railroad, like Adam Beach and Tecumseh, artifacts from the War of 1812, artifacts from the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the great military history we have in Canada. All these things can now in showcases across the country from coast to coast to coast so all Canadians can enjoy them.

Canada is a special place, a place that we can all be proud of and a place that we should continuously celebrate. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if we do not know who we are, if we do not know where we are from, if we do not know how we came to be, how can we achieve the greatness that Canada can be? How can we achieve that potential that every member of Parliament is here to ensure we all achieve together?

I am very proud to support this legislation. I am very proud that we are putting this forward. I encourage all members from all parties across the House to get behind our national history museum.

Any of us who have travelled to the United States or travelled to the German Museum of History, have seen what kinds of artifacts would be contained in these great national museums. This will be our Smithsonian. This will be our national museum, a Canadian national museum, celebrating great Canadians like Terry Fox, like all the prime ministers who have come before the current Prime Minister, celebrating great Canadians like Banting and Best and all the people who have put forward the scientific achievement that is Canada.

I strongly support this legislation. I credit the minister for putting this forward. This will be a true, national treasure for all Canadians to enjoy from coast to coast to coast.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an entertaining address on Canadian history. I found it to be his version of Canadian history to be entrusting us. I suppose each one of us in this room would have our version of Canadian history, what we think is important and how it should be displayed.

He talked about small museums. I sat on the board of a small museum called the Northern Lights Museum in Fort Smith. It actually had a great collection, collected by the Oblate priests from all over the north, 10,000 items. It is all in the national registry now.

At the time, we got great displays from national museums in our museum. We actually had a museum assistance program. In the 1980s, we used to get $25,000 for our museum from the provincial government. That museum assistance program never got any bigger in size and eventually it was cut by the Conservatives.

Small museums across the country need some financial support. What will this do for my small museum in my community?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is the centrepiece of this. Not only are we going to build a great museum in Ottawa that people can travel to, both domestically and internationally to visit, there will be the ability for great treasures that are contained in that museum to move across the country so all Canadian can enjoy them.

I am very proud that we are one of the few nations in the G8 that, during this time of economic difficulty across the globe, has increased the funding for arts and culture. When all the other countries are cutting that money, we are increasing it. This is another step we are taking to support our small museums, in our rural communities in particular, giving them opportunities that they have not had before.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from listening to the speeches from the government side, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the civic and political side of history, history that really has a direct civic and political relevance. However, there are other important aspects to Canadian history which are important to emphasize. I am a little worried that this new renaming the museum and the emphasis put on this Canadian museum of history is going to miss some of this.

This goes back to my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, who mentioned a small museum and asked whether it would receive funding. There is a very important museum in my riding, the Canadian Museum of Health Care, which is the only museum of its type in the country. It is short of funds. It needs to find funding to preserve the history of health care in Canada. It has an enormous collection.

Will this emphasis on the civic and political side of history miss an important part of history? In this case it is health care, but it could also be science and technology. Could my colleague address this question?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of museums across the country. We have the museums of science and technology across the country. Our government has done an amazing job of funding new museums, particularly our national museums. I think of Pier 21 in Halifax close to my riding, which celebrates immigration. I talked about it in my speech.

We have increased the funding for museums across the country. This program will allow artifacts from the national museum to travel across the country.

However, I do not think we have to take any lessons on history from the Liberal Party when it has a leader who said that all the best prime ministers came from Quebec. He said Mulroney, Trudeau and Chrétien, as if there were never a prime minister ever elected before 1968. That is the Liberal Party's legacy.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think we have time for one more quick question and comment and given the effort the member for Crowfoot put in to getting back to his seat in time, I will give him the floor for the last round.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this hour any movement is an effort.

I listened to the member's speech. Obviously, he has been an educator, not only in Nova Scotia, but my understanding is, although I do not know him really well, he was out west as well and he has taught across the country.

I wonder if he would just expand a little. One of the things I have tried to understand from what they are trying to do is how students from schools might now be able to take a field trip to a local museum that up until now, especially in the west, has had very limited artifacts. It would have artifacts about the west, but now some key Canadian national types of artifacts could actually show up in rural Alberta and rural Saskatchewan. How will this help teachers?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley has only about 20 seconds left.

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

Mr. Speaker, in many small rural communities in particular, and I have taught in several of those, they might have a local museum that really celebrates their community's history, the history of that small area of our country. The elementary children would go there, maybe in first or second grade. Then probably in third or fourth grade another teacher would take them down to the same museum and see the same artifacts. Then they might go there again with a different teacher in the eighth or ninth grade. This would give them the ability to maybe see something like Terry Fox's van, which will travel the country from our national museum. It would provide new artifacts—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long 20 seconds.

I am happy to join in the debate this evening 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.

In plain language, it is a bill to change the name and mandate of Canada's most popular and successful museum for reasons that make the Conservatives happy, but has others wondering if we will sacrifice a world renowned museum in order to celebrate some sterilized 1950s version of Canada in its place.

In addition to that, we know that while the government is changing the name of the museum, it is financially starving and constraining those individuals who do the work the museum is built upon. If it sounds ironic, it is because it is.

At the heart of this debate is a basic contradiction. The government claims it is interested in the country's history and wants to celebrate it and make the public more aware of it. However, the same government has undermined research into our history more than any other government.

With respect to the bill, the government is not listening to the historians, archeologists, archivists, anthropologists and ethnologists, the experts on our history who make it their life's work. Sadly, this is consistent behaviour for a government that seems to value its opinion more than fact and goes out of its way to starve and silence those who prefer the benefit of strong empirical evidence.

We see that across all manner of legislation and this is merely another in a long stream. When it comes to silencing, dismissing and starving critics, we could be talking about environmental research, the census or even the work of the NRC.

It is part of a larger pattern of behaviour to reshape Canada in dangerous and limiting ways. Certainly we have heard from professionals, researchers and experts that budget cuts combined with the federal government's consistent meddling in their affairs in research will have lingering negative effects on their work and the research that ultimately helps us understand our history better.

It would seem the Conservatives want to have their version of Canada become the official history of our country, which would certainly amount to official revisionism. Revisionism is a dangerous thing that can happen when a government does not like the portrayal of its country and sets about meddling in history to suit its sensibilities.

Not understanding our history or whitewashing it to reflect governing party values is revolutionary in exactly the wrong way, and we have certainly heard a lot about whitewashing this past month.

It reeks of anti-intellectualism and reminds me more of the actions of tin pot dictators than it does of modern western democracy. Last week my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, gave a strong speech showing how the government was playing fast and loose with Parks Canada, which maintains many historic sites, including some that are certified “historic” by UNESCO, which is the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture.

He explained how the government had laid off more than 80% of the archeologists and curators, those who take care of historic sites and preserve our precious artifacts. Now there are only about 10 archaeologists working for Parks Canada across the country, for all of our national parks, national historic sites and world heritage sites.

The member also gave a frank and clear warning that world heritage site status was not a given and UNESCO could revoke that status at any time.

I would hope the government had been listening to the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, but will keep my expectation in check at the same time.

Tonight, the government has the gall to tell us that it wants to promote history when the facts are, through indiscriminate budget cuts, it is actually walking away from fragile historic sites across the country. For example, it is planning to remove carefully preserved artifacts from Parks Canada's regional facilities in Quebec City, only to put them in storage in Ottawa. It is unbelievable. That makes our history less accessible and can never be considered promoting it.

Sadly, this is in keeping with the actions of a government that continually says one thing but does another.

The Conservatives say they are interested in history, but at the same time they have set about weakening and destroying every single federal public institution responsible for protecting our history. They have cut deep into Parks Canada, which is responsible for protecting our 167 national historic sites as well as Canada's world heritage. They hobbled Library and Archives Canada as well. In fact, the guardian of Canada's archives for 140 years, both as the National Archives and as the National Library, whose experts, archivists, professional librarians and others are recognized and admired around the world for their work, did not escape indiscriminate cuts. Now those wonderful exhibition halls are closed and those people find themselves out of work. For a government that says it promotes jobs and the economy, that is not the way to go.

We have to be clear and understand that this is a government that cut millions of dollars from research and the preservation of Canadian history. This is a government that laid off hundreds of archivists, librarians, digitization experts, historians and professionals at Library and Archives Canada. This is a government that destroyed programs like the national archival development program, which supported small communities all over Canada to create their own local community archives, allowing Library and Archives Canada to accomplish an essential part of its mandate. This is a government that almost put a complete stop to the acquisition of historic documents and artifacts by cutting the Library and Archives Canada $1 million budget to $12,000 a year. Yes, members heard it right. The Conservative government cut the budget of Library and Archives Canada from $1 million to just $12,000. Unbelievable.

This is a government that has allowed irreplaceable manuscripts and relics of our history to slip through our fingers and be purchased by auction houses and speculators, and then be exported to shady warehouses in the United States.

When the Conservatives claim they want to promote history, we can be excused if we meet that claim with a good degree of cynicism. When they want to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, they should be reminded that it has existed in one form or another for almost 150 years. In fact, some of the collection existed before Confederation.

The museum's mandate is “…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.”

Now this has to change and the focus would be on Canadian history.

One should not mess with success in that way. The Louvre has not been rebranded to promote more art from France. The British Museum has been going strong for hundreds of years. These are just examples. My point is that a museum requires continuity to gain credibility and become well known. That is what has happened to the Museum of Civilization, and the government is not willing to admit that a rebrand would amount to a new start and building a new reputation from the ground up. This is because of a notion that we do not celebrate our history enough.

Canada Hall will be gutted to make way for this. The fact is, arguably, the hall contains the most impressive display of Canadian history in the world. We will also be walking away from a commitment to maintain a collection of objects for research and posterity, which is absolutely shocking.

Many of these proposed changes indicate an interest in adopting a simpler story of Canadian history. However, critics worry that there is a risk of excluding different experiences from Canada's past that may not fit into an unchallenging narrative. That is not the Canada most people see or want to see. A country's greatness comes in some ways from the acknowledgement of its warts. The colonization of first nations or the regrettable treatment of ethnic minorities are not items that should be forgotten or marginalized.

We are supposed to learn from our history, but there is no guarantee that is what we will do. In fact, most of the renovations are shrouded in secrecy and we are being asked to give this our stamp of approval, which is something New Democrats are not prepared to do.

In closing, let us not change what works. Let us acknowledge the Museum of Civilization as a great achievement that celebrates Canadian history as it is and be proud of our achievement and contribution to the great museums of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, there go the NDP members again, insulting Canadians from beginning to end. Millions of Canadians across this country voted for this government and gave us a majority. Imagine equating a government that was democratically elected by the people of this country to a tinpot dictatorship.

That should not surprise us, because the New Democrats question the value of the Canadian efforts in World War I and World War II. The NDP defend those disgusting comments made by their members as though those achievements meant nothing. The last time we debated this, one of its members suggested that anybody who voted for the Liberals must have had an intellectual lobotomy, suggesting that the people who vote for any party other than the NDP are too stupid to get it.

Here is the reality. Canadians are smart people. That is why the New Democrats have lost 16 straight elections in a row. No wonder they are so bitter. If I lost 16 straight elections in a row I would be bitter too.

The mandate of this museum—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will just stop the hon. parliamentary secretary there. I heard him say something and I hope he was not attributing personal characteristics to other members. I did not quite catch it, but I trust that he was not trying to inflame emotions in the House at this late hour.

He has had the floor now for a little over a minute. I would ask him to be a bit judicious in his words and we will go back to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for cutting him off. It is obvious that he is the one who is angry and that the "s" word he used is on his side.

The government should not be deciding what should be on display in our museums. That should be left to the experts, professionals, historians, archivists, ethnologists and curators, the people who do the research and the hard work to help us understand our history—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Although you have cut him off, he keeps going. It is unbelievable how rude those Conservatives are.

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

Wow, that hurt. That hurt.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Why change a winning formula if not to impose an ideological vision?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage's idea to change the museum's name and redefine its mandate. He said so himself.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers had this to say:

We call on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to stop its process of redesigning that museum until a panel of distinguished figures in historical and museum work is created and has an opportunity to prepare recommendations...

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. Brilliant though he may be, is the minister a history or museum expert? I doubt it.

It is a typical Conservative move to make an announcement and then launch consultations to see how refining the proposal can score them some political points. It is completely unacceptable that experts in the field were not consulted.

Does my colleague agree?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly knows what she is talking about.

It is clearly not up to the government to make decisions on museum content. That is why professionals are in charge of research. They are the ones who make sure that artifacts dating back to another era have their place in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

This government is sticking its nose where it does not belong. This task really should be left to the professionals. However, the government is eliminating their jobs, and once they are gone, they are hard to get back because not everyone has these skills. It is important to ensure that our museums are well served.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver Quadra there has been a lot of concern from people at UBC about the muzzling of scientists. We have two important museums in Vancouver Quadra dealing with science. One is the Museum of Anthropology. The other is the Beaty Biodiversity Museum.

I would like to ask the member this. In her view, might the Conservative government's approach of clamping down on the ability of scientists to communicate extend to the curation of the exhibits in the museums in Vancouver Quadra?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just like with any other museum, the government members or any other legislators have no place in determining the content or orientation of a national, publicly funded museum.

The municipal governments do not decide what is in the small museums in our communities. It is quite important for the curators to know what they are actually bringing in. They are able to do the research, whether it is the museum in Sheguiandah, Massey, Vancouver, Assiginack or the Old Mill Museum in Kagawong. Rick Nelson in Kagawong is a great curator. He puts on really nice displays.

Again, we have a great museum that is in danger of becoming much less, based on some vague notion of an inner circle and not the opinion and knowledge of antiquity experts--

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is out of time, so we will have to move on and resume debate with the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has over 2,500 museums, made up of small local museums and medium and large-sized institutions. While many countries have opted in these challenging economic times to cut funding to heritage institutions and national museums, this government has stood by its museums and arts community, maintaining and even increasing its support to heritage organizations. The creation of the new Canadian museum of history is proof of that. Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. 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.

Alongside the Canadian museum of history, there are other great initiatives that our government has undertaken to support culture and heritage in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to bring one of these initiatives to everyone's attention, the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program, which was strengthened last year through Canada's economic action plan.

The Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program is a program through which our government assumes the financial risk associated with a presentation of significant travelling exhibitions showcasing Canada's and the world's treasures, so that these objects are accessible to all Canadians. This program guarantees that if damage or loss occurs to a loaned object, the government will compensate the lender. This government's guarantee helps museums and art galleries reduce their insurance costs when hosting major exhibitions, such as “Van Gogh: Up Close”, which was held at the National Gallery of Canada last year, or the exhibition celebrating 100 years of the Calgary Stampede presented at the Glenbow Museum last summer.

Without an indemnification program, most major international exhibitions in the country would not be seen because the cost of insurance is simply too high for many museums and galleries. We have recognized this challenge. We have also recognized that these blockbuster exhibitions provide significant economic benefits to the communities in which they are held with as much as $30 million in incremental tourism revenues for the surrounding regions.

The Picasso exhibition held at the Art Gallery of Ontario, which the government supported last year, saw nearly 310,000 visitors walk through its gates, placing it fourth on the gallery's all-time attendance list. The Van Gogh exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, which saw over 230,000 visitors, was the gallery's most visited show in the last 15 years. These numbers are good for both museums and the economy.

Since the year 2000, objects borrowed from prestigious collections worldwide were in turn seen by over 13 million visitors, in over 180 venues across Canada, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia. All of this occurred without a single claim, thanks to the program's rigorous risk-assessment process. Thus, every year since 2000, the government has saved host institutions from across the country some $2 million in annual insurance premiums, at no cost to taxpayers.

As impressive as these numbers are, this government realized that in the changing economy more needed to be done to support our heritage institutions. This is why we have introduced legislation through the 2012 economic action plan to double the financial capacity of the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program, from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. Our government has also increased the maximum level of support for exhibitions from $450 million to $600 million.

Thanks to the 2012 Canada economic action plan, Canadian museums and galleries have gained an important advantage when negotiating for major exhibitions because the cost of insurance premiums is often a decisive factor. Furthermore, this government has ensured that Canadians will continue to have access to significant artifacts and that all communities will continue to enjoy the benefits that come with major exhibitions.

Again, this is a simple measure undertaken without any increased risk to the government or cost to the taxpayer. On that note—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There is a point of order.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

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

Mr. Speaker, could we talk about the Canadian Museum of Civilization? We are completely off topic. The member is talking about insurance and protection programs for travelling exhibits. There is no correlation.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has raised a point of relevance, and I am sure the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville will bring his remarks to the bill as he develops his remarks on museums in general.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I am thrilled to report that the positive impacts of the legislative amendments introduced through the Canada economic action plan have already been felt. Indeed, shortly after changes were implemented last June, travelling exhibitions that could not be accommodated under the previous liability limit became eligible for full support. This was the case for the exhibition Frida & Diego: Passion, Politics and Painting, presented at the Art Gallery of Ontario, and Once upon a Time… Impressionism: Great French Paintings from the Clark, at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Thanks to the action of this government, these institutions saved a total of nearly half a million dollars in insurance costs.

As we turn our attention to the creation of the new Canadian museum of history, our government's commitment to the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program seems more timely than ever. Indeed, the program has become a tool, allowing some of the finest museums of this country to benefit from the circulation of significant travelling history exhibitions.

In conclusion, this government recognizes the important role that museums play in our society. We have a strong record of supporting heritage organizations, even in a period of economic uncertainty. The Canada travelling exhibition indemnification program as well as our investment in the creation of the Canadian museum of history is tangible proof of that. The Canadian museum of history will 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 presents our country's treasures to the world.

As such, I am calling on the opposition parties to support Canadian history, support arts and culture and support this very important bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. In his conclusion, the member talked about Canada's identity. I would like to know how the bill defines “Canada's identity”. What definition does the bill give to the notion of Canada's identity, and how will the Canadian museum of history convey that identity?

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

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Canadian museum of history will allow Canadians to see presentations of this country. It may not be the longest history in the world, because as a country we are relatively young, and many countries in the world have a longer history. However, over the past almost 150 years, we have had a lot to show to Canadians, to teach them about our past, to teach them of our achievements and to make them proud of what we are.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and I thank him for it.

One of the aspects of the new Canadian museum of history that we are hearing a lot of enthusiasm about is the ability for Canadians from coast to coast to be able to see some of these important artifacts of Canadian history without having to make the expensive trip to the national capital region. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on the benefit of the exchange between the Canadian museum of history and local museums in all of our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we have over 2,500 museums across the country. With the program that would be offered to them, many artifacts could travel across the country and be shown in local museums like the Bradley House museum in Mississauga.

Instead of travelling to Ottawa or somewhere else, people, school children and residents of Mississauga and the GTA, could make a trip to the local museum and see those artifacts on display there. That would be great and it could be done all across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something. All night long, we have heard our colleagues across the floor talk about what a great program this will be and how it will be shared with all museums in Canada.

I must emphasize that the issue here is not all these peripheral points, but rather the heart of the bill, which is to change a museum's mission.

I would like to read the description that can be found on the Canadian Museum of Civilization website. It states:

—a panorama of Canadian history unfolds in a space more than 3,000 square metres...in area. Life-size settings of buildings and environments from the history of Canada are reconstructed, furnished with appropriate artifacts...

It seems to me that that is a description of Canada's history. What does the government have against that history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where this negative approach comes from. It should be in the interest of us all to show what great things we have in our country. It is something for Canadians to be proud.

If we talk about our past, about our history and even about the education, and one member said that we were interfering with the provincial jurisdiction, we should know what kids are taught at school. We should be concerned why so little is known about the great Canadian contributions to the First World War and Second World War, because there is very little known. It is absolutely out of the question that this should not be known and should not be presented.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the bill, the short title of which is the “Canadian museum of history act”. The bill would amend the Museums Act to create the new crown corporation called the “Canadian museum of history”, which would replace the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The bill also sets out the purpose of the new Canadian museum of history.

In other words, the Canadian Museum of Civilization would be refocused and rebranded. That is a scary thought. The thought of any Conservative rebranding initiative is frightening.

When I heard about this legislation, my first thought was that the Conservatives planned to put a big a blue C on the side of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, representing the Conservative action plan or, as more and more Canadians like to call it, the Conservative inaction plan. However, that is another speech.

Maybe the Conservatives would put their big C next to a massive bust of Mike Duffy's head, praising him for all the good that he had done for the Senate. Maybe they would even give free admission to the museum if people guessed correctly where Mike Duffy lived. I am sorry, I do not want to give the Conservatives any ideas. Frankly—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There are a lot of cross conversations going on. I assure members that they will be able to ask questions and make comments when the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is finished his speech. Therefore, if members could just hold off until then, I think the rest of the House would appreciate it.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the thought of Conservative hands touching anything to do with our history, with our culture, with our heritage is reprehensible. A scary thought indeed.

Conservatives may claim to be interested in history, but that is the same government that has gutted the country's knowledge and research communities. That government fired and muzzled archeologists. That government constantly muzzles scientists, and I know that all too well in terms of fishery scientists within the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Our fish scientists cannot open their mouths unless the government first jams in the words. The same goes with Environment Canada scientists.

We do not have government science in this country so much as Conservative political science, the worst kind, the kind that is tainted by Conservative spin.

The Conservative government has fired and muzzled archivists and librarians. The government has gutted national historic sites, Parks Canada and our national archives. The government criticizes us, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I have been hearing this all night, for not backing it with a rebranding of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Not likely. Not a chance. It is about trust. Canada's cultural communities have no trust in the Conservative government.

Here is an idea. Let us allow museum professionals define the mandate and content of the museum. Imagine the Conservatives defining Canadian history. How would that look? The current Conservative Prime Minister would probably go down as the greatest Prime Minister in Canadian history, and what a joke that would be.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Members will be able to applaud the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl when he is finished his speech and I am sure they will give him a big round of applause. I would appreciate it if they would do it when he is done.

The hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is the same way that the Prime Minister defined the former Conservative MP for Labrador as “the greatest MP in Labrador history”, and what a joke that was. The people of Labrador laughed all the way to the election booths where they voted Peter Penashue out of office.

The Conservatives need to stop playing politics with our culture, with our heritage, with our history and with our museum.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada for a reason. The temporary exhibits on world culture under the current mandate are a driving force of tourism. Let us not change what works.

I have been to museums all over the world. I have been to the Holocaust museum in Israel. I have seen thousands of shoes from a concentration camp under a glass case, an image one never forgets. I have been to the British museum in London, England and seen mummies and Egyptian culture thousands of years old. I have been to the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. I have seen the first ever picture of a giant squid. The year was 1873 and the squid was draped over the bathtub of Reverend Moses Harvey of Newfoundland. I have been to The Rooms in St. John's many times. It is the place where it all comes together—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have had to get up three times now and ask members to hold off on their comments until the member is done. I would appreciate it if they would do that. I am going to have to start asking some people to leave if they do not allow the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl to finish.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I would not want them to leave, though, Mr. Speaker. I want them to hear the end of my speech.

I have been to The Rooms in St. John's, and I have been there many times. It is a place where it all comes together: our history, our heritage, our artistic expression. The Rooms is the portal to the many stories that our province has to tell. I have also been to the Museum of Civilization. It is one of the first places I took my sons after I was sworn in as a member of Parliament in 2011, and it was wonderful.

Now the Conservatives are going to mess with it. They are going to taint it. Support this bill? Not a chance.

Amendments to the purpose, section 8 of the Museums Act, seek to eliminate all reference to establishing and maintaining a collection of objects for “research and prosperity”. Collections at the museum, as well as its current status as a research institution, are clearly under threat. Amendments will also change the target for the museum's activities from “throughout Canada and internationally” to simply “Canadians”, removing any requirement to share our story with the world.

It is feared that the bill will result in popular exhibits on cultures and civilizations taking on a secondary role. The proposed renovation, which is still shrouded in secrecy, involves gutting Canada Hall, which took 20 years to build at a cost of $50 million. Canada Hall is arguably one of the most impressive displays of Canadian history in the world, and its very existence remains in limbo. I would not doubt that the government would rename it Conservative Hall, after the greatest of Conservative governments. What government would that be? Why, the current government, of course; at least in the hon. heads of the Conservative MPs who sit opposite.

Canadians know the difference. The sudden and unceremonious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum showed a lack of transparency. Who knows what unwanted surprises lay ahead? Who knows the mind of a Conservative? The mind of a Conservative would certainly make for a fascinating scientific display.

Under the bill, exhibits on cultures and civilizations will take a secondary role. I mentioned that earlier. The museum promoted the understanding of cultures and civilizations, from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Our exhibits went on the road and built the museum's international reputation. However, the Conservatives are not really concerned with Canada's international reputation, in the same way the Conservative climate change policy is killing Canada's international reputation and Canada's international reputation on any number of fronts.

The face of Canada has changed under the Conservative government, and that is bad enough. Imagine that our history, culture and heritage would change under the government. Let us cut to the chase. We are concerned that the internationally recognized Museum of Civilization will be used to put forward a politicized version of Canadian history. We might see a giant bust of Mike Duffy's head in recognition of his enormous contribution to Senate reform, and a prize for guessing where he lived. We might see a statue of the current Prime Minister with his arms wrapped around Peter Penashue, in loving admiration of all he did for Labrador, the greatest of Labrador MPs with the greatest—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Kenora is rising on a point of order.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the latitude that is normally afforded, but I fail to see the nexus between Peter Penashue and Mike Duffy in the piece of legislation that the member is currently speaking on. I think that is a reasonable observation.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the member for raising this.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has 30 seconds left. We have had a number of points on relevance raised this evening. I trust that in his last 26 seconds he will touch on the relevance of the bill.

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the task of defining the content of the Museum of Civilization must be left to museum professionals—historians, anthropologists, archivists, librarians—not to politicians. I repeat, not to politicians. The face of Canada has changed under the Conservative government. The face of Canada has changed so that Canadians barely recognize what we have become, at home and on the world stage. The last thing that should ever happen is that the Conservatives be allowed to tamper with our history, to tamper with the definition of who we are and where we come from.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I must say that I enjoyed his interpretation of what we might see in the new museum.

I want to come back to what has actually been announced. The government announced that in this new museum there will be an emphasis on dates, events, heroes and narrative timelines. Unfortunately, that departs from any sort of humanistic approach to history: a look at the contributions of women, first nations, immigrants, and the reality that their contributions have brought to this nation.

I would like the member to comment on that, since it seems to me that dates and timelines are a tad sterile for a country as incredibly diverse and humanistic as Canada.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very real concern.

That is why I pointed out in my speech that the task of defining the content of the Museum of Civilization must be left to museum professionals, historians, anthropologists, archivists and librarians. It should not be left to Conservative politicians. It should never be left to Conservative politicians to write their own history.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about curatorial independence, and that is why section 27.(1) of the Museums Act has not actually been changed. The member would know that if he read the bill.

He talked about travelling exhibits. Section 9.(e) of the bill talks about travelling exhibits.

He talked about research. Section 9.(f) talks about research.

The mandate of the museum is this:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History 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.

Is the real reason that the NDP members cannot support this bill that they are having a difficult time, because so many people within their caucus are actually separatists who have no pride or appreciation for this country, and they are having a difficult time passing a bill that wants to promote and respect Canada?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, although I do not thank the hon. member for his tone throughout this whole debate this evening.

The member talked about whether or not NDP MPs have read the bill. Of course, we have read the bill. I could not have prepared a speech unless I had read the bill.

The member talks about the emphasis still being on exhibits, but one of the many concerns here is that the emphasis is going to be off, for example, international exhibits; that is not going to happen. That is a real concern.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech.

One of the things that struck me was that he talked a lot about the opportunities he has had in life to travel around and to see different museums and look at different exhibits. The member talked about the value and enrichment this brought to his life.

Why does the member not want that same experience for people from his riding, who do not have the same opportunities and the same benefit of travelling the country and travelling the world, to experience some of the things the member has gotten to experience?

Why does the member not put aside his own ultra-partisan ways and stop basing his position on this bill on partisanship, and look to the benefit for his constituents?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the concern here is that the Conservative government is going to define our history and our past and will have the say in the exhibits and the museum. It should not be left to Conservative politicians. It should be left to knowledgeable people within the whole museum sphere. That is who it should be left to.

Too often in the past, the government has tried to define who we are as a country and who we are as a people, and it has absolutely failed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues. It is great to be here late this evening to speak about this wonderful new Canadian museum of history. I am very fortunate to be here, in fact. I am the granddaughter of three World War II veterans, and I am thrilled to be able to speak about our Canadian history. The fact is that my grandparents, along with many of the grandparents of many of my colleagues, helped to create this wonderful country. It is a country we need to talk about and a country we need to educate our children about and that I am very proud of.

Unfortunately, tonight we have seen a bit of a display of Canada-bashing on one side of the House. I would like to take a different tone altogether and talk about the wonderful things, not only about Canada, but about Canadians.

Let us talk about the Canadian museum of history. Our government believes in our national museums, and it recognizes the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. 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.

Our government looks to young Canadians as our future cultural leaders and museum professionals. Since 1996, the Department of Canadian Heritage, as part of the youth employment strategy, has supported the creation of student summer jobs through the young Canada works program.This program exemplifies our government's commitment to the nearly 2,600 provincial, municipal, regional and rural museums outside the national capital region. It is a program with far-reaching and practical objectives that responds to the needs of the heritage community.

The young Canada works program has multiple key objectives. For youth participants, the program aims to increase their knowledge and appreciation of important local and national accomplishments, provide the opportunity to work with heritage sector specialists, and help them discover career choices in the heritage sector while acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary to join the labour force. For communities and regions, the program does two things. First, it promotes the knowledge and appreciation of collections at the local and national levels. Second, it contributes to the sustainable development of organizations and communities.

Until 2007, fewer than 50% of eligible applications could be funded through the program. However, recognizing the greater need, our government announced new funds in budget 2007, which enabled the creation of a special $4.6 million annual funding envelope targeting small and medium-sized museums. Today, with an annual $7.6 million budget, the program supports the creation of more than 1,600 summer jobs in as many as 1,000 heritage organizations, including Canadian museums, art galleries, archives, libraries, historic sites and heritage buildings.

Before my opposition colleagues, who I respect tremendously, stand up and accuse me of not being on topic, I would like to remind them of the opportunities the Canadian museum of history would afford our young people who may be getting involved in this very important program. By supporting museums and heritage organizations, the young Canada works program contributes to the ongoing health and future of the heritage sector, helping to build a pool of the young professionals necessary for the museum community's successful long-term human resources planning.

As members may know, program delivery is achieved by partnering with six key cultural stakeholders, including the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Council of Archives, the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations, the Canadian Library Association, the Heritage Canada Foundation and l'Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation. The program leverages the professional knowledge and experience of these organizations, ensuring that program funds are allocated to the jobs that best meet the needs of employers and the training requirements of youth.

One program beneficiary, the Quesnel & District Museum and Archives in Quesnel, British Columbia, said:

As a smaller community museum and archives, we welcome the opportunity to hire students to assist with operations during our busiest season and to take on special projects. This program provides valuable work experience to students in a field related to their career aspirations. This year [our student] exceeded the objectives outlined in our original application.... We thank you for the opportunity provide this work experience.

These are the types of opportunities that the museum that we are talking about tonight could afford our young people. Many times we have heard in this place the concern we have for employment opportunities for our youth; this is another aspect for employment for young Canadians.

The need and benefits of the program are equally reflected in the words of youth participants. To quote one participant:

When I applied...with the Manitoba Craft Museum and Library... I was hoping to gain experience in archival photography and cataloguing; what I left...with was indeed that experience and much more.... The work performed...this summer has allowed me to tune my personal, professional and academic focus.... Working this summer has [provided] greater understanding of the historical significance of craft, especially the role of craft in welcoming and embracing new Canadians into society.

Another participant reported:

Working at the Spiritwood Museum this summer has been a great work experience. It differs greatly from any job I have had in the past.... One of the key parts of this job [was] cataloguing the item in the museum...another...was giving tours. This job has benefited me greatly. I have met and worked with so many wonderful people...have become more familiar with this community [and]...improved my history skills tremendously.

Beyond increasing their knowledge and their appreciation of important local and national accomplishments, it is hoped that some youth participants would consider further studies in pursuit of a career in a heritage field.

Representatives from the Bonavista Historic Townscape Foundation in Bonavista, Newfoundland recount:

We hired a young archivist to assist with the daily activities of the archives. The Intern did remarkable work with the historical and municipal records, and the employer has prolonged her contract...with the hope of securing funds to prolong even further the term of employment into a more permanent position.

Representatives from the Dawson City Museum in Dawson City, Yukon, also stated:

We needed an intern to revive the archival components of the museum. Being in Northern Canada, [we] could not find a candidate with an archives education degree so [we] hired a history graduate. The intern revealed herself to be a great acquisition for [us] [and] she appreciated so much her work experience at the archives that she has decided to do a master's in archival study.

In turn, Dawson City Museum planned to remain in contact with the intern with the hope that they could hire her permanently at the end of her studies.

The future of Canadian museums and other heritage organizations depends on the renewal of professional staff with the academic credentials, knowledge and skills required to maintain the high professional standards for which the Canadian heritage community is known worldwide. Most importantly, the future of the new museum of Canadian history depends on this program.

Contrary to what the opposition parties say, the Canadian museum of history will 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 presents our country's treasures to the world. Most importantly, Canadians deserve a museum that benefits them, while offering opportunity to our talented, hard-working youth.

I must say that I am the mother of five children. They are very much interested in Canadian history. I expect that through museums like the new museum of Canadian history, they will learn and be able to develop a history that they can then share with my grandchildren, and their children and their children, for many generations to come.

I am proud of our government's achievements. I am proud of what it intends to do with the museum. I look forward to visiting it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate tonight, and we have heard many different opinions and sides of the issue. One that keeps coming up is that it will be great for Canadians in small towns and rural municipalities because they will be able to see some of this great repository of Canadian history, which is interesting.

I will read a quick report:

In a move that blindsided the Canadian Museums Association, the Conservative government cut $4.6 million from the museum assistance program...The reduction in funding was made without warning, without consultations with museums or the museums association [said the executive director of the CMA, John McAvity]...“This kind of funding is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society”... But small museums across the country will be left competing for a much smaller pot of money as a result of the cuts, he said. “This program has been inadequate [for quite some time now]....Now it's even more inadequate.”

If we are talking about funding for a tour of artifacts to small Canadian museums, we have already heard at the heritage committee how desperate these museums and archives are. The government has already cut the program that supports these small museums. How much is it going to cost and where is the money going to come from so that these small towns can access Canadian history as the member has described tonight?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have actually convinced the member opposite to perhaps lean towards supporting this wonderful legislation. In that spirit of collaboration, I am going to respond with numbers.

Of course, we know that this government has in fact injected an extra $142 million into our museums. That is over and above what we last saw from a former Liberal government. That is a tremendous commitment to our museums. Unfortunately, the member opposite voted against all of that extra funding.

I might add that the member opposite from the NDP was talking about Mr. John McAvity, who supports this legislation. I am hopeful that my colleague will take Mr. McAvity's opinion to heart and that he will support this museum and support this all-important legislation for the future of this museum.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we went off topic a little when the member talked about summer jobs. However, in my riding students are having a difficult time finding jobs, and I will ask a quick, easy and direct question.

Is it because I do not have a museum in my riding that these kids cannot find a job?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member opposite that it is this government that invested significantly in the youth employment strategy, which affords an extra $50 million to young entrepreneurs so that they can move forward in this tough economic time. Unfortunately, the Liberals seem to always want to vote against our youth by voting against legislation that puts that funding in the hands of our youth.

As I said in my speech, we also have the young Canada works program, which is affiliated with our museums. This new museum, this latest addition with a $25-million investment by this government, will in fact create jobs for young people under the young Canada works program. I would suggest that member share this information with the youth of his riding so that they benefit from the opportunities that this governments provides to those youth.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague could take a moment to contrast how we on this side of the House feel toward Canadian history compared to the opposition.

I mean, as she so rightly said, we have made record investments. We believe in things like Banting and Best, the Canadarm and Terry Fox. One of the things we believe in passionately is our veterans. We believe in the men and women in uniform who fought for this country, for freedom of speech so we could actually hear some of the garbage that was coming from the other side.

I would like the member to contrast the difference on this side versus that side as far as Canadian history—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is only 20 seconds left for the parliamentary secretary.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me concentrate on veterans because, in fact, they are the people who did afford us the opportunity to have this wonderful country.

I am going to focus on the fact that I have a grandfather who fought at Dieppe with his brother who, unfortunately, lost his leg there. Both men returned alive. I also have a husband whose grandfather fought at Vimy. To know that the NDP have shamefully accused our veterans of leaving a scar on Canada as a result—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I confess that I find myself somewhat surprised that a speaking slot has opened up at this hour. I found out a few moments ago. I have been enjoying this debate, and at this hour of night, I hope I will be forgiven for trying to cheer everybody up by telling a short story about my daughter.

We were watching Canada: A People's History. The last episode, I hate to say, involved me. CBC decided that I was a good thread to describe the origins of the environmental movement. My daughter had been watching this program in school. Thank goodness for the CBC and the great programming that tells Canadians about our history.

As the last episode ended, she turned to me—she was in grade four at the time—and said, “Congratulations, Mommy, you're the first”. I said, “I'm the first what?” She said, “You're the first person who could ever watch herself on Canada: A People's History, because everybody else is dead”.

I just thought the hour called for some levity.

I find myself standing here having read Bill C-49 carefully, having listened to the debates, and particularly having heard what I regard as a very sincere, well-meaning presentation by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, for whom this is clearly a vision he cares about deeply. I think he has persuaded the Prime Minister to allow him to do something that I have come to believe is in the interest of Canada.

That is not without trepidation. It is not without sharing a lot of the skepticism of my colleagues on other opposition benches, but I come to this. We have had this museum, in one shape or another, since 1856. It has not remained static, and it will not stay the museum of history in another few generations. If we go back to 1856, it was for the displays of the Geological Survey of Canada. It was a hodgepodge, I can imagine, and by 1968, it was decided to split it into two things. We still have the Museum of Nature, of course, on Metcalfe Street. That was one part of it. The other part became known as, and all of my women colleagues in the House should brace themselves, the National Museum of Man.

By 1986, it was seen that the National Museum of Man was probably a gender-loaded term. They did not mean to call it that. One of my friends, who is currently a parliamentarian here, quipped, “When they name this thing again, please, God, let us not call it the mausoleum of men.” Let us inject the history and contribution of Canadian women.

In any case, in 1986, the name Museum of Man changed to Museum of Civilization and the inspired and entirely magnificent building on the other side of the river, built by architect Douglas Cardinal, was given to Canadians.

I remember well, because I was living in Ottawa at the time, that they were racing to the finish line to be ready for opening. It was such a nip and tuck effort that they called on Canadian senators to show up and help Douglas Cardinal fit the bits of marble to the curvy bits. It is all curvy. My dear friend, now retired, Senator Mira Spivak, was one of those who showed up and was on her knees until after 11 o'clock at night finishing work at the museum. Given current events, some people might suspect that it was the last time senators actually worked. In any case, it was a great opening.

I love the Grand Hall. I hate the idea that anything about it will change. I love the fact that the great silkscreen of ancient forests that we see in the Museum of Civilization today is actually a silkscreen photograph of Windy Bay in Gwaii Haanas, now part of Gwaii Haanas National Park. I would love it not to change at all, but change is not a bad thing if we can use the additional money to make sure that exhibits that are now in storage get out to people across Canada.

I see this as a way of invigorating our understanding of history. I have great concerns that the current administration is trying to re-mould our own iconography, how we see ourselves, and get rid of our notion of peacekeeping and see ourselves as a warrior nation. I share these concerns, but I have gone to section 27 of the Museums Act, and I see that the role of a curator and the way a museum is run is separate from political interference. We will have to watchdog this as it goes forward. I am not denying that, but I want the records of the debates in Parliament in accepting the museum of history to reflect that at least someone on the opposition benches was prepared to take a leap of faith, prepared to go with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and say, “Yes, okay. Let us modernize. Let us update. We will have a museum of Canadian history”.

It hardly sounds like we are updating when we are going back to our history, but let us imagine for a moment that we can. Let us imagine that we tell the stories of the women of Canada and their contributions, and of the new Canadians we celebrate at Pier 21, at the museum in Halifax. Let us exchange exhibits with Pier 21 in Halifax.

Let us ensure we tell the stories of the contributions of people whose stories are unsung and untold, and of the role that Canada has had in the world in the past. I hope we will reclaim it by once again being the best country we can be, by re-engaging with the world on climate negotiations, on drought negotiations, on all the things we have done historically for worldwide development and so on.

This legislation does include international exhibits. It does not say we are going to be insular and parochial. Let us try to see if we can accept the idea of a Canadian museum of history with an infusion of funds that allows our history to be real to our kids, and not just the kids who come to Ottawa to see the Museum of Civilization.

I remember when the Museum of Civilization opened. As I said, I went to the opening, but beyond that, initially the exhibits were panned. People were outraged that we had Disneyfied—I think that is what some of the commentators said—the collections by making them too touchy-feely, too hands on, too kid-focused.

Change will happen to the way we share our heritage. Change will happen to the way we tell our stories. If we engage ourselves with this effort in good faith, we will tell our stories more honestly. We will reflect more of the real Canadian mosaic and identity.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 11:27 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House shall now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher to the motion at second reading of Bill C-49.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #703

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

There is a correction on the third reading vote at Bill C-48. The final result was yeas: 276; nays: 1.

The next question is on the main motion.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and the NDP will vote against the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we will apply and we will vote no.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North will be voting yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party will vote in favour of the motion.

[Peter Goldring, Independent, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Edmonton East will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #704

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)