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 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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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 Métis 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, NDP, 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]

My colleagues should ask me the question properly without any heckling. Still, I agree with them. 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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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 why we brought this study to the Canadian heritage committee. But 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, 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, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

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.

[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 successfull 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.)

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moves:

That, in relation 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome everyone to this, the 36^th time allocation motion. This is a record. It makes you wonder how the government justifies once again invoking time allocation.

In October 2002, when referring to the number of times that the Liberals had invoked time allocation, the Prime Minister said the following:

“The government has used closure and time allocation more frequently than any previous government.”

The government has beaten this record, a record that the current Prime Minister denounced approximately 10 years ago.

Professor Ned Franks, an expert in constitutional matters, stated a little earlier this year that no government in Canada's history had invoked time allocation as frequently as this government. It is a record. It is thoroughly undemocratic.

I would once again like to quote the Prime Minister. On December 9, 2002, in reference to the then-Liberal government, he said the following:

He said that the government invoked closure because “...there are no plans”. He added “...the government is simply increasingly embarrassed by the state of the debate and it needs to move on”.

We are faced with a similar situation today. The Conservatives are so ashamed of what is occurring in the Senate that they want to cut short debate as quickly as possible, and prorogue the House, once and for all. It is, quite simply, undemocratic. When a time allocation motion is invoked, there is no opportunity to properly and fully discuss prospective legislation. Bill C-38 is a prime example of this.

The government has amended so many bills that it is now trying to fill in the gaps left by the dearth of debate. For example, the Fisheries Act was amended to change the definition of fish habitat protection. Last month, Fisheries and Oceans Canada called on stakeholders across Canada to help it define fish habitat protection because it was unable to do so itself. Had we debated Bill C-38 last year, we would have found a solution.

Invoking a time allocation motion is undemocratic and leads to second-rate legislation that will end up before the Supreme Court. It really is a waste.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for being part of this debate on such an important subject. I speak of Canada's heritage, our country's heritage, specifically the founding of a new Canadian Museum of History. I would like to point out that this bill deals with the creation of a new museum in the national capital, the Canadian Museum of History. As outlined in the bill, the museum's mandate is as follows:

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.

This government is creating a museum in Canada's capital that will set up a real national infrastructure to focus on and enhance awareness of our country's heritage.

I would like to point out the broad support that we have for the creation of the Canadian museum of history. It should be pointed out that the mayor of Gatineau, Mr. Bureau, supports the creation of this museum. Mr. Watson, the mayor of Ottawa, supports the creation of this museum, as do historians and museum directors from all across this country.

I would just point out, for example, that John McAvity, who is the executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, said that the renaming of the museum is essential. He said, “That is good news....it will give Canadians greater access to their heritage, to their history”.

Michael Bliss, an historian and an author, said, “It is very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly focused on Canada's history”.

These are all important initiatives. Spokespeople for Canada's history, the understanding of Canada's history, are excited about Bill C-49, the new focus of Canada's largest museum, and moving forward so that Canadians have this national infrastructure for the teaching, dissemination and future study of Canada's history.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing this attitude far too often from the Conservative-Reform majority government. The majority Conservative government has abused this legislature in the form of closure, which is what time allocation is, 36 times. The government is saying that members of Parliament who were duly elected are not going to be afforded the opportunity to thoroughly debate legislation. Thirty-six times is a record in the history of our nation. The government should not be saying “hear, hear” to time allocation. This is not a badge of honour. It is a disgrace and a slap in the face of democracy. It is a style of governance that is just not acceptable to Canadians.

We should not be taking for granted the system that we have in place. The government should be allocating more time to discuss legislation. It should be allowing and fostering democracy, not bringing in time allocation on every piece of legislation. Time allocation is not a tool to be used on every occasion. Every government of every political stripe, even New Democrats at the provincial level, have used different forms of time allocation when it was deemed necessary. It is not necessary on all pieces of legislation.

Why has the government time and time again used closure as a means to pass legislation when that is not a good way of governance? What we are seeing is an abusive Conservative-Reform government taking advantage by passing legislation through time allocation, which is just wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the problem with that, of course, is that our government actually moved forward to expand the time that the House can consider legislation, to have the House sit until midnight. The opposition parties voted against that. They are opposed to what he is prescribing, and then, when we take an alternative track, he is against that as well.

We announced our plan to create the Canadian museum of history in the second week of October of last year. This is nothing new.

We had what I thought was actually a very good debate. The leader of the Green Party spoke to the legislation. The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor spoke to the legislation. The NDP spoke to it, as well. Actually, I thought we had a very good, very thorough debate, with all sides represented. I was pleased to answer questions. I am looking forward, actually, to going the parliamentary committee to talk about the legislation and what it would mean and being able to answer in more than 30-second sound bites like we have in question period and to actually have a thorough conversation about what it is we plan to do with this institution and how it would benefit all Canadians, not just the national capital.

We are very excited to be going forward with this. We think it is in the best interests of this country. There is, of course, limited time on the parliamentary calendar. We have extended the time the House of Commons can sit at night. I am looking forward to having this legislation debated at committee. Let us move forward and support a great institution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition are trying to close down debate, as well. We have been here twice, two nights, and they have been too tired to sit here and work past 9:30 p.m., so they tried to close down debate.

More important, the member for Winnipeg North consistently gets up and talks about Reform-Conservative, as though we should somehow be ashamed of the fact that there are members on this side of the House who have been elected as Reform members, as Alliance members, as Progressive Conservatives and then as Conservatives, some of them seven times.

We are actually proud of those people and the millions of Canadians who voted for them, unlike the Liberal Party, which suggests that somehow these millions of Canadians are stupid, that they do not deserve the quality representation they have had from the Reform, the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservatives and the Conservatives who now form the best government this country has ever had.

Again and again, the Liberals insult the west. That is why they are a rump of insignificant nobodies in this House.

My actual question, though, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the best Canadian heritage minister we have ever had, is this. Not only how important is the legislation to the communities across this country, to small museums across this country, but just to reiterate, how important is arts and culture to this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, with regard to the start of his question, I am a proud former staffer of Preston Manning, I was elected as a Canadian Alliance MP and I am pleased to see that we have all been able to move forward, build our party and be in a position where we are able to put forward legislation and to build national institutions of national significance, like creating a Canadian museum of history.

On his specific question about what this museum would mean to all museums across the country, Deborah Morrison said it very well. She is the head of Canada's History society. She said:

...the potential for the new Museum to create a national framework for our history is compelling. And the time [to do this] is right.

What she is referring to about the time being right is that we are now just a few years away from 2017, Canada's 150th birthday. These moments do not come by often for many countries in the world. Having a sesquicentennial on the horizon is an opportunity for us to work together to build national institutions and to be proud of them and the work they can do. It is an opportunity not only to build up the presence of great institutions in the great capital of the city of Ottawa and Gatineau and the region but also, more important, to give a shot in the arm, a boost of financing and institutional pan-Canadian support to all the museums across the country. That is what this institution would do and that is why, as I said, we have broad-based support from across this country.

The former Liberal member of Parliament and biographer of Pierre Trudeau said, “Congratulations on the Canadian museum of history. This is a great boost for the museum”.

These are people, again, who are not typically Conservatives or Reformers or Canadian Alliance supporters but who are Canadians who can see the bigger picture, who can put partisanship aside and actually work with other people to support the creation of great institutions.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There are only 18 minutes remaining for questions and comments. Accordingly, I would like to limit the answers to one minute.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it seems this minute starts with me. That is amusing, but it may be a rather dubious gift.

I listened carefully to the minister. Frankly, the museum issue is not a matter of life and death. It is not as if the museum were in danger of extinction in any way. It is a museum that does its job very well.

I am the member for Gatineau, and this museum is in the riding of Hull-Aylmer. There are many problems with these changes and many questions to be asked. When someone is laying it on so thickly and involving the mayors, we must pay attention. The mayors may be happy to hear an announcement of $25 million, but that does not mean they will not have the same questions as their constituents and wonder what this change of mission and orientation really mean.

My problem is that the minister is telling us that yet another time allocation motion is necessary. I have finally understood, because his parliamentary secretary has told us, basically, that it is because they do not want to hear what we have to say. Hooray for democracy. I am outraged. Even Preston Manning would change sides because, if ever there was someone who believed in freedom of expression, it was him.

I would like to ask the minister this question.

The Museum of Civilization is a beautiful thing. Still, in this context, I wonder if the minister could give us a little update on the Science and Technology Museum, which was supposed to get a new location in Hull because it needs more space.

When one believes in museums, one does not create them piecemeal.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is very interesting.

We have already created the new Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg and the new Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax. Now we are creating a new Canadian Museum of History. She says she does not want that one, but she wants another one, the Science and Technology Museum. Really. What more can we do? We are creating three new museums but the NDP says those are not the ones they want. We are doing our best.

In a time of economic crisis, ours is the only G8 government that has increased its investments in national museums funding. Moreover, we are creating a new museum that is certainly very important for all of Canada.

I agree with her. I agree with the beginning of what she said, that the Museum of Civilization is not falling apart and it is not in a crisis. It is true. I have never said that. However, what we ought to do is take advantage of this opportunity as we head toward our sesquicentennial and build a pan-Canadian network, which starts with a jewel here in the national capital, and bind all our museums across the country together.

Nobody can argue that the Toronto Star is a broadsheet for the Conservative movement, but here is what it said about the creation of this museum. It stated:

It was welcome to hear...[the government] announce...rebrand the Canadian Museum of Civilization...as the Canadian Museum of History.

It said that Canada's history should be celebrated in this revamped museum and that this is a good effort.

This is what we are trying to do, work with other people. The member spoke of the importance of working with others, and I agree. That is why, before we tabled this legislation, I reached out to my critic opposite, to the leader of the Green Party and to the member of the Liberal Party to get their support for this.

We have tried to approach this the same way we approached Pier 21 and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We had quick debate, everybody saw the big picture, we worked together and we got it done. We are going to get it done on this museum as well.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a high regard for this minister in his sincere appreciation for the arts and his hard work for the arts. That has been clear to me many times.

I am scratching my head over this bill; I am undecided about it. So after those kudos to the minister, I really do want to learn more and hear more about this particular bill, because I am not yet persuaded that it is the right direction to go. I do not really understand the motivation. While I trust him, I am not sure that the bigger picture is healthy here.

I also just want to go on record as once again saying that the unbelievable number of closures on debates in this House just has to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the kind words, and I do hope he will be persuaded in the end to support this legislation and to move forward.

Just so he is clear, this legislation is a short bill, not a tough read, but of course the consequences of things are not always measured by the size of a piece of legislation. The new mandate of the museum would be very simple and clear. It says that the purpose of the museum would be 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 pretty simple mandate. There is nothing ideological about that; it is pretty straightforward. If my colleague wants to sit down and chat with me, I would be more than glad. The more members of Parliament who support this bill the better. We want this to be something that all people can get behind and support, and we want to move forward with it. I would be glad to give him a briefing.

I know the people of Thunder Bay have some great cultural institutions as well, for which I know my colleague has been a great champion. They would certainly benefit from the opportunity to access the 3.5 million items that are in the collection of the soon-to-be, hopefully, Canadian museum of history. There are 3.5 million items in the collection, 90% of which are sitting in storage, not accessed. We want the museums in his riding and mine and others across the country to develop their own narratives about Canadian history, access this collection and share Canada's history with all Canadians, not just have it all here in the national capital.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question. I may have a question tonight when we get into the debate about the bill itself, but the comment is as follows.

I was reading this morning that during his leadership, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent got into trouble on the pipeline debate when the government invoked closure for the first time in that particular Parliament and that, in part, it led to the defeat of his government later on.

I remember that when the previous Liberal governments also introduced closure, at some point I voted against such measures because I thought it was not appropriate and was against the spirit of democracy and this House, especially when there was no strong, valid reason and urgency to do so.

Now we are in the 41st Parliament, and I cannot recall which significant legislation we have been able to deal with without closure. That is a terrible way of conducting oneself and one's government in any Parliament in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fair comment. Obviously, we will have a vote shortly on this matter, and if my colleague wants to vote against closure that is certainly his prerogative.

However, as he also mentioned, previous Liberal governments and New Democratic governments on the provincial side use the tools at their disposal to move the country forward in a way they think helps.

I am here to advocate on behalf of the museum because I think it is good, and I think my hon. colleague from the national capital would see the benefit of creating a great new institution in the national capital.

As well, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has not been updated since 1980. The Canada Hall, which is supposed to be the narrative of Canada's history, does not include aboriginal Canadians, which is kind of a problem. There is a stern, short and inadequate reflection on Acadian Canadians and their facts throughout Canada's history and what they have experienced. There are a number of areas in the museum that need to be updated.

This is not just a change in mandate and name but also an investment of $25 million into not only this museum but this pan-Canadian network.

Therefore, I think it would be good for my hon. colleague. He can express his views certainly on the approach of the government when it comes to taking action, but I think the action itself is something that should have broad-based support, including from the hon. colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some clarification.

I think the debate at this time is supposed to address the time allocation motion, which is a procedural issue. But for several days I have been observing the Conservative benches. They are using their time to talk about the bill as if this 30-minute period were available for advertising.

In addition, if I add them up, we have debated at least four time allocation motions in barely a week. In the end, that takes away two hours of debate on bills we could have been discussing. Instead, the government wants to discuss procedure. However, it does not do that, because it uses the time for a great big infomercial.

My question is simple. Can we return to the House's ordinary procedures and only use time allocation measures when there is an exceptional, well-justified situation?

As it stands, I would hazard a guess that if we could fine the Conservatives every time they employed such motions, the deficit problem would soon disappear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns voiced by my colleague.

It is true that every time I have an opportunity to speak about the history of Canada, its importance and the importance of this institution, I do so. I take each and every opportunity to do so.

I am sure that the procedures of the House of Commons will be discussed at length. However, the history of Canada and its heritage are subjects that I care about, and I believe it is very important to talk about them. I am pleased with, and proud of, this bill. I hope that we will enjoy the support of those members who agree with the bill.

Moreover, I would like to stress that this bill was introduced on October 12, 2012. However, on October 11, 2012, before the bill was tabled, the NDP voiced its disapproval, even before they read the museum's new mandate.

If the NDP wishes to show at least a modicum of respect for the institution of the House of Commons and its procedures, it should ensure that it studies bills before making known its position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier who talked about time allocation. When we discuss issues in this bill, there is a lot of subtext and the subtext pertains to stuff that is under the legislation, such as the issue of sharing material across the country that would be normally of the Museum of Civilization or, in this case, the Canadian museum of history.

A lot of members from different parts of the country would like to understand how this will work and have the ability to question that in the House. Naturally, we can follow up with the bureaucrats and that sort of deal, like we normally do as parliamentarians, but we certainly cannot do that now because the legislation has not passed yet. I am not saying that this debate should go on forever, but I would certainly like a bit more information as to how this is going to be implemented. I am sure the minister, who seems to be quite sincere about it, would do it.

One of the questions I have is about the motion that was brought to the House studying Canadian history, which was alarming in the fact that it was very prescriptive in what it would do, very narrow in certain areas. It certainly caused concern. We also heard what the parliamentary secretary said earlier. I do not know why the government would do that within the context of the committee and disrupt a lot of stuff, because now we have the same sort of questions on the museum, which we would like to have answered.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me touch on the one subject he raised while we have the time. I am, again, pleased to talk to my colleague outside the House, and we will have a discussion at committee as well.

Specifically on the issue he raised, I know, not to betray a private conversation, it is one that he is particularly interested, which is the sharing of collections between museums. This is not something that is prescribed in legislation. It is not the place to do it. Those partnerships are found in the memorandums of understanding between the national museum and the regional museums. One of those has been signed. We have others that are lined, prepared to be signed in the future, such as the Royal BC Museum in Victoria, a fantastic institution. It has signed an MOU with the national museum.

Conspiracy theorists would argue that the government has tried to create an institution to tell its own narrative. No. The point is section 27(1) of the Museums Act makes it clear the government cannot prescribe the narrative in any museum in the country, as it should be. The MOUs that are signed between the museum and the regional museums is for them to decide, devoid of politics and politicians saying that certain things should or should not be shared with other museums. Therefore, they can decide their own narratives, they sign the MOUs and they work on this partnership.

When we take this legislation to committee, I know the president of the museum, Mark O'Neill, will be brought in. He has already done exhaustive research on this subject matter, reached out to museums all across the country, signed an MOU already. We have more that are lined up to be signed. The process, members will find, not only from the national perspective but from the perspective of local regions' museums, has been one of openness and sharing with them the collections they find most useful for the decisions they want to make locally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the manner in which the operation is being carried out and the way future projects are being described. The level of collaboration with other museums is also very positive. However, I have a huge problem with the fact that this is the 36th gag order on a bill and that the minister has the nerve to ask us to trust him.

With all the abuses in the campaigns and the way this government goes about doing things, which is true to form but, to say the very least, does not enjoy popular support, everyone agrees that the Conservatives have gone too far and, today, we are being asked to trust them. Yet once again, the right to speak on this subject is being denied us. How dare the Conservatives say that they have properly consulted Canadians when, as we were discussing Canada's 150th anniversary in committee, they clearly stated that the public needed to get on board with this project. Yet we know full well that your plans were made ahead of time.

Here is what I would like to know. You talk of respect, when last week, as I delivered my speech—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Once again, I would ask that questions and comments be directed to the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered my NDP colleague's question on this issue.

If my hon. colleague is saying that members on all sides of the House—and of course he is saying this to the government, but I think it is a message all members—should show greater respect for the parliamentary process and greater respect for democracy in the House, then why, when our government tabled this legislation on October 12, 2012, did the NDP say on October 11, 2012, that it would vote against the legislation before it had even been read?

The NDP members had not read the legislation, seen the new mandate, spoken to me, or spoken to anybody about this museum, or about what we had in mind or the approach we were taking. Had they just held their fire on rabid partisanship and just talked to us and to this long list of people who are not Conservatives and who support the legislation because they see the value in this institution, I think they would have found themselves with an opportunity to contribute much more reasonably to the establishment of a national institution that would benefit all Canadians, rather than just saying they were opposed to legislation before they had read it.

Respecting the House is not just a question of free votes in Parliament or committee structure or closure. Parliamentary freedom and responsibility and demonstrating respect for the House should also include reading legislation before deciding how to vote on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage said earlier that I had spoken to this bill.

In point of fact I have not been allowed to give an actual speech. I have only been allowed to ask a question. In the use of that question, I was able to signal that I had come to the conclusion that I would support the bill.

However, all of these closures mean that members in my position are never able to speak on the substance of the bill for more than 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, it turns out the same way for me, I suppose, in this moment.

I understand the member's frustration. Members of Parliament should be able to speak more frequently on legislation. It is great, for example, that in these coming few weeks Parliament sits until midnight., and I see nothing wrong with that.

I would like to see the House sit more often so more members of Parliament could express their views, raise their grievances, vent their frustrations, speak their hopes and represent their constituents. It would be good thing. I agree with my colleague on the ability of MPs to speak more frequently on legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time allotted for questions and comments has expired.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

During the taking of the vote:

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I need direction from the leader of the official opposition as to whether he intended his vote to be in favour or opposed to the motion.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition stood immediately after our colleagues in the corner voted, in favour of the motion. I believe that our votes are proceeding in that direction, as is confirmed by the table.

[Some hon. members]

But we want to vote no.

They like time allocation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The House leader of the official opposition.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the excitement of question period today and the total volume of time allocation motions does tend to wear us, so I take full responsibility for this.

We seek to vote no on this motion. We will proceed according as such to vote no.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Are there any others who are in favour of the motion? Seeing none, all those who are opposed to the motion will please rise.

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

Vote #699

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

There is a point of order from the member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is the first time in 16 years that I have seen a point of order during a vote. If members seem a bit crazy, they will pull themselves together in the end. I think the Chair should wait until after the vote to deal with points of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Canada Post.

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. Yet 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 world-wide. 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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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 Métis, 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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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, Conservative, 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 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.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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 built 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 in 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 the Archives of 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 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 been 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 is this new information on history, archeology and so forth 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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”, the 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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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 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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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)