This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Shelly Glover Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats oppose Bill C-7, which proposes to change the name and mandate of Canada's most visited and most popular museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Let me explain why I have taken this position and why this House should vote down this bill. First, the process the government is using to change the museum is flawed and it lacks transparency.
Second, the changes to the mandate of the museum are unacceptable. The government wants to shut down the Canada Hall social history exhibit. It wants to ignore the contributions of hard-working, salt-of-the-earth Canadians, contributions they made to Canadian history.
My third and strongest objection is to the government and its apparent desire to dictate how the history of Canada is to be told. Governments should not be involved in determining what its people know and do not know about themselves. Museums must be left to the museum professionals.
The Conservatives should stick to politics and leave history to the experts. They have no business rewriting what Canadian history is and how it is told.
As to my first point, members might ask how changes to the Museum of Civilization lack transparency. We are told that the re-branding, renaming and remaking of the Museum of Civilization is going to cost $25 million, but where is this money coming from? Which programs in the Department of Canadian Heritage are being trimmed and cut in order to pay for these unneeded changes?
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has refused to answer these questions. Besides the lack of transparency around the money, the Canadian Postal Museum, which was housed within the Museum of Civilization was unceremoniously closed, without notice or consultation. What possible reason could the government have to still the voice of the pioneers of our postal service?
Even though the Museum of Civilization performed national consultations about the changes at the behest of the government, these consultations appear to have been an empty public relations exercise giving the false appearance of transparency.
According to experts, these public consultations were not true consultations. Notes were not taken. Concerns were not addressed. The real decision-making is not happening out in the open. The decisions are actually being made behind closed doors. How is that transparent? How is that democratic?
As for my second objection, to the reorientation and renaming of the museum, my colleagues across the aisle might be wondering what the harm is in changing the name of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history. In fact the name change is just a hint of the larger changes in the museum's mandate. Besides, most of the museum is already dealing with historical content and, until now, did not require a change of name.
The Conservatives want to eliminate all things at the museum that are anthropological or part of social history. They want the museum to be all about the heroic and a “who's who” approach to history. They want to emphasize dates and events. Anthropology has been part of this museum's mandate since 1907, but now the government seems to want Canadian history to be a simple and tidy story.
Let me remind the House that history is messy. History is complicated. History is best told from a holistic approach. History is more than just famous people and famous events. The museum currently uses a broad approach, and this is what we want to see remain.
Let me ask my colleagues across the aisle why they want to cut out the history of ordinary folk. What is wrong with the history of how things really were for everyday Canadians in the past? What is it in the current museum that they want removed? What do they want Canadians to forget about, besides the Senate scandals?
This country was built both by its famous people and its ordinary people. However, the government wants to sideline different stories, including stories of first nations and those marginalized due to class, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.
The Conservatives want a museum that ignores the contributions of diverse and ordinary Canadians. That is why the government wants to eliminate Canada Hall. That is why it wants to get rid of what has been called the largest and finest social history display in the country.
Canada Hall took 20 years to build and is made up of a series of life-size replicas of historical Canadian cities. This exhibit is a benchmark for the telling of social history in this country. It displays the lives of a wide breadth of ordinary Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These displays encapsulate an entire uninhabited history of this land.
I, for one, defer to and support museum professionals such as historians, anthropologists, archivists and archaeologists, and they are telling us not to reorient the museum to concentrate only on famous people. Famous people are not the only important people in Canadian history. Allow the museum to continue to tell the history of regular Canadians, of the people who built this country by their devotion to the land and by their determination to carve a future.
Canadian social history should not be sidelined. Canadians and visitors to Canada ought to be able to learn about all the different people who made this country, even those who are not famous.
Social exhibits like Canada Hall are about all of us. I am calling on the government to leave the mandate of the Museum of Civilization alone. If people could vote with their feet, then the 1.2 million people who visit and enjoy the Museum of Civilization annually would seem to agree with me.
The Museum of Civilization has been hailed as the crown jewel in our national network of museums. People love its approach to Canadian history. It is not a broken museum. Bill C-7 is a solution in search of a problem.
In my riding of London—Fanshawe, in the area around the city of London, we have excellent museums that are about our community's history. I am proud of the Strathroy-Caradoc museum and how it helps people discover our story.
The Fanshawe Pioneer Village, located in my riding, does a fantastic job of enabling people to learn about and understand local history, showing rural and urban life and the lives of everyday farmers and tradespeople in the 19th century.
Nearby, the Ska-Nah-Doht Village and Museum, which just celebrated its 40th anniversary, is a display that is devoted to the social and cultural history of first nations people. It is a testament to the contribution and reality of the people who lived in the Thames River valley.
My constituents love learning about and discovering their own history. The broad approach used by the three aforementioned museums is to be commended and shows Canadians want to know about their communities.
In his book, Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition, Timothy Luke talks about how museums, like the Museum of Civilization and the ones I mentioned from the London area, are places where Canadians first learn and later reassure themselves about their culture and their history.
He describes how, in other countries, museums have become a battleground in culture wars. He describes how politicians have tried to influence national identities by meddling with these public institutions of memory and history. He warns that “Museum exhibits may not change public policies, but they can change other larger values and practices...”, that is to say, what people know about their history and what they know their community. I quote: “...that will transform policy”.
This is the reason I object to Bill C-7, and this brings me to my third and final argument. The changes being made at the Museum of Civilization have not been asked for by museum professionals, our country's historians, anthropologists and archaeologists. These academics have said they too are against these changes. We are listening to these experts, and the museum experts do not want Bill C-7.
Why are we going through with this charade? It is absolutely essential that we take a very close look at the motives behind these changes and that we consider what this museum means to Canadians and what its impact is on our understanding of ourselves. If we do not do that, we have failed.
If we allow the government to ram through this bill without any comment, without any discussion, then we have failed the people of Canada. We have failed those who have made our history and those who choose to preserve it.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised there are not any questions from the government side. The Conservatives must be in a state of silence, which is unusual. Of course, the Prime Minister is in a state of silence all day in all things these days.
The hon. member made an interesting point, which is that we have to take a look at the motive for this change, because what we are seeing from the current government is that its members are trying to reinvent history as it is presented over time, and that is a worrisome matter.
When experts on museums are coming out in opposition to these changes, we should be listening. It is extremely important to listen to evidence-based research from the people who work in the museums and to history as they understand it.
The hon. member said we have to take a look at the motives. I did not hear all of her speech, but could she outline in fairly short and concise terms what she might think the motives of the Conservatives would be for changing the name?
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to try to peer into the Conservative mind, but I am profoundly concerned about this reinvention of history, the creation of history in their image. I wonder if it is as honest and honourable as they might try to present.
As a point of fact, the Conservatives are cutting local archives and abandoning national historic sites all across this country. They have cut 80% of the staff at Parks Canada. There are only a dozen archaeologists left to care for 167 of Canada's national historic sites, and the Conservatives want to invest tens of millions of dollars to remove exhibitions from a very popular museum. What is it about the Hall of Canada or about postal history that so upsets them that it must be removed?
Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders
October 30th, 2013 / 4:15 p.m.
St. Catharines Ontario
Conservative
Rick Dykstra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, first, to the member's last statement about the postal history exhibit that is set up, it will be moved, but it is not going to be abandoned or withdrawn. She should withdraw her remarks on that; she does not know her facts and is incorrect.
Second, experts in this industry understand what we are trying to accomplish here today. Let me read a couple of quotes from experts in the industry who understand what we are trying to accomplish together.
“...this government is sending a strong message that museums play an important role in our society”, said John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association.
Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, said, “...we welcome the opportunity to explore new ways that museums may work with each other" and that the association looks forward to the new direction announced by the government.
I have lots more. Experts across this country agree with the legislation. They agree with the ministry and they agree with what this government is doing. Why will the members on the other side of the House not put their partisanship aside on one issue and stand and support what we are trying to do for Canadian history here in this country?
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from experts too, and they are very upset with what the government is doing. They simply do not understand how it is going to benefit any of our museums across this country. The Conservatives are taking $25 million out of museums. Who is going to pay for that? Is it the small museums across the country that are going to suffer? This change would come with an incredible cost, and I want to find out exactly what we are going to have to pay.
The Conservatives claim to be interested in history. They have already gutted Canada's knowledge and research communities by firing and muzzling archaeologists, archivists, and librarians and by gutting national historic sites.
What more proof do we need that their motives are less than honourable?
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Before resuming debate, 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 Thunder Bay—Superior North, Regional Development; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 today.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization, which Bill C-7 would turn into the Canadian museum of history, is located in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. Not only does this bill change the museum's name, but more importantly, it changes its mandate to refocus and reposition it.
Many of my constituents are questioning the Conservatives' real motives here. I have received many letters, emails and comments from Canadians asking me to oppose this bill. Many of them fear that the museum is being exploited for political purposes. This fear is also shared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which represents 60,000 members. As the member of Parliament for the riding in which the museum is located, I also share that fear.
Since coming to power, the Conservatives have made repeated attempts to redefine Canadian identity.
The tens of millions of dollars of public money they spent on festivities to commemorate the War of 1812 is clear evidence of this, as is the completely pointless and costly addition of the adjective “royal” to the designation of Canada's navy and air force.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization is too important an institution to be exploited. No one has asked for changes to the status quo.
Even just changing the museum's name will cost approximately $500,000. I am confident that Canadians do not approve of that kind of expense, especially given the current climate of budget cuts.
I am confident that Canadians would rather have good jobs instead of expenditures on a museum they hold dear and changes that they did not ask for.
No one in the region was consulted before the government announced its intentions. Public consultations were organized to determine what people want to see on exhibit in the new museum, not to determine if they agree with changing the museum's mission or name. That is not the way to do things. Canadians are open to the world and they expect that of their museum as well.
Since it opened, the museum has been extraordinarily successful. This is the most popular museum in Canada: 1.3 million people pass through its doors every year. It is a huge tourist attraction for Hull—Aylmer. In addition, it is a economic driver and a significant source of jobs.
Tourism workers agree with me that the museum is successful largely because it has a combination of exhibits on Canadian history and temporary exhibits on other cultures around the world. All of that will change with Bill C-7, which would turn the museum into an institution that focuses almost exclusively on Canadian history.
I have a hard time believing this government when it says it truly cares about Canadian history and heritage. Just last year it eliminated more than 200 jobs at Library and Archives Canada. At Parks Canada, 80% of the archeologists were shown the door.
I do not think that laying off hundreds of public servants who are responsible for preserving and promoting our shared heritage positively contributes to showcasing our Canadian history. It is quite the opposite.
We want to maintain the museum's existing mandate, which already has a considerable focus on Canadian history. The vast majority of the museum's resources are already allocated to exhibits on Canada, and Canadians have shown that the current formula works for them. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
One of my constituents' main concerns is that the Canadian Museum of Civilization will turn into a second war museum. The government has been very clear that it intends to plan several military celebrations for Canada's 150th anniversary.
I have no problem with having the museum showcase the 150th anniversary. What I do have a problem with, as do my constituents, is using the 150th anniversary as an excuse to change the mandate of the most popular museum in Canada.
On that, we disagree.
I can hear government members say that the museum is an independent body and that the government cannot influence the content of its exhibits. If the government had not lost the confidence of Canadians and the opposition parties, we might believe that. However, in the current climate, no one can trust the government.
In May 2012, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages did not hesitate to publicly criticize the exhibit the Museum of Science and Technology chose to put on. The museum wanted to present an exhibit on sex education. According to the minister—who says he has nothing to do with museums and does not interfere in their decisions—this was an insult to taxpayers.
The government has never hesitated to bend the rules to pressure institutions that are deemed to be independent. We are seeing this right now in the Senate, which is also supposed to be independent. We know the score. It is far from independent.
One of the problems with Bill C-7 is the proposed mandate, which sets out not only the museum's general direction, but also the historical approach it should adopt. This approach is restrictive. It does not leave any room to showcase important developments in our shared history, such as gender relations and the impact of colonization on first nations, for example.
Normally, decisions about the type of approach adopted by a museum are left up to the museum's professionals and historians, specifically to avoid political interference. Who better than the museum's professionals and historians to determine the museum's exhibits now and in the future?
That is not what we have here. These are not the decisions of our professionals, who are opposed to this bill.
For all these reasons, we are voting against Bill C-7 at third reading.
Canadian Museum of History ActGovernment Orders
October 30th, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
St. Catharines Ontario
Conservative
Rick Dykstra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that members from all parties have an opportunity to stand to speak to bills that are presented in the House and also have an opportunity to respond to questions; however, the last two speakers have misinformed the public. Either their speaking notes are incorrect or they do not know enough about the issue to be able to speak to it or they are actually misleading the public in terms of what the legislation would do.
This is a very straightforward bill. Bill C-7 makes it very clear who would develop, operate, and maintain branches or exhibit centres, who would acquire property by gift, and who would, in fact, run the facilities.
We have never intended nor have we ever suggested in any way, shape, or form—and, most importantly, it is not in the very legislation that is before the House today—that the government is going to interfere with the operations of the museums, specifically the operations of the Canadian museum of history.
I want to give the member an opportunity to clarify her remarks, to withdraw what she said, and to put on the record what is actually the truth.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians trusted this government, we could have an open discussion and then come up with a bill dealing with a museum, or another bill dealing with another activity that would benefit Canadians. Sadly, that is not the case.
In the last two years, the climate of trust has been shattered. The government has interests that are contrary to those of Canadians.
This government has still not answered the question about the $25 million. This is not additional money; the museum is going to be changed with existing money. Which programs are they going to abolish? What is going to happen?
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is in her constituency, but it also belongs to all Canadians.
She emphasized that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is interested in the whole world, thereby helping us to better understand our Canadian uniqueness. I would therefore like to give her the opportunity to express her fears that the museum is going to lose a lot of its ability to connect with the whole world.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The museum is indeed in my constituency, but I understand that it also belongs to all Canadians. In fact, that is why I mentioned that, in Canada, it is the museum that attracts the most visitors, both from Canada and from other countries.
In terms of the lack of trust, in recent years we have seen everything focused on celebrating bygone wars and military activities. Yes, it is good to remember past military activities and wars.
That said, is that what a museum of civilization has to become? I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying that it is a fear born of previous experience. It is important to open ourselves to the world and to have other experiences, but it is also important to keep what we already have.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my two colleagues for their excellent speeches, which clearly explained the NDP's concerns about this transformation and these changes to the museum's mandate.
I would like to ensure that we have fully understood the key components of these regulations, which were presented in a catch-all bill that changes the museum's mandate. However, the bill also includes many bonuses. For example, artifacts will travel all over Canada and a student program will be established, among other things. These are all wonderful and noble ideas. However, of course, these exchanges are not scheduled to occur until 2017. That is fine.
Does my colleague not find that, although the people who will be an integral part of these artifact exchanges support them, their support is completely undermined by a lack of confidence in this government, which has demonstrated, time and time again, how it likes to abuse its powers? I am thinking, for example, of the commemoration of the War of 1812.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
It is unfortunate. In a climate of mistrust, people have a hard time believing that the government's proposals are in the best interests of all Canadians and not just based on ideologies that go completely against the museum's aim and mandate. It is important for Canadians and the entire world to know our history. It is important for Canadians to know the history of foreign countries and see what is happening there.
There is also concern that small museums will end up competing with the Canadian Museum of Civilization. That could be dangerous because the mission or primary purpose of this museum and museums outside the national capital region could be forgotten.