Bill C-7 (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.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 38, 2013.

C-19, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 39, 2013.

C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures—Chapter 40, 2013.

It being 5:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 27, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-19, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014; and Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Canadian Heritage

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the Canadian museum of history is going to become is a propaganda machine. It is our history. It is who we are. It is our culture. It is about everything that we are as Canadians.

Instead of opposing Bill C-7 and trying to find every reason to say why this is not a great country, since 1867, they should stand up and support the museum of history and stand up and support Canadian history.

Third reading

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny to hear the Conservatives yelling because we are talking about the economy and tourism development, which is so important. They are putting a dark cloud over a region by changing something that was working very well. This is so unbelievable, it just boggles my mind.

I find it especially appalling that they continue to claim that meaningful consultation took place. Every time I heard any of the debates in the House on the previous Bill C-49, which has become Bill C-7, I heard the minister say he had the support of the City of Gatineau and its mayor. The Conservatives are playing with words and doing some fancy footwork with those kinds of comments. They are putting words in people's mouths, words those people never said. In that sense, I feel as though many Canadians are being misled. The Conservatives want to give the impression that they are changing something for the better.

I do not know how the government is going to react. The region is already struggling in terms of the public service breakdown, unless the government would have us believe that the job cuts made in Ottawa will achieve the famous 75:25 ratio that has always been promised to the Outaouais. Cutting jobs in Ottawa does not mean greater balance. That is not job creation.

This is exactly what is happening with this museum. It is a major concern for the economic players in my region and also for Outaouais Tourism. Obviously, when a minister shows up with a cheque for $25 million, people may be a bit embarrassed to speak up about certain topics. What I can say is that this has caused a wave of concern throughout the region.

I encourage people on the other side to do something other than just attend self-congratulatory events. They should go to the museum on a day when tourists are visiting so they can see what brings people to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am not saying that a museum of Canadian history is not important or necessary, or that Canadians would not all be better off learning more about our history, but why change the mandate of a great museum? As my colleague from Pontiac was saying, is this being done simply to turn it into a state propaganda tool? This creates rather serious problems to be sure.

Obviously, the Conservatives were ordered to vote a certain way. This is unfortunate. I have seen this museum grow and flourish. The Conservatives may laugh, but I can tell them that our region is close enough to Parliament to hear them laugh. People will remember. The members on the other side found it very funny to see that they could change a winning formula. We will see whether the new approach works. Meanwhile, as they say, if this causes some tourism and economic problems in a certain region, who cares? What was it that the Prime Minister said? He said, “I couldn't care less.” This is the message the Conservatives are sending out. In 2015, the people of the Outaouais will vote to tell the government: “We couldn't care less.”

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to be the last member to speak to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Once again we are subject to time allocation.

I am certain that many others, not just official opposition members but also Conservative members, would have much to say about this subject.

We are talking about the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am probably the only person in the House who watched it being built. I was a young law student working for the firm Beaudry Bertrand located at 25 Laurier Street. The Canadian Museum of Civilization was being built right in front of our office as a result of promises made by various governments in the early 1980s. The promises had to do with my lovely Outaouais region, which is just on the other side of the river. There was a huge imbalance between the number of Canadian public servants located on the Ontario side and the number located on the Quebec side.

One of the many promises made by the Conservatives and the Liberals over the years was that they would build a museum on the Quebec side. That is how the great Canadian Museum of Civilization came to be built. At the time, it was called the Museum of Man. The name was changed because it was discriminatory in the face of gender equality. It therefore became the great Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Why do we object so strongly? I was stunned when I saw this bill introduced. The former Canadian heritage minister is upset because we have the audacity to question his brilliant idea to change the nature of the museum, but it functions quite well. Museums inspire people to become more cultured and are an extremely powerful tool for developing tourism and the economy. The Canadian Museum of Civilization works very well in the Outaouais region, so well in fact that it is probably the top-performing museum, according to statistics. However, the government wants to change the nature of the museum.

The Conservative government—through its mouthpiece, the minister at the time—told us there had been consultations, but they were meaningless consultations. Real consultations would include asking the opinion of the public and partners, like Outaouais Tourism, for example. Does a certain museum need renovations, a different mandate or a new name? Those are the questions that consultations should endeavour to answer.

That is not at all the kind of consultation that took place. An announcement was made. At one point, the government said that it would provide $25 million to change a given room, and then it dangled that money in front of the City of Gatineau, asking if it agreed with the changes. Who would spit on $25 million? I do not know many people who would—

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

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

I have the honour and the duty to rise in the House to oppose Bill C-7, which appears directly connected to the Conservatives' plan not only to eliminate history, but also to control it. A Conservative member even said in this House that they were trying to control history.

Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-49, is the Conservatives' latest attempt to rewrite our history by recalibrating the Canadian Museum of Civilization and giving it a new image as the Canadian museum of history.

I am proud of our history, but in this bill, the Conservatives are presenting an incomplete history that is a bit too political to be called history. The bill will narrow the museum's mandate, and I am very concerned that they are doing this to disregard parts of our diverse history, such the experiences of francophones, first nations and women.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is an important institution in the Outaouais region, a region that I represent as a member from the RCM of Papineau. The museum received 1.2 million visitors last year and brought in $15 million in revenue. If the change to the museum's mandate is not done right, it could have disastrous effects on the Outaouais region's tourism industry, and therefore on my region as well. The region's economy and many jobs could be in jeopardy.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. It is a tourist draw that helps drive the economy. I cannot stress enough that this institution attracts people to the Outaouais, helps the tourism industry in the RCM of Papineau in particular, and helps stimulate the economy. Imagine losing these gateways to the Outaouais region, these huge museums like the Canadian Museum of Civilization—a museum that brings people from all over the world to the Outaouais. This will make a huge difference to our region if it is not done right.

Despite this obvious fact, the decision to transform the museum was not actually made by the minister's office. It is clear that this is a political decision, since the stakeholders in the Outaouais region were not consulted in this process. When people in my riding in the Outaouais say that this change will affect them, that they were not consulted and that they would have liked to be, I think this cannot be called consultation.

At the same time, the Conservatives will continue to spend millions until 2014 to commemorate the War of 1812, wasting taxpayers' money on pretty showcases, commemorations and ribbon cuttings.

In my riding, Grenville Canal was built as a result of certain events in 1812. However, the canal has been downright abandoned. It is falling apart and is being completely neglected and ignored by the government. However, it does exist and it has a place in our Canadian history. But no, it does not matter. On the other hand, there is always money for Freedom of the Town events held in towns that would have never had them.

In short, lately our history has been rewritten. It is clear that this initiative is part of a wider effort to promote symbols with a more conservative character. In my view, this is an actual scheme to rewrite our Canadian identity, carried out for the express purpose of highlighting militarism and the monarchy. Far be it from me—I really want to emphasize this—to speak against showcasing our military history. I have nothing against our military heroes.

The first time I came to Ottawa was to watch the Governor General present my uncle with the Order of Military Merit. I was a little girl at the time and my uncle took me to the Canadian Museum of Civilization for the first time. I am getting choked up thinking about it.

When most Canadians come to Ottawa for the first time, when they are young, on a school trip for example, they go to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They discover a great many things there. Let us not take that away from future generations of Canadians.

That being said, a history that only celebrates the military, which is what the Conservative government is doing, puts women second. No one ever talks about women in wartime, especially when we are talking about the past. Women are currently serving in Afghanistan, among other places, but when we are talking about history, no one talks about what women went through and how women helped to build the country.

I made this point during the study on the celebrations of the War of 1812 at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Frankly, it was clear that I was not alone in saying so.

All these changes also give me the impression that the Conservatives are off-loading some important tasks to our smaller museums, which are accomplishing a lot with the little resources they have. They are fantastic. To illustrate what I mean, I will talk about two museums in my riding.

The Plaisance Heritage Centre is an important and exceptional museum in my riding. It is devoted to the local history of Petite-Nation in the Outaouais. This proud and compelling region needed a museum that showcased its local history. The interpretation centre was founded in 1994 and, like the Canadian Museum of Civilization, it includes a permanent exhibit and temporary exhibits. One of the temporary exhibits on right now is about the importance of rivers in Petite-Nation's history. The exhibit focuses on Champlain and celebrates the 400th anniversary of his voyage on the Ottawa River.

The centre brings a lot of people to the region. Those who were interested in following Champlain's route and who took part in the 400th anniversary activities in the Ottawa-Gatineau region and on the river, came through Plaisance. This is part of how the tourism industry in the Outaouais region works.

The Musée régional d'Argenteuil also sits on the banks of the Ottawa River. It was founded in 1938. It is the second-oldest private museum in Canada and is housed in the Carillon Barracks in Saint-André-d'Argenteuil. It was purchased by the Historical Society of Argenteuil County. Many of the founding members were very well known, in particular Maude Abbott. The region has gained recognition because of them and their dedication.

Unfortunately, small museums are fending for themselves and they do not receive enough help. That is why I find it so unfortunate that this resourcefulness and passion for history is being pitted against a Conservative government that is abandoning history, culture, our economy, our environment and the way of doing things that we pride ourselves on.

I would ask the members of the House one last time to not support this bill, to vote against it. It will have truly damaging effects, not only on my region, but also on the way we self-identify as Canadians. I find that very unfortunate.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite is confused on the aspects of the bill. Bill C-7 would invest $25 million to preserve Canadian artifacts and to having this museum.

I find it surprising that the previous NDP questioner complained about spending too much money, and now this member is saying we are not spending enough money. The NDP needs to decide on the reason they do not support this bill because they cannot change their attacks within two minutes. It seems a little inconsistent and, unfortunately, very typical of the NDP.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would applaud the member for Oakville for his excellent speech supporting this bill. However, what I think might be indicative of the NDP's confusion on issues is the mistake of the member for Oakville being a teenager. I would politely disagree with that, despite being a big fan of his.

I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-7, which would create the Canadian museum of history. Bill C-7 is very short. It is very clear and specific. It makes a set of targeted amendments to the Museums Act to allow the Canadian Museum of Civilization to transform into the Canadian museum of history.

The creation of the Canadian museum of history would not be an isolated act. It would be one step in the larger government strategy in support of our history and the need to increase our knowledge and appreciation of it. That strategy did not start with this bill and the decision to create a new museum. Our Conservative government has been making efforts to close gaps in how Canada's national museums share Canada's incredible story.

In 2008, we created the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in Winnipeg, and in 2010 the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, in Halifax. The government recognized the need for these stories to be presented across the country. These were the first national museums to be established outside of the national capital region.

The 2011 speech from the throne observed that Canadians are united by core values, a shared history and a sense of common purpose. In that speech, our Conservative government pledged to join Canadians in celebrating our heritage. The 2013 speech from the throne reinforced this theme. The government's strategy is underlined by the priority it is giving to nation-building milestones on the road to our 150th birthday in 2017.

Our Conservative government's efforts began, as we know, with the commemoration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, as a way of increasing the awareness of the influence that this conflict had on our nation. Other important anniversaries and milestones in the years approaching Canada's 150th anniversary have been identified and will also be commemorated. On the War of 1812, I remember that having that moment to recognize our history was tremendously appreciated across Canada. I remember the celebration we had in Barrie for the War of 1812 and how the community came out to recognize that important milestone. A lot of young people in our community learnt a huge amount about it through that commemoration.

Other events we will be commemorating in 2013 and 2014 include the 100th anniversary of Canada's first Arctic expedition, the 150th anniversaries of the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences, the 100th anniversary of the First World War, the 75th anniversary of the Second World War, and the 200th birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald. I know the member for York—Simcoe is not in the House right now, but I know he would be a big fan of that particular celebration.

On June 11, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced a range of further measures in support of the government's history strategy. I would like to take a moment to describe a few of these. First, the Canada history fund will connect Canadian young people to their history in a number of ways, including through the Government of Canada's history awards, which honour outstanding students and teachers who show an interest in celebrating Canadian history.

We have some amazing teachers across this country who have done a lot to inspire young Canadians about our history. I think of Clint Lovell from Eastview, in Barrie, in the east end of my riding, who was recognized with an award two years ago in Ottawa. That inspired the community. It highlights people who throw their heart into Canadian history. I was pleased to see that recognition, and we certainly need to continue that type of recognition of some of our incredible educators.

Through the Canada history fund, the government has also partnered with the Historica-Dominion Institute, both to create new heritage minutes and to allow more veterans and serving soldiers to connect with students in their classrooms.

The second measure is a range of existing programs that have been strengthened to improve access to funding for museums and youth groups that wish to promote Canadian history in their local communities. For example, there is the exchanges Canada program that provides young Canadians with more opportunities to take part in history themed events. The Canada book fund encourages collective projects, with a focus on promoting Canadian history titles. The Canada periodical fund, through the business innovation and collection initiatives components, supports the promotion of history magazines and history content. The Virtual Museum of Canada funds 2017 online exhibits and podcasts, and provides new historical content for teachers and students.

Finally, beginning this year, we will mark the first Canada History Week, from July 1 to 7, which is an opportunity for Canadians to learn more about their history through local and national activities and events.

The creation of the Canadian museum of history is a significant part of this multi-faceted strategy to explore and preserve our history and increase Canadians' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of it. Indeed, Bill C-7 is but one aspect of this exciting initiative.

We know that in addition to the creation of the museum, a network of history museums in Canada is being formed. Led by the Canadian museum of history, museums would work together to share Canada's stories, share artifacts that are the touchstones of those stories, bring history exhibitions from museums across Canada to the national museum, and create opportunities specifically for small museums to borrow artifacts from that national collection.

We all have museums in our regions that would love this opportunity. I can think of the Simcoe County Museum, just north of Barrie, in the riding of Simcoe—Grey, and that would be tremendously appreciated by the broader Simcoe County community.

To help make this happen, the museum assistance program would support museums, including small museums that wish to borrow objects from exhibitions in the national collection of the Canadian museum of history. We understand that the cost of shipping and insuring artifacts is often too much for small museums. We want to help these museums showcase the national collection across the country, which is why we changed the museums assistance program.

The museum assistance program would make it easier for institutions to create and share history exhibits, by eliminating the requirement for exhibits to travel outside their province or territory of origin. We recognize that local and provincial history is an important part of our broader national story. It is vital to give a voice to these stories. We believe that by moving the interprovincial requirement for exhibition circulation, more exhibitions would be shared, and the Canadian story would be better understood.

These are exciting initiatives, and we hope their impact will be felt by Canadians for generations to come. The creation of the Canadian museum of history, through Bill C-7, is an important part of this broader history strategy.

I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-7 and efforts being made within and outside government to preserve and promote Canada's history. It really is an incredible story.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to something that is going to be opening up in Winnipeg that many Winnipeggers and people from across Canada are looking forward to: the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

There is no doubt a lot to be said about names, and if we take a look at that particular national institution, we would find that support for its name is virtually universal. I believe all political entities in the House of Commons are quite supportive of the name of that museum. We all look forward to its eventual opening sometime next year.

That said, would the member not agree that with regard to the current museum and Bill C-7, it would have been more effective to have gotten unanimous support in the naming of such of critical museum, and does he question why that is not the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, never have such strong-arm tactics been used to amend national museum legislation. I want to congratulate the members opposite.

The way this government expects Parliament to do its bidding would make anyone's blood boil. Not only are the Conservatives asking us to stand quietly by while they shove a museum down our throats, but they are also asking us to trust them. That takes the cake.

They are getting ready to shut down the existing Canadian Museum of Civilization and, at the same time, they are asking us to believe that the museum will be just as popular, just as accessible and just as non-partisan as it has been for the past 20 years. More than anything though, the Conservatives are asking us to trust their word when they swear that the government will not interfere with the new museum. We know that the government is passionate about certain historic topics, at least when presented in nice, little 30-second television clips.

They are asking Canadians to close their eyes, fall backwards and hope that someone will be there to catch them. There are far more reasons not to believe them than there are to trust them.

We know what the Conservatives' commitments to the independence of crown corporations really mean. We are well aware of examples of their interference elsewhere in government. I am especially thinking of Bill C-60, which is the most obvious example of their taste for excessively proactive management of arm's-length agencies. We know that the government is always elbow-deep into the operations of any organization that needs to operate autonomously and at arm's length.

The Conservatives also ask us to trust them when they tell us they have consulted experts. However, the national associations of archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have publicly expressed their outrage at not being consulted. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them, just as we would like to trust the government to protect our national institutions, such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada, institutions that the Conservatives have deliberately gutted in recent years. They were stripped of their experts and their researchers, individuals who work hard to protect our history. I do not need to remind you that Parks Canada and its historic sites recently lost 80% of their archaeologists thanks to the Conservatives. This kind of behaviour is astounding. Then, they ask us to trust them

Tonight, they will ask us to trust them to create an independent museum, free to choose its content and direction, yet we are being told exactly what that content will be, and how it will be new and improved—not to mention that there are still significant concerns about ongoing interference at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. After all this time, what we hear everywhere is that no one trusts them. That is the issue.

It is clear that the museum or its experts did not come up with this idea and proceed to present it to academics, stakeholders, and then the public. In committee, the minister at the time clearly told us that this all started in his own office. It was his idea. This is what he said in committee. He started thinking about this in May 2011. Then, the minister made an announcement on the spot, at the museum, while the museum employees and experts themselves were kept away by security guards.

It was only after this announcement that they thought of introducing the bill. Now, that is strange. Then they decided to inform the opposition parties, and it was only after all this that they thought of consulting the public. Finally, someone decided to talk to historians, archaeologists, museum curators and experts. Everything was done backwards.

The members opposite said that we had a lot of nerve to oppose the bill before it was introduced in the House. They told us that we were not respecting parliamentary matters. That is pretty pathetic, coming from them. The reality is that when they introduced this bill, their minds were made up. The Canadian Postal Museum was already closed and dismantled, without warning and in secrecy. They had already made plans to dismantle the Grand Hall that depicts Canada's history.

The parliamentary stage of their plan to gut the Canadian Museum of Civilization was simply a nuisance for them, a speed bump on the fast track to a museum created by the Conservatives for their own enjoyment. By rejecting all of our amendments in committee, they have confirmed that impression.

Now let us talk about the consultations. We are not the only ones saying that the government does not want to hear anyone's opinion on this project. In committee, the president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Lorne Holyoak, said that he felt the museum and the government did not make an effort to adequately consult the professional community of historians, anthropologists and archaeologists.

The head of the Canadian Anthropology Society said this about the museum consultation:

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations.

National associations of historians and archaeologists have said the same thing. They were not consulted either.

The museum's CEO was asked to talk about that in committee, and my colleague from Hochelaga, who is an archaeologist herself, asked whether Canadians and museum experts were consulted about the changes to the mandate. The CEO responded that they did not ask Canadians if they thought the mandate should be changed.

This is from the Canadian heritage committee hearings:

Mr. Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed.

That is the president of the museum speaking.

Once again, there is a profound credibility gap between what the government has been promising us and what has actually happened at the museum. It is very difficult for us to put our support, and as we all know, it is impossible for Canadians to put their trust in a process that has not been straightforward. This process has not been an open one, as it could have been. This is a question of credibility for the government and it is a question of trust for us.

It was clear to everyone that the government's mind was made up before the consultations were held. Even the mayor of Gatineau was not consulted. He was invited to the minister's announcement, where he learned about this plan at the same time as everyone else. He seemed rather surprised, I must say. Then, he was asked his opinion on a bill that had already been introduced.

The effect of this complete lack of consultation has been particularly clear for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community.

Last June, a group of first nations people decided to visit the Museum of Civilization to see an important artifact that is on display in the existing Canadian history hall on the fifth floor. I actually encourage my colleagues to see this massive, very impressive exhibit. The people came to see the Nishga Girl, a fishing vessel built by Japanese-Canadian boatbuilders unjustly confiscated by the Canadian government during the Second World War and then donated to the Museum of Civilization by one of the hereditary chiefs of the Nisga'a First Nation.

First nations visitors arrived at the museum in June to see the boat that they had donated, and they discovered it was gone. It had been sent off to storage, and the museum was about to get rid of it. That mistake caused a huge amount of anger for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community. We brought this up in the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was very delicate, as always, and he called it “storage”.

The Museum of Civilization officials have since apologized personally in Winnipeg to leaders of both communities and have promised to return the boat to the museum's exhibition.

This is what happens when consultation does not take place; this is what happens when politicians try to draw their own museum exhibits; this is what happens when the people at the top think that consultation is not important.

The Conservatives do not appear to be trying to change the Canadian Museum of Civilization because the current museum is lacking in history, or because the first nations are not adequately represented, or because of any of the other oversights that the Conservatives have already brought up in the House and continue to talk about in the media. Instead, it appears to be because the Conservatives are not satisfied with the version of history that is presented: an archeological, cultural and community-based history; a history of survival, commerce and trade; a history of the builders of this continent; a history that they do not think fits in with their identity or policies.

This all boils down to an issue of credibility and trust. We cannot trust this government, which has wasted every opportunity, which has exaggerated history and has distorted it for its own political purposes. It bypassed the experts who could have taught this government a lot about Canadian history and about how to appreciate and promote it.

We cannot trust a government that spent $70 million on television ads about the war of 1812 during the Super Bowl and that continues to cut staff and archeologists from archeological and historical sites.

The member for St. Catharines dared to say last week that we oppose history. In response, I say, on the contrary, we are defending history, while the Conservatives are harming it by suffocating researchers. For all of these reasons, we cannot support Bill C-7.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, 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 third time and passed.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points to this question.

The first is that it is fascinating that we have spent over 20 hours debating the bill over the last number of months, with countless hours in committee and the research that was done. Over 20,000 Canadians filed online responses to the question of what they thought the museum should be about and whether they were supportive of it. I am shocked that instead of coming into the House of Commons to talk about Bill C-7, whether it is second or third reading, the opposition does not even ask about the museum. Thousands and thousands of Canadians have already stated what they believe the museum should be and what it should do.

The second point is that when opposition members finally spend a bit of time speaking about the bill, all they do is misinterpret what the bill says, try to take folks down a completely wrong road that does not exist and actually misrepresent what the bill says and what is going to happen at the museum. I say today that we should give the minister the opportunity to tell Canadians exactly what the truth is about the museum of history.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to question my colleague, who is accusing us of not wanting to take a closer look at Bill C-7.

It is important to understand that we are working under a time allocation motion. In the little time we will be allotted a few minutes from now, we will have the opportunity to deal “at length” with the bill. Being from the Outaouais, I can say that the unanimity the minister seems to be talking about is non-existent.

That said, this 57th time allocation motion bothers me since there is virtually nothing on the House's legislative agenda. It is not as if we have 26 bills to examine. To paraphrase the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, this is nothing but a time- and schedule-management tool. There is next to nothing before the House.

I find it unfortunate and I do not understand why the government introduced a bill about a museum and then limited the discussion with a new minister who would do well to listen to what people have to say on the subject.

I would like the Minister to answer this question, in particular: why call for a time allocation motion for such a topic as the museum's new mandate?

Bill C-7—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the custom in the response to this question to actually answer about the business of the House. That is what I will focus on, rather than the business of our party convention, which I am sure will be a very successful conference. Good things always happen when we get together as a party.

We will conclude this week with the debate on second reading of Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act.

Next week we will focus on families and building our communities. Families are the cornerstone of society. Over the coming weeks and months, our government will continue to support and protect families through a number of important bills.

We will continue to tackle crime, increase support for victims, and ensure communities are kept safe from criminals. We want Canadians to live in safe and healthy communities in which they can raise their children.

Therefore, on Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. That debate will be continued next Friday.

After question period Monday, we will take up the second reading debate on Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Wednesday will see us return to the third reading debate on Bill C-7, the Canadian museum of history act.

Thursday, November 5 shall be the second allotted day, which will go to the Liberals, I understand. This will be an opportunity for the hon. member for Papineau to tell us, and all Canadians, the next plank of his policy vision for Canada. So far, we have seen his penchant for pot, as well as his star economic adviser claiming that someone's job prospects are pre-determined by his father's job. However, we have not heard any economic ideas as yet.

Thursday, November 7, shall be the third allotted day, which will see a New Democratic motion considered.

In closing, let me echo the words of the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, which I know he scripted himself: happy Halloween.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be quick. I will share my time with a colleague if this debate comes up again in the coming weeks or months.

I am honoured to rise and speak to Bill C-7, especially since I recently had the pleasure of being appointed to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It will be my pleasure to contribute to the excellent work already done by my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who is the official opposition's heritage critic.

Bill C-7 amends the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history and makes consequential amendments to other acts. We will oppose this bill at third reading for several reasons. I will have time to speak about a few of those reasons today.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization, as it stands now with its current mandate, is the most popular museum in Canada based on number of visitors. Its temporary exhibits on world cultures make it a huge tourist draw in the Ottawa-Gatineau region.

I will quickly go over the change in the museum's mandate because I have very little time. The current mandate dates back to 1990. The mandate of the British Museum in England must be 140 years old. It is completely ridiculous to claim that the museum needs a new mandate because museum mandates apparently expire.

In 1990, the museum was given the mandate to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour.

The new mandate is an impoverished one. It does not include the idea of critical understanding. No longer is there the idea of increasing knowledge throughout Canada and internationally. This idea has been replaced by enhancing Canadians' understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects.

The whole notion of knowledge and critical understanding, based on better knowledge of events, is gone. The government has gotten rid of the notions of knowledge and the context of global knowledge. That is it. We are moving on to something else, Canadians only. The government is caught up in the Conservative vision of Canadian history, all heroes and major events. The social aspect is completely gone.

What do the Conservatives have against scientific facts and knowledge?

For example, we saw that the Conservatives laid off 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists. They are shutting down the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, a marine science research centre located in Mont-Joli, in my riding. The purpose of the centre was to provide the government with scientific information in order to help preserve marine life.

It is important to remind the House that this decision goes against the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, but that the government will go forward with it all the same.

The Conservatives did away with the national archival development program, which slowed down the work of the archives in communities such as Rivière-du-Loup. These community archives take care of collecting, classifying and conserving the records of all sorts of organizations, businesses, families and associations, thereby building a collective memory and an identity in the regions.

I cannot help but question whether the government's decision to change the Canadian Museum of Civilization into a national history museum is sound. The government's decisions have been very hard on the entire network that works to preserve a national memory.

I do not have much time left, so I will get right to the reasons why we oppose this bill.

The proposed mandate puts an end to the museum's social approach to history. The decision was made without consulting the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when it was examining Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations and without consulting stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians or the first nations. No one was consulted.

The few consultations that were held were very tightly controlled and did not allow Canadians to question the decision to change the museum's mandate.

The $25 million for renovations was taken directly from the Canadian Heritage budget. The minister refused to explain where the money in question was coming from. It is very worrisome.

Canadians have reason to fear that the history museum will present a monolithic view of Canadian history that is not representative of Canada's diversity and the diversity of societies throughout the world, which we have had the chance to see at the museum for 20 years now.

For all of these reasons and a number of others that I do not have time to list today, we will oppose Bill C-7 and, until the end of this unfortunate process, we will continue to ask that the Museum of Civilization's current mandate be maintained.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to this discussion on Bill C-7, a bill that would establish the new Canadian museum of history.

I would like to use this opportunity to remind the House of the importance of museums to our society, our identity, our unity, and our future as Canadians.

Our government values our museums and has demonstrated our support in a number of tangible ways. We have spoken also of the network that the new Canadian museum of history will lead. This network will connect Canada's history museums across the country so that they can access some of the 3 million items that are in the national collection.

Like most museums, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has the vast majority of its collection in storage. The future Canadian museum of history will be negotiating agreements in every single province and territory in this country so that it can get this collection moving across the country.

History is all around us; we are just not always consciously aware of it. Are members aware that the more than 2,500 museums in Canada welcome more than 27 million visitors every year?

Our museums are where many Canadians learn about their history. Our museums have a myriad of stories to tell, stories of grand accomplishments, perseverance, struggle, community, tragedy, and triumph.

As was already noted by the member for Leeds—Grenville in the previous intervention, according to the Canadian Museums Association, 96% of Canadians believe that museums contribute to the quality of life in our nation. Furthermore, 97% believe that museums do an excellent job of preserving and presenting our history.

Recently our government announced that museums across Canada will be able to share their exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and be able to access the new museum's collection.

To make it possible to share this rich collection with all Canadians, changes are being made to the federal museums assistance program in order to remove barriers to the circulation of museum exhibitions interprovincially and to financially assist small museums in borrowing objects and exhibitions from the Canadian museum of history.

We know that it is expensive to host and move exhibits and artifacts. That is why this government thought it was important to help smaller museums across the country access the national collection of the Canadian museum of history and make sure the artifacts could be displayed all across our country. That is exactly what our government is doing. Smaller museums often do not have the capacity to acquire an artifact to complete their collection or simply to be able to add an exhibit for their visitors. With the new support that we are putting in place, it would be easier for smaller museums to approach the Canadian museum of history and access its extensive national collection.

I would also like to point out that it has been more than 20 years since the current Canadian Museum of Civilization has been updated in a significant way. Therefore, it is time to refresh its mandate and orientation so that a new Canadian museum of history can focus on the story of this great country.

As has been mentioned in past debates, the Children's Museum will continue to be an integral part of the new museum; so will the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present chapters of our story that are of immense importance, the history of Canada's first peoples.

At the same time, a significant part of the museum's success will be its ability to reach all Canadians and tell their stories, the stories of the people who helped build this country and those who continue to do so today. With that goal in mind, the future Canadian museum of history is signing partnership agreements with a number of museums to establish a nationwide museum network.

This new national museum will work with museums all across Canada to help ensure that our country's achievements and accomplishments are highlighted. We know that museums develop pride in local traditions and customs and that they help people to feel a sense of belonging and involvement in their community. Museums and the programming they support promote co-operation among different cultures and different age groups and help to create community and social networks.

As the creation of the Canadian museum of history shows, our government values the role that museums play in preserving and commemorating our past.

By the time we celebrate Canada's 150th birthday, Canadians will have a new museum that highlights the moments, the people, and the objects that have helped to shape our great country.

I ask that the members of the House consider the statement by one of Canada's best known and most respected historians, Michael Bliss, when he said that our collective history is our collective memory. He added that without memory, people become unmoored, adrift, lost, and said that was why so many people work so hard to preserve our national memories, our sense of ourselves as Canadians—as a people who have had a long and rich common experience.

Since the announcement in October 2012 of the transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian museum of history, we have heard from many organizations that enthusiastically support this change. I would like to read just a few of those quotes from some of those individuals.

John McAvity is the executive director of the Canadian Museums Association. He said, “The Museum is developing equal partnerships with other history museums across Canada. ... That is good news.”

A press release from the Ontario Museum Association said that the OMA “...welcomes the initiative to strengthen partnerships among museums in Ontario and across the country.” Marie Lalonde, executive director of the OMA, also said, “...we welcome the opportunity to explore new ways that museums may work with each other.” She added that they look forward to the new direction announced by the government.

To go a little further with a couple of additional quotes, Marie Senécal-Tremblay, the president of the Fédération canadienne des amis des musées, said that this announcement will allow small museums to better showcase their unique collections to many more Canadians and visitors.

Finally, Jack Granatstein, a prominent Canadian historian, said, “This move is exactly what I thought should happen” and “ I'm delighted the government and the museum are doing it.”

This is very clear support for the moves being made by our government, and very clear particularly in relation to the fact that we are looking to share that very vast national collection with museums all across this country. It is important to note that.

Clearly, our commitment to Canada's museums is real and ongoing. In the last fiscal year alone, this government invested approximately $355 million in museums and heritage institutions. Our government has made key investments in the museum sector. This includes support for two new national museums, namely the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax. We have also increased funding for summer internships in small and medium-sized museums. This year, some 1,600 students were hired to work and learn in museums all across the country.

In my riding alone, here are just a few of the examples of many I could name. One is the Peter and Catharine Whyte Foundation, which was able to hire a summer intern to help with its work. Another is the Centennial Museum Society of Canmore. There is also the Luxton Museum Society in Banff National Park, where they have preserved the local first nations history. Those are great examples from my riding of Wild Rose alone.

Now we are embarking on the creation of the Canadian museum of history. In 2017 we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday, and as we approach that important date, the timing seems right to pause and rethink the way we tell our story to Canadians and visitors from abroad.

Our museums hold the cultural wealth of the nation for all generations, both past, present, and future. Museums play a central role in giving Canadians the resources to celebrate why Canada is such a unique and great country.

Let us all join together to create the national Canadian museum of history as the institution that will capture our lived experiences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is reason that opposition bench members for the most part are against this change. That is because the things we are seeing happening at the Museum of Civilization have apparently become politicized. In my mind, that is separate from the legislation. This is something that is occurring in relation to the management of the museum, which this legislation does not dictate.

We are already seeing this. I read in the Ottawa Citizen that researchers who were doing important work on aspects of Inuit tradition and culture were being cut off from their access to research materials. Museums are living, breathing things and also are involved with research.

When the hon. member looks at Bill C-7, does he see anything that would restrict access to critical research material to Canadian leading academics who traditionally have been able to use museums for that purpose?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Wild Rose.

I am very happy to speak in support of Bill C-7, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act in order to create the Canadian museum of history.

All Canadians deserve to benefit from the richness of our history. For the first time, Canada will have a national museum dedicated to telling our country's stories. Our government is proud to support Canada's museums as they are important vehicles of our cultural and social history.

Canada's museums are also important instruments of culture. They generate important economic benefit for local and national economies. Museums help to drive economic activity in many ways, including through blockbuster exhibitions and as general tourist attractions. It is well known that local, national and international visitors tour our museums, and the institutions themselves contribute immensely to our country's economic well-being.

According to the latest Statistics Canada data, this last decade has witnessed a strong increase in the number of museum visits by Canadians. Up until 1998, only a third of Canadians, 32.3%, visited a museum every year. Today, almost three quarters of Canadians visit a museum in Canada each year. This is a clear sign that Canadians want to learn about their history and consider these cultural institutions to be Canadian treasures.

Canadians recognize that Canada's museums are world-class and cultural treasures. According to the Canadian Museums Association, 96% of Canadians believe that museums contribute to the quality of life of our nation. According to the same study, 97% said that they believed that museums did an excellent job of preserving and presenting our history.

Many would be surprised to know that there are over 2,500 museums in Canada that welcomed more than 27 million visitors in 2009, and this legislation would make it easier for smaller museums outside our nation's capital to get those exhibits. For the first time, Canada's largest museum would have the ability to share a part of its collection with smaller museums across the country. This is something that the people in my riding of Leeds—Grenville are looking forward to and they hope it happens very soon. These smaller museums would now be able to exhibit new collections of Canadian cultural artifacts for Canadians who would not have the opportunity to come to Ottawa, the nation's capital.

I would like to note that in 2010, numbers in domestic tourism visits to museums alone helped to generate over $3.4 billion into the Canadian economy. Spending by foreign tourists to museums added another $1.75 billion to the Canadian economy. The figures I have just quoted include the benefits of many other industries from spending by tourists who visit museums, comprising commercial airlines, hotels and restaurants, as well as retail shops and a number of others that help to accommodate tourists travelling to our local and national museums across this great country.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the employment that is generated by these many museums. Canadian museums employ over 25,000 people across the country. I should also note that there are over 40,000 volunteer workers who dedicate hundreds of thousands of person years to these same museums. I would like to thank all of those volunteers for their hard work in helping tell part of our history. I know, once again, that in the museums in my riding of Leeds—Grenville many volunteers help.

Without the help of these hard-working volunteers from across Canada, who give part of their time to keep our museums running, we would simply not be able to share our stories with Canadians and our many visitors each year. Furthermore, the incredible number of volunteers demonstrates how much Canadians care about the success of our museums as institutions that tell our stories.

Museums are job creators and they support the economic well-being of many Canadians across the country. One example that I would like to share with the House today is the economic impact of the Renoir exhibition hosted by the National Gallery of Canada in 1997. Close to $33.2 million was spent in Ontario and Quebec by visitors whose main reason was to visit the Renoir exhibition.

Approximately 825 jobs were required to produce the $33.2 million in goods and services directly associated with that Renoir exhibition. In other words, and I would like to reiterate, if the Renoir exhibition had not been at the National Gallery of Canada, the two provinces would not have enjoyed the economic benefits of $33.2 million in value-added additional jobs, wages, salaries and tax revenues for the government created by direct consumer spending.

It is also estimated that the taxes directly associated with the Renoir exhibition totalled almost $12.7 million for all three levels of government combined.

In my home province of Ontario, in 2010, 3.4 million tourists visited museums or art galleries. In 2010, arts and culture tourists spent $1.1 billion on lodging, $1.1 billion on food and beverages, $600 million on retail and $500 million on entertainment and recreation.

As I said earlier, the economic impact of museums and cultural spaces across this great country is undeniable. With that, I am confident that the new Canadian museum of history will similarly benefit from the interests of all Canadians and others who wish to learn and experience Canada's vast and rich history through newly-created programs and exhibitions soon to be provided by the Canadian museum of history.

Our government is very proud of our country's museums. That is why we have opened two new museums since forming government: the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg and the Canadian Museum for Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, which I have had the pleasure of visiting.

We have also increased funding for summer internships for students and small and medium-sized museums. In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, the Brockville museum took advantage of that program this past summer.

This year, some 1,600 students will be hired to work and learn in museums across the country. This is a strong record that our government will continue to build on.

To conclude, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday, Canadians will have a new museum that will highlight the moments of the people and the objects that have shaped our great country.

I hope all members will support Bill C-7 in order to create the Canadian museum of history and help tell the great stories of our great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I approach this issue with a fair degree of trepidation, because I think I might find myself somewhere between opposition members and government members. When I read Bill C-7, which was Bill C-49, I cannot find anywhere in the text of the bill the desire to destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization or the new Canadian museum of history.

The mandate I find in the text 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.

In other words, I see what is happening at the Museum of Civilization. I can see that what is happening with the current management is disruptive to individual researchers. I read this in the press. However, I do not find malicious intent in the text of the bill, and that is what we have before us.

I ask my friend for guidance.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-7 is to replace the Canadian Museum of Civilization with the Canadian museum of history. The Liberal opposition will vote against it, and I will explain why.

The history of Canada deserves to be more well known. In spite of some sombre pages, each one of its chapters is replete with remarkable passages. Canada's history is remarkable and the birth of a museum devoted to its history should not lead to the closing of a museum devoted the legacy of humanity. We must not let the Canadian Museum of Civilization disappear.

What other democracy has transformed a museum of civilization into a national museum of history? This is not to the Conservative government's credit. This shows the Conservative government's narrow point of view. This diminishes the grandeur of Canada's history.

I am a liberal in the partisan sense of the word, but especially in the philosophical sense. I see, as many do, that the universal is greater than the national. I am convinced, as are many others, that humanity is more than the sum of its parts.

I have concluded, and I am not alone in doing so, that to truly understand the unique nature of one's national history, we must have knowledge of the history of civilization.

Everyone would applaud a new national history museum, but not at the price of hijacking a museum of civilization that is so important, so celebrated and so loved.

The Ottawa Citizen said, “the museum of history should be in addition to, and not a replacement for, the Canadian Museum of Civilization”. Even if the mission of this proposed museum of history does not completely overlook all that is not strictly Canadian, it seems to treat what is sometimes called the history of others as an ancillary topic, an afterthought.

In a radical perspective reversal, the government seeks to replace the Canadian Museum of Civilization's current mandate, which is to increase knowledge for human cultural achievements and human behaviour with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, with a revised mandate that would, instead, focus first and foremost on what has shaped Canada's history and identity. Although we are told that exhibitions demonstrating world history and cultures will still be part of the new museum's mandate, it will be so in a diluted form, suggesting that this class of exhibition will hold second-tier place in the new museum's lineup.

Within the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate lie the opportunity and responsibility to create world history and cultural presentations. Changing the museum's mandate increases the risk that highly popular, important, multinational artifacts may be considered to be outside the scope of the new museum, rejected for exhibition and even removed from the museum's existing collection. Furthermore, Bill C-7 would remove another raison d'être from the museum's mandate: establishing, maintaining and developing collections for research and posterity.

It is not as though our Canadian Museum of Civilization has not carried out its mission in a satisfactory manner. On the contrary, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage lavished praise on this museum. He was quite pleased to use its excellent national and international reputation to promote a new museum. The minister stated in the House, on May 22, 2013, “We will build on its reputation and popularity...”

The government says that it deplores the fact that not all MPs are as supportive of this museum as they were of the creation of the Canadian War Museum or the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

Those museums were not built on the ashes of our Canadian Museum of Civilization, a renowned jewel, a great success and the most popular museum in the national capital region.

The government wants to spend $25 million, but we do not know where this money comes from. What cuts did the government make to find this $25 million? We do not know. It wants to spend $25 million, not on a new museum, but to replace an existing museum that everyone admires.

Would it not have been more useful and responsible to use that money to improve the existing Canadian Museum of Civilization? No, the Conservative government wanted to give the impression that it is creating something new. It is not that new, and it is destroying something that worked quite well.

What can we expect from a government that is more concerned about its image than the public good and that is more interested in using history for its own partisan agenda than in sharing it for its intrinsic teachings?

How many controlled and artistic events, paid for with public money, have the government used to promote its self-serving partisan-driven view of Canadian history?

Fresh in our memories are the lavish, publicly-funded celebrations of the War of 1812, not a bad thing per se but did the government have to try, so obviously, to get so much partisan mileage out of that.

Also fresh in our memories is the undignified and appalling refusal to acknowledge and celebrate in the proper way a significant anniversary of one of Canada's most important and revered accomplishments, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is how James L. Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, expressed his concern that the government would use the museum for its own ideological ends. I quote from his December 9, 2012, letter to the Toronto Star. He said:

From the federal government’s first announcement of the proposed new Canadian Museum of History, some have expressed fear that the new museum would be a parochial institution designed to reflect the [Conservative] government’s ideological version of our history.

What else to expect from a government that slashed $191.1 million from the heritage portfolio budget, killing art and cultural programs and forcing Canadians to pay for access to the digitized heritage materials in collections that already belong to them?

What can we hope for from a government that claims to be so concerned about history, yet keeps undermining how it can be studied? What can we expect from a government that fires more than 80% of the archaeologists and conservators who looked after our historic sites? What is this government thinking? It is keeping only about 10 archaeologists at Parks Canada to cover a country as vast as ours. What can be made of a government that takes New France-era artifacts from Quebec City and sends them to Ottawa or one that is replacing a civilization museum with a history museum?

Counterproductive transfers are just another part of this government's twisted logic.

Parks Canada, Library of Parliament, Library and Archives Canada, Statistics Canada: is there a single witness to our history that has not been in the Conservative government's crosshairs?

What can be made of a government that is inviting Canadians to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary in 2017?

Clearly, it is the 150th anniversary of the Confederation of Canada that we will be celebrating. Why have Canada's history start in 1867 and ignore thousands of years of our people's history?

If the Conservatives believe that Canada began in 1867, how is it possible that François-Xavier Garneau wrote the history of Canada in 1845?

Instead of rewriting our history, the government would do well to respect it.

The Liberals will vote against this bill for the reasons I mentioned, but primarily because we have too much respect for our history, for its study and teaching to have to choose between it and learning about the civilizations our very history is based on.

Our history is neither the most illustrious nor the most dramatic—if by that, we mean pomp, conquest and military might. However, at the risk of sounding provocative, I will argue that there are few histories closer to the democratic ideal than Canada's. Even with its failures and darker moments, and its never-ending regional squabbles, the history of Canada compares favourably with that of other countries in terms of the values associated with liberal democracy. For that reason alone, we must both know it and make it known, because it carries a wealth of lessons for the future.

Historian Ged Martin, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, wrote: “In the crucial combination of mass participation, human rights and self-government, Canada's history is second to none in the world.”

I can think of no achievement of which a country could be prouder. If this government were fully aware of this, it would not have virtually ignored the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 2012. This government would not have stopped, for all intents and purposes, supporting Canadian studies abroad. It would not have weakened so many invaluable institutions dedicated to the study of our history.

In fact, Canada was born long before 1867. It was born out of the relentless pursuit of a dream, a dream of harmony between peoples and firmly rooted in the principles of civilization. What is most admirable about Canada, especially to the rest of the world, has less to do with what is particular to it, such as its often-sung vastness, than with what is universal. The Canadian ideal is that of a country where human beings have the best chance to be considered as human beings, valued for everything they are, regardless of race, religion, history and cultural background. We should never stop trying to live up to that ideal.

To this end, an essential condition for success is the awareness that we cannot understand the history of our country separately from the history of civilization. They are intertwined. We, the Liberals, understand that. That is why we will be voting against Bill C-7.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary 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, 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.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, 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 third time and passed.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for St. Catharines and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for carrying forward on the legislation, Bill C-7.

I heard what was said by the New Democrats on this matter and it needs to be pointed out as being factually not true. The member said that our government has not done anything for small museums. That is absolutely not true. The Canadian Museums Association represents all of Canada's hundreds of small museums all across this country. They all unanimously support the creation of this museum because this one museum in the national capital would create a hub-and-spoke model from which all small museums all across the country will benefit.

Our government, in spite of the worst recession since the Second World War, created the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the Canadian Museum of Immigration, the Canadian museum of history. We have increased funding for small museums all across the country. All of them will benefit by the creation of this museum, which is why provincial governments, whether they are New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, are all supporting the legislation. All the museums associations, all the historic associations, all of them are supporting this because it is a no-brainer to support a great national institution as we go to our 150th birthday and celebrate the brilliance that is Canada.

The opposition should stop being so blindly partisan in opposing everything just because it came from a Conservative. This is going to be a great institution from which all Canadians will benefit for years to come.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the bill earlier this week. It is a pleasure to stand here again and have the opportunity to speak to bill C-7, which was formerly Bill C-49. It represented the creation and the transfer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. It is with the greatest pleasure that I rise today.

First, I find Canada's rich history to be absolutely fascinating. For example, the history of Quebec, which was founded in 1608, is Canada's oldest city. Almost half the buildings in the historic district of old Quebec were built before 1850. Today, this 135 hectare area is a UNESCO world heritage site. The history of John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the other Fathers of Confederation negotiations at the Charlottetown, Quebec and London conferences led to the beginning of the Canada we know today. The living history we experience now such as Commander Chris Hadfield's amazing journey comes to mind. Last spring he mesmerized people around the world, me included. There is no doubt his name and his mission will be forever part of our collective Canadian history.

As members can imagine, I am delighted with our government's commitment to provide Canadians with an opportunity to learn more about our history.

We have already outlined initiatives we are taking to ensure Canadians have greater access to our history. I would like to mention just a couple of them.

The second Canada History Week will take place next July and communities throughout the country will celebrate history with local events. As well, we established the Canada history fund to recognize outstanding students and teachers of history.

When I spoke before the House on October 21, I also mentioned these initiatives, as well as others. For example, beginning in 2014, we plan to increase funding for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and the Canadian Encyclopedia. These are great tools that all Canadians can access online. We have also provided support for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017.

I am proud of the efforts of our government and I am proud of how we have worked to promote our Canadian history.

The proposed Canadian museum of history will play a key role in allowing Canadians to learn more and share our country's unique past. In fact, it will be housed on the banks of the Ottawa River in what we all now know as the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This beautiful building was designed by renowned architect Douglas Cardinal, whose incredible work could be a chapter in a story of our cultural heritage.

Mr. Cardinal offered an excellent observation about the Canadian Museum of Civilization's progression into the new Canadian museum of history. 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.

On October 21, I provided a summary of the bill's progression through the House. As I have mentioned, we spent over 20 hours debating the legislation. We discussed it from many different angles: the need for a museum devoted to Canadian history; how it would be financed; as well, as the logistical details and how it would progress to its opening in 2016.

The legislation has received significant study and I am pleased to say that we have progressed to third reading stage.

In fact, when we asked for participation from Canadians across the country and what they thought should happen with the museum, we received over 20,000 pieces of advice from Canadians. This is clear evidence that Canadians are engaged in this process and are quite willing, when given the opportunity, to participate in a dialogue as to the direction the museum should take.

At the same time, I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the new museum. I want to assure the House that we have heard their comments and I would like to briefly address some of them.

The issue of the new museum's independence has been raised on more than one occasion. Rest assured, the Canadian museum of history, like all national museums, indeed, all crown corporations, will operate at arm's-length from the government.

I am so impressed by the people who manage our museums across the country, our small museums in small town communities or our large museums like Pier 21 and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is their commitment and effort that promote Canadian history in our country. These are the people who should be, will be and are responsible for the content in our museums.

Our government is establishing a new mandate for the Canadian museum of history, one focused on the history of our country. Once that is done, it will be the museum's capable board of trustees, its director, its management and all of the employees who will determine how to present our country's history.

I also heard members speak to the important issue of research. Nothing in this bill limits the ability of the new museum to carry out research. It will have exactly the same powers as the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, and research is an essential component of that museum. It will remain and continue to be an essential part of the new museum.

I understand the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum have recently developed a joint research strategy. It confirms the essential role research will play in both museums over the next decade. It is available on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's website for anyone who would like to learn more about it.

Let me also reassure the House that the new legislation will not have an impact on international travelling exhibitions. Potentially, we will see them increase to talk across the world about Canada's history. Our government recognizes the importance of these exhibitions from an educational perspective. We also know from a business perspective how much potential revenue they can create, not just for the museum but also for the surrounding region and area. Nothing in the legislation in any way jeopardizes the museum's ability to present these exhibitions, which have been so popular with the Canadian public.

I am particularly pleased that the future Canadian museum of history is negotiating partnership agreements with the institutions across the country that devote themselves to our Canadian history. This is an amazing way to reach out to people across the country. Three of these are already in place, one with the Royal BC Museum, one with Calgary's Glenbow Museum and an agreement was signed just last summer with the Manitoba Museum. I understand that plans are already being made for the current partners to send and receive collections from each other.

Other partnerships will soon follow. The Canadian museum of history will be a must see for the thousands of people who come to this region each and every year. However, its reach will be far greater than that. Partnerships like the ones I have described will allow the Canadian museum of history to work with museums across the country, each and every one. In so doing, we will make our national collections accessible to as many Canadians as possible. Geography will not interfere with our ability to ensure that Canadians see and learn what our history is all about.

The new museum will lead a network that will connect history museums across the country so they can access some of the 3.5 million items that are in the national collection. Like all museums, the Canadian Museum of Civilization has a vast majority of its collection in storage. This will be a wonderful way to provide greater access to our treasured artifacts. Because of space and issues that prevent all of our artifacts from being displayed, it will see those artifacts travel across the country and be displayed not in storage, but in a position where they can viewed, studied and admired.

Before everyone had to travel to the national capital region to appreciate first hand an important part of their heritage. Now they will be able to go to museums much closer, in fact in their own communities. It is an incredible resource and partnership that is being created through this process.

At the same time, there are museums across Canada, in the very communities where we live, including my riding with the St. Catharines Museum and Welland Canals Centre. There are more than 2,500 of them. They cover different aspects of our history and many have fascinating collections to begin with. We want to ensure that these smaller museums will be able to share their exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and to access the new museum's collection.

With that goal in mind, we have put new support in place to make it easier for them to approach the new Canadian museum of history and access the national collection.

In addition to this, several changes have been made to the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program to assist small Canadian museums.

The exhibition circulation fund would not only support the borrowing of collections from the Canadian museum of history, but would also extend the support to small institutions that were previously ineligible. A requirement that exhibitions must travel outside of the province or territory has been removed in the case of history exhibitions to encourage small institutions to exchange exhibitions with each other. It is a requirement that has long been an issue for smaller museums that would like to deal directly with each other. This new piece of legislation, under the guidance of the Canadian museum of history, would allow that to happen. We have also made sure that the aboriginal heritage component would give priority to exhibits focused on historical events and key figures, and would encourage exhibitions in non-traditional spaces, such as community centres.

To sum up, this new national museum would work with museums across Canada to ensure that as many Canadians as possible have the opportunity to learn about our achievements. In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage is using many of its internal resources to support access to Canadian history. The Canadian Conservation Institute is putting a priority on the conservation of objects related to the road to 2017. Finally, the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Virtual Museum of Canada would dedicate 25% of its annual budget, up to $500,000, to virtual exhibits related to the road to 2017.

That brings me to the 150th anniversary of Canada's Confederation. As everyone in the House knows, in just a few years, we will celebrate this momentous event. What a perfect time to welcome a new Canadian museum of history. Since Confederation, we have grown as a country and accomplished so many great things. In the lead up to 2017, we will promote the people, places and events that have marked our history.

As the House knows, this year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first Canadian expedition in the Arctic. Next year, it will be the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, which led to the founding of Canada. There are also the 200th anniversaries of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. We will also remember the sacrifices of two generations of Canadians during the First and Second World Wars. I look forward to paying tribute to all of our veterans.

In commemorating people and events such as these, we become aware that we stand tall today because of the millions of men and women whose courage, hard work and perseverance helped to establish this great country. They are renowned artists such as filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, painter Emily Carr, singer Céline Dion, pianist Glenn Gould, writer Gabrielle Roy, Nobel Prize winner Alice Munro and many more.

Sports heroes such as Clara Hughes, the only athlete ever to win multiple medals at both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games, and hockey legends Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky are also a part of this celebration. As is our multi-sport champion, Lionel Conacher, who was inducted in the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame in 1955, the Canadian Football Hall of Fame in 1964 and the Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1965. No wonder Canada has a reputation as a leading sports nation.

Distinguished scientists have also made us proud. For example, Frederick Banting, whose discovery of insulin has helped to save countless lives.

Impressive, is it not? It is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the incredible people who have made this country what it is.

The upcoming anniversary is tailor-made to learn more about our history, pay tribute to the people who have left their mark on this country and reflect on our legacy. The Canadian museum of history would do just that. It would be based in the national capital region. It would reach out to people across the nation through a network of museums in their own communities. It would entertain us. It would educate us. For many, it would inspire us to learn more about the people, places and events that brought us to where we are today, a free and democratic country envied by many around the world.

There are four specific changes. I would like to reiterate those that are being made within Bill C-7. The first is a change of the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history. The second is for the purpose of mandate change in terms of the direction that the new museum would be taking. The third is that the capacity and powers of the museum would remain the same, intact as they are today. The fourth is that there would be no change to the governance structure of the existing structure; no interruption of the corporation's ability to operate; no impact on employees, officers or trustees; and no change in legal responsibilities.

We have before us the opportunity to prepare for 2017. The creation and the renewed mandate of the Museum of Civilization to the museum of history puts us in that position. It allows for us not only to celebrate what is historical, obvious and important from a Canadian perspective here in Ottawa, it actually sets the foundation for us to have this historical celebration, a study of our history, a learning opportunity of our history across our country.

There are thousands of museums, smaller museums in smaller communities that were never in a position to access or use the over 3.5 million artifacts, many of them at or currently in storage at the Museum of Civilization. They will be able to travel across this country. When those artifacts and exhibits travel across the country, there is an opportunity to ensure it will be done safely and that each one of those artifacts will be insured by the Government of Canada through the museum.

We have before us the living and breathing opportunity to see where we are going as a country in terms of the celebration of our 150th anniversary. We also see that our historical life, the life of Canada, when put on a road map, is one of envy for the rest of the world.

One of the things I learned during my time at the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was that when studies are done across this country, across this world, on where individuals or families would move if they were to leave their country of origin, of the seven billion people who walk on this earth, one billion said that Canada would be their first choice. With that profound understanding, we should consider ourselves fortunate. With 35 million people living in this country, there are a billion who believe this would be the country to live in if they were to move from their country of origin.

It says to all of us here in the House that this is our opportunity to show the world. The Canadian museum of history is setting the foundation to say to the rest of the world that we are prepared to talk about not only how great our country is now but how our country was built, how our country started and where our country is in terms of its position in the world.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this afternoon. I certainly hope that all members of the House, regardless of their party, regardless of where they sit in the House of Commons, will see there is an opportunity for us to put a renewed focus on our country's history, and that history begins at the Canadian museum of history right here in Ottawa.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that Bill C-7, 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 third time and passed.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special orders made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-49 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)