—especially if you're a young homeowner.
The simplicity of the change is almost breathtaking. It simply links together history and civilization.
Beyond the proposed change in name, however, lies another shift that's deeply worrying. The core of that—I believe that Mr. Turk was talking about this momentarily when he spoke about the revision of the purpose of the museum—is the new mandate, which I would term narrow and parochial.
The current mandate of the Museum of Civilization is set out in section 7 of the 1990 Museums Act. It's not drafted elegantly, but its intention is perfectly clear. Its first focus is on Canada, and it empowers the museum staff to create knowledge, to expand collections that will inform future generations, and to share knowledge through public activities. The museum is also empowered in a secondary focus, which is to conduct external research, make collections, and share knowledge publicly.
The Museums Act of 1990 refers to a full range of human activity. It calls on the museum to increase knowledge and critical understanding for human cultural achievements and human behaviour. This range of knowledge is not limited to history.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have a Ph.D. in history, and I speak to you with great modesty about my area of training and professional knowledge.
Other fields of expertise are essential to understanding society and essential to operating good museums. The CMC staff in areas such as archeology, aboriginal studies, music and popular cultures, design and craft have made huge contributions to understanding this country in its fullest sense. History has been part of the work; history is not everything.
The success of the Museum of Civilization has rested on its balance. The balance on Canadian priority has been balanced by presentations on international themes. The priority for domestic activities has been balanced by Canadian exhibitions and venues abroad. Research from the past has been balanced by research on the ancient past. History has been balanced by contemporary studies on aboriginal arts, nursing, communities, winter sports, and childhood experiences. It's all part of a balance and the knowledge from this balance has been shared.
I won't go into detail talking about the success of the Museum of Civilization. It is by far the most visited museum in the country. In a typical year, its attendance is double the attendance of a full season NHL team. That's a lot of people.
What's the meaning of the proposed new mandate? In essence, it aims to restrict and reduce the activities of a renamed museum of history. The wording is subtle, but the meaning, it seems to me, is clear. Number one, the scope of interest will now be on events and experiences “that have shaped Canada's history and identity”. It's a backward-looking focus, purely on the past. Contemporary issues, contemporary activities, community issues, and cultural expressions have no place in this except peripherally as outcomes of the past.
Secondly, the role of research is very reduced. Mr. Turk has spoken about this. Perhaps research will be intended as something ancillary to enhance Canadian knowledge. Perhaps research will simply be a form of enhanced journalism that's aimed at popularization.
Thirdly, while there is mention of “world history and culture” the focus is only on what can be shown here in Canada. The museum of history is not intended to be mandated to take part in research activity abroad, nor to be part of exchanges that would send Canadian museum knowledge to international venues
These proposed changes to the mandate will have the overall effect of reducing the museum's scope of activity and creating an inward focus that turns away from the world and eliminates concern with the here and the now.
Today, as a standing committee, you have the mandate to look at the changes with long-term implications. The changes will be cumulative. The decisions that will be made by the museum will have great impact on the hiring of staff, on eliminating people who are not historians, on selecting topics for future projects, and on downgrading hard tasks of creating substance. The celebrations of 2017 will be long past when the impacts of the reduced mandate will be felt.
Mr. Chairman, with all of this in mind I have prepared two recommendations that I hope the members of the committee will wish to consider, and I will provide you with some copies of the paper I have written.
The first recommendation I would make is that you consider changing the name of the proposed Canadian Museum of History to the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.
The second recommendation I would make is that the purpose of the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization be written so as to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, knowledge, critical understanding and appreciation of cultures, events, experiences and peoples that have shaped history, identity, and contemporary society with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada, and to do this by expanding, studying, and preserving for posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural significance, with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, I have some copies of what I have presented to you. I sincerely hope that despite my drafting, this is a basis for good, impartial discussion amongst the members of the standing committee and that a bill of importance can be made better through your work.
Thank you very much.