Canadian Heritage Committee on June 10th, 2013

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

As the committee knows, we've tabled a similar amendment. I'd like to speak in support of it. I want to underline again that we heard witness testimony that said the mandate and the documentation around the museum is something that is often referred to. It guides the management in the running of the museum and in the decisions made there. I think that we shouldn't be afraid of the word “critical”, as it pertains to museums and our discussion of heritage and history.

So I think it's important that we re-insert this word in the document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Cash.

(Amendment negatived)

LIB-5 is defeated, and that means that NDP-4 is also defeated.

Mr. Cash.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

We'd like to request recorded votes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sure.

Next we have BQ-6.

Mr. Plamondon, we are on BQ-6 on page 14.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Isn't it on page 13?

Is it page 13?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

I believe it's page 14.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

We moved this amendment to include the following words: “and have shaped Canada's history”.

This amendment actually removes the word “identity” from the wording of the clause. As we explained earlier, the role of the Canadian Museum of History is not to make history rosy to make it more popular and to determine Canada's identity. I think this clause would make things clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have NDP-5. That's on page 15, in the name of Mr. Nantel.

Mr. Nantel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is no point in me spending too much time on this. It goes without saying that this amendment is very important for us. We heard from a number of witnesses who shared the same view. The amendment accurately reflects the expertise of those who came to share their positions on the issue in order to support our position. That is what I wanted to explain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Nantel.

On NDP-5, those in favour?

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Are you requesting a recorded vote for every vote, Mr. Cash?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Yes. We are requesting a recorded vote for every vote, as well as the first two votes that we did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

We can't.... Those votes are ancient history at this point.

We will proceed with the recorded vote on NDP-5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Next we move to page 19, in the name of Ms. May.

Ms. May, would you like speak to PV-1?

I don't know what PV stands for.

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

It stands for Parti vert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Gotcha. Okay.

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

That was not my idea. It was your committee's idea. I am fine with either the Green Party of Canada or the Parti vert. That is the acronym this group chose.

I'm presenting a small amendment to back up and say that overall I'm prepared to take a leap of faith and support this bill, but there are many things that have created a great deal of concern in the community at large. I've had many representations opposed to this bill. Both of my amendments go toward putting to rest some of the concerns of people across the country who are not as prepared as I am to give the Minister of Heritage, whom I think has nothing but best intentions, the benefit of the doubt.

My amendment is to proposed paragraph 9(1)(c). It simply removes the word “destroy”. The clause now reads that in furtherance of its purpose, the Canadian Museum of History may “sell, exchange, give away, destroy or otherwise dispose of museum material in its collection”.

I suggest removing the word “destroy”. I think it would increase public confidence in the entire act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Calandra.

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

I wonder if we might have the department officials give us a better appreciation of why that may, or may not, be in there.

[Cynthia White-Thornley, Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you.

The word “destroy” is in the act, as it was in the previous act, but it's an extremely rare occurrence. At times it becomes necessary to destroy an object because it might become unstable over time, or it is composed of dangerous material. It is a very rare occurrence but it's part of the management of the collection. If an object is assessed to be of no value, or if it becomes unstable, or if it is not of interest to another public museum, it provides an opportunity for research into conservation techniques.

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

If I could just follow up a bit—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sorry, Ms. May—

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

—because in the context it doesn't make any sense. You're not going to get any revenue from destroying something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Sorry, Ms. May.

Mr. Simms.

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

Can I give her my time?