Debates of Oct. 21st, 2013

Motion No. 2

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I have heard throughout the day is verbal diarrhea from the members on that side trying to put the blame on this side for everything they have done. They prorogued government and then told us we were the ones holding up legislation. That is shameful.

They prorogued government to bring in a throne speech. I will quote what people think of the throne speech. This was sent to me. It was in reply to some of what was in The Globe and Mail.

David Wood from Mildmay, Ontario wrote:

Does the promised effort to allow consumers to pick and pay for only the channels they want include the one that [the Prime Minister] seems to be asking us to tune in to with the Throne Speech?

I’ve seen the season preview and suspect this channel carries nothing but fluff and reruns.

Could my colleague tell me how many more he has heard from with respect to this type of legislation that the government is trying to put through? This is a government that kept stating it should not be proroguing. Can my colleague also explain when proroguing should actually be used?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have made suggestions. However, because it seems that suggestions do not work so well with the current government, we will bring in legislation that would describe a couple of important measures: one is when committees should go into camera. This is an important tool available to parliamentarians to take committee business out of the public light for issues dealing with personnel, compensation, or anything that has legal implications.

What we consistently see from the Conservatives at the committee stage is that a committee moves into camera whenever the conversation turns against them, or during a vote that they do not want to be seen.

In the case with prorogation, when Jack Layton stood in this place he talked about there being a certain test within the House, that a prime minister should not have the power to simply shut down Parliament. This happened just after the Prime Minister of the day, facing certain defeat in the House of Commons when he was in a minority status, drove down the road to the Governor General's house and said, “Please let me get out of town”. It was meant to be a thirty-minute meeting. We know that because he had booked a photo op at a car manufacturer's an hour later. It lasted for three and a half hours. The poor media were standing outside the door. It lasted for three and a half hours because the Governor General said that governments wanting to get out when the heat turns up have a tendency to use the hammer of prorogation. It is a hammer. What does it do? It shuts down the very bills that government states it cares so much about.

Did we need the throne speech? Absolutely not. Anyone could have given that speech and told us all of the wonderful things they had to say. Instead the government brought down the hammer, destroyed a whole bunch of legislation that it stated it cares about and then claimed that it is somehow the victim of this crime. It should properly define “victim”. If it is doing it to itself, it is no longer the victim of what has happened. That is some sort of strange psychology with the government to always feel like someone, the media, this constituency here or these powerful environmental groups there, or the mighty unions, is doing this to it. At some point, responsibility is required.

The government chose this. It wanted to come and negotiate with us about what bills should be allowed back in and what bills are too toxic to see the light of day according to everybody involved. Of course, we entered into those negotiations. If it wants to bring them in carte blanche and state that it gets whatever it wants because it is the government, then that is a different conversation. That is when we end up here. If it is expecting the opposition to roll over, it must be thinking about a different opposition. That is not what New Democrats do.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as it pains me to do this, I need to point out that the prorogation that just occurred was not unconstitutional. The previous two, in 2008 and 2009, were clearly unconstitutional. In differing from some of my friends who spoke previously today, there are no previous examples of Liberal Prime Ministers or Progressive Conservative Prime Ministers proroguing to avoid a confidence vote that they knew they were going lose or to avoid political difficulty.

It is quite shocking what the Prime Minister has done. In the whole of the British Commonwealth, as studied by an institution in London that looks at these things, only one previous example could be found before the 2008 prorogation where prorogation was used to shut down Parliament to avoid political difficulty, and sadly, it was also Canada. It was Sir John A. Macdonald during the Pacific scandal. However, he returned to Parliament and immediately had an election.

I wanted to make this one little point. This prorogation, in hitting the reset button, I agree with my friends in the official opposition, could have been done midsummer, could have been done any time, did not need to delay the House till October. However, clearly, it was much more in the norm of the tradition that the government had basically run out of steam. Sitting till midnight, one in the morning, every day through the last of May until the last of June with time allocation on every bill, the Conservatives could pretty much force everything through if that was what they chose to do. That, to me, was a larger offence than the prorogation.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In terms of decorum, I would like to bring to your attention to page 150 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms related to appropriate language.

We all want to have decorum and respectful debate in the House of Commons. The hon. member from the NDP used the words “verbal diarrhea” with regard to the government. It was totally inappropriate in this situation. We want to respect one another. I would ask you to ask the hon. member to rescind her comments and to respect the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing would like to address the point.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw that comment if it has offended the hon. member. I was trying to say that obviously government members are full of themselves at times, so I am sorry for that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

For the benefit of all hon. members, while there is indeed a list of unparliamentary terms and words in Beauchesne's, the practise of the House is to look at how words are used in the context of whether they cause disorder in the House, and so on. I note that in this particular case it was not in reference to an individual member or parliamentarian, but was rather a general reference.

That said, members should be discouraged from taking up the kind of language that can cause other disorder in the House. I certainly appreciate the comments of hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, although the end of her comments was not necessarily helpful toward creating the kind of goodwill that we know works well for a good civil debate in the House of Commons.

We will now go to the response. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the effort to have civility and decorum, perhaps I was inarticulate in my comments earlier about how we are viewing this particular prorogation and what it means. At no point did I talk about this being unconstitutional. It was unwise, and apparently now unnecessary that the government shut down Parliament using prorogation in an effort to reset the agenda. That was the attempt. Yet we are back here and we have had a press conference this morning about the Senate scandal, finding out that the Prime Minister may have misled Canadians in the spring.

All the effort of shutting everything down for five weeks, killing all of that legislation, was to switch the channel over from the Senate scandal, which is of the Prime Minister's own creation. He has no one but himself to blame for this. These are his appointments. It was his promise not to appoint unelected senators to the Senate, and he broke that 59 times. Maybe he should have stuck with his promise. He would not have Mike Duffy haunting his dreams right now. He would not be dealing with Patrick Brazeau and Wallin. Those are choices that the Prime Minister made.

My point on this particular sequence is that the government only seems to have one tool in its belt: the hammer. Therefore, everything looks like a nail. Any time there is an opportunity to have a discussion, the Conservatives shut down the discussion. Any time there is an ability to have a debate and have that free exchange of ideas that you talked about, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives come in with closure, again. They cannot seem to negotiate to save their lives. Then they try to blame somebody else for it. It is time to take a little ownership on that side. Denial is a river in Egypt. Let us get them focused on what is really happening.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

He attempted to point out the lack of debate. Over the four weeks we spent in our ridings, people kept asking us why we were not in the House of Commons debating about things that Canadians need.

What Canadians need are clear and democratic debates. That means a democratic debate in which everyone can participate and discuss topics such as the Senate, employment insurance and the plight of aboriginal women.

However, we need to be here to debate such issues and we did not have that opportunity. Now, the Conservatives want to bring all those issues back in an omnibus motion in order to cut short debate, which shows an unacceptable lack of democracy in a modern society such as Canada. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

That is exactly it. We have a role here. We have a job to do for all Canadians. The Conservative backbenchers have the same job. It involves showing some responsibility in the House of Commons with regard to employment insurance and the economy, among other things.

It is good that Quebeckers and Canadians were asking us why we were in our ridings rather than in the House to present the government with new ideas to help improve their circumstances and prevent tragedies like the one in Lac-Mégantic. These are the issues and the reason for debate. We do not debate just for the sake of debate, but to improve things here. However, this government is against debate. It is too bad. I would like to thank my colleagues for their questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek agreement from my colleagues to reinstate an important piece of legislation, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

As members of the House may recall, the former Minister of Heritage and Official Languages announced our government's plan to establish this new national museum just over a year ago on October 16, 2012. Our government believes that Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. Yet, Canada does not actually have a national museum that presents a comprehensive narrative of our history.

As Canada approaches its 150th anniversary in 2017, we are approaching a once-in-a-generation opportunity to better understand and examine the defining chapters of our country's history. Canada's history is vast. It is important that all Canadians appreciate the courage of our ancestors, from Samuel de Champlain's mapping of the St. Lawrence River to the last spike at Craigellachie, British Columbia, which marked the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway tracks that took us from east to west and back again. Bill C-49 would retell stories such as those by creating the Canadian museum of history.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of the mandate of the new museum as it is described in the legislation. It states:

The purpose of the Canadian museum of history is to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.

I would also like to provide a brief summary of why we introduced the legislation and why we want to reinstate it. Our government believes that the vast majority of Canadians who have the privilege of visiting our national museums recognize that they are our national treasures. That is why we have opened two new national museums: the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax, and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

Canada needs a national institution that will tell the stories of how Canada came to be the prosperous land we now live in. Our country needs an institution that will independently research and explore our history and present it to the over 35 million Canadians in this country. This country needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together as Canadians. Our children need to know more about Canada's past.

That is why we introduced the legislation to create the new Canadian museum of history. The new museum's home would be in what is currently the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Our government would make a $25-million, one-time investment so that the museum could be built to host and hold the new exhibitions that would take place, and also transition to its new mandate with a focus on Canada's history and Canada's identity.

As soon as we hear about the expenditure of funds, all of us wonder where those funds would come from and whether or not the taxpayer would have to pay more for this investment. However, I remind the House that the funds would come from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. The museum itself would also allocate internal resources to the project and it would launch a public fundraising campaign with an initial target of $5 million. These funds would allow the museum of Canadian history to renovate more than half of its permanent exhibition space. The result would be almost 50,000 square feet of space in which to present a comprehensive telling of our country's history. The museum would actually renovate 7,500 square feet on the street-level floor of its main building, and this space would increase its capacity to host travelling exhibitions, for example exhibits from other museums across the country.

As members will hear, and as many of us have heard when we talked about the potential of this museum, it would not just be a museum situated here in Ottawa. The transition of using museums across this country from a historical perspective would be implemented at the same time. It would be to refresh its mandate and orientation so that we could tell the story of this country. As we have mentioned in past debates, the Children's Museum would continue to be an integral part of this new museum—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate the Conservatives' wonderful bill to turn the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian museum of history, but that is not what we are talking about right now.

Can we get back to Motion No. 2?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his point of order.

With regard to the subject that is before the House, it is true that all honourable members must ensure that what they are talking about is relevant.

In the course of debate, members have been making references to the pieces of legislation that are part and parcel of the motion and would be affected by it. This has been a debate that has touched on those topics in the past. I recognize the hon. member's point and encourage the parliamentary secretary and others to continue to ensure that their arguments and commentary do refer to the question that is before the House.

The question pertains, of course, to a procedural matter in terms of reinstating the various pieces of legislation to the stage at which they were left in the first session. At the same time, discussion around those pieces of legislation can give rise to arguments as to why the question should be supported or opposed.

The Chair recognizes these points in the same vein that there has been debate regarding the Speech from the Throne, prorogation, and other issues that are perhaps not directly related to the question but that in fact do have some pertinence in this case.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the key word in your decision was the word “affect”. The fact is that what we are presenting very cautiously but very consistently is the whole reason around what we would like to see reintroduced in the House. I happen to represent and speak to a piece of legislation, Bill C-49, that we would like to have reintroduced in the House. I thank you for your decision and judgment on that and I will continue.

As we have mentioned in past debates, the children's museum will continue to be an integral part of the new museum, as will the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present chapters of our story and our history that are of immense importance, the history of Canada's first peoples.

However, more than just the name of the museum would change; so too would the mandate and the exhibits. Canadians living from coast to coast should be able to benefit from the 3.5 million items currently in the collection at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. That is why we are building and encouraging partnerships between the new Canadian museum of history and over 2,500 museums, including one in my riding of St. Catharines, which just opened up an exhibit regarding 1812 and the role that Sir Isaac Brock and the Niagara region played in the War of 1812.

The partners will have access to the new museum's collection which, as I mentioned, numbers some 3.5 million artifacts. As is the case with most museums, the vast majority of the new museum's collection has been in storage. 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. The agreements being negotiated with the largest institutions that have a mandate to cover the history of Canada will play a key role in moving this collection across the country and making it accessible to more Canadians.

In fact, I would like to update the House that there are currently three such partnership agreements, one with the Royal B.C. Museum, another with the Manitoba Museum and a third with Calgary's Glenbow Museum, and there will be others right across our country.

The Canadian history museum network will enhance the production and the reach of exhibitions focusing on Canadian history. By helping museums throughout Canada provide more opportunities for us to learn about our history, the Canadian museum of history's partnerships with other museums will serve as a tremendous resource in the future.

I would like my colleagues in the House to know that this project has received support from prominent Canadian historians, such as Jack Granatstein, Charlotte Gray, and many others. Michael Bliss, Canadian historian and award-winning author, said that it is very exciting that Canada's major museum will now be explicitly focused on Canada's history.

Organizations such as the Canadian Museums Association, Canada's History, and the Historica-Dominion Institute have also expressed their support. Yves Fortier, member of the Historica-Dominion Institute board of directors, said, “...the Historica-Dominion Institute enthusiastically supports the creation of the Canadian museum of history.”

Historians and historical associations across the country see tremendous value in promoting Canadian history, and so does our government. John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, stated, “The Canadian Museums Association welcomes these improvements to one of Canada's flagship national museums.”

We are creating the Canadian museum of history, but it does not stop there. We are also taking other steps to protect and promote Canada's history. For example, we have created the Canada history fund, which will provide awards to outstanding students and teachers of history. As well, we are providing supporting for the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes each year between now and 2017, when Canadians will celebrate this country's 150th birthday.

We are also increasing support for projects like the Memory Project Speakers Bureau, which makes it possible for thousands of young students to meet Canadian veterans and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces right in their own classrooms. This project is a fantastic way for all of us to pay tribute to our veterans and to learn more about this very important part of our country's history and our country's heritage.

Our government will also increase our present funding for reference sources, such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia. These are extremely valuable tools that help teachers in the classroom, and because they are online, they are available to anyone who has an interest in exploring these fascinating entries.

As I mentioned, the Canadian museum of history's partnerships will encourage museums big and small, and from all parts of the country, to share more exhibits and more artifacts from one side of the country to the other. This is not something that people are going to have to come to Ottawa to see; this is something that Ottawa is going to ensure spreads out across this entire country.

Moving exhibits and artifacts does cost money, though, so the Canadian Heritage museums assistance program will now support travel costs associated with moving materials from the Canadian museum of history to local museums right across our country. To ensure more local history circulates, we have also changed the program to support museums that want to circulate history exhibits within their own province or their own territory.

Ours is a fascinating history that dates back long before the first European settlers arrived on these shores. It tells of people from around the world coming here to seek a better life for themselves and for their families, and how, bringing with them different languages, different religions, and different customs, they learned to live together in mutual respect and be an example as a country to the rest of the world. Together our ancestors built a country that is the envy of many people throughout the world. What an incredibly proud heritage we have.

With the approach of Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, we have a golden opportunity to learn more about our past. What a wonderful time to discover the perseverance, innovation, and creativity of great Canadians who have been instrumental in building our communities and our country and to pay tribute to the dedicated men and women who brought distinction to Canada in so many different areas of endeavour.

Over the course of 150 years of nationhood, we have earned an international reputation for excellence in many fields, including the arts, sports, and literature. In fact, I want to congratulate Canadian Alice Munro for recently winning the Nobel prize for literacy. It is just another example of the role that she and other Canadians play and their role in history that we will see in the Canadian museum.

This is a perfect opportunity to celebrate the people, places, and events that have made Canada the incredible country that it is, events such as Canada's first Arctic expedition. This year marks the 100th anniversary. It was 100 years ago that it took place.

In 2015 we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the flag of Canada with our much-loved red maple leaf. As well, over the next few years, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the births of Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald's, as well as the 175th anniversary of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's birth.

These people and events that helped establish our nation are critical to understanding where we came from and where we are going. In learning more about them, we can discover much about how we got to where we are now: democratic, proud, and free, a strong country that is building on its past to pursue excellence today and to pursue excellence tomorrow.

Our government believes all children in this country—indeed, all people in this country—should have the opportunity to learn about our rich heritage. In so doing, we hope they will be inspired to make their own contributions to this great country.

That is why I am very pleased that our government is investing in the initiatives that I have outlined and is creating the new Canadian museum of history. A new national history museum will allow us to learn more about our past and by doing so inspire us to even greater achievements in the future. As members know, we as a country and as peoples continue to write history.

Bill C-49 was introduced and received first reading last year on November 27. It would make a number of changes to the Museums Act in relation to the current Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation that would allow it to evolve into the Canadian museum of history.

As the bill made its way through the House, there was a great deal of discussion. Although sometimes the opposition is not always thrilled to hear this, in fact it was debated for more than 14 hours in this chamber. During second reading, many members had the opportunity to express any concerns they may have had or to speak about why they consider the Canadian museum of history to be significant.

When the legislation was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the minister at that time, as well as many other individuals and associations and organizations, was invited to speak about the bill.

For example, committee members heard from the Canadian Museum of Civilization, through its president and chief executive officer, Mark O'Neill, and from the Canadian Museums Association, through its executive director and CEO, John McAvity. Anthony Wilson-Smith, the president of the Historica Canada, appeared before the committee as well. These are just a few examples, but there were many others who came to the table at the heritage committee to express their thoughts, their vision, and their belief in why we should move forward with this piece of legislation, but more importantly, with this new piece of history.

It is also important to point out that at report stage last June, Bill C-49 was debated a further six hours, for a total of 20 hours of debate in the House of Commons on our new Canadian museum of history. All the debates that took place during the last session of Parliament are still applicable today, because the bill we want to reinstate is exactly the same.

A good deal of the House's time, energy, and effort has been invested in studying this legislation, and the government sees no further value to be gained in repeating what has been an extensive review so far. For that reason, we ask, respectfully and humbly, that the said bill be deemed, in the current session, as being considered and approved at all stages completed, at the time of prorogation, in the previous session.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define us as Canadian. The establishment of the Canadian museum of history would provide Canadians with the opportunity to learn, appreciate, and understand the richness of Canadian history. I hope all members will join me in supporting the reinstatement of Bill C-49 at third reading. The opening of the Canadian museum of history in 2016 is going to be one of the highlights leading up to 2017.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by my friend from St. Catharines. I am sure Hansard will reflect that he meant to say that Alice Munro has won the Nobel Prize in Literature, not literacy. I am sure that he just misspoke.

I have a very quick question. I know that we are talking about this larger bill with all these bills in it. My friend across the way was talking about writing history, and I am assuming the corollary is rewriting history. I wonder if the intention of the Conservative government is to rewrite history as it has repainted the government jet Conservative colours. I wonder if that is the intention with this particular bill.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for two things. One is his question, and second is his clarification. I thank him for the correction. His office is next to mine, and he keeps a very close eye on what I may be saying or doing, so I appreciate it. It is always done in the context of trying to deliver better and more, so I appreciate it.

To respond to his question, I think he knows full well that although its mandate will change in terms of moving from civilization to history, the structure and the manner in which the Canadian museum of history is run by its executive, its CEO, its directors, and all of its staff, and the way the facility is managed as a crown corporation separate from the government, shows very clearly that the intentions will remain as stated in the bill and as stated by the individuals who do such a great job for us at the museum.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that to prevent returning to the House on September 16, the Prime Minister had to prorogue the session. That allowed him to avoid accountability for an additional month. Unfortunately, there were many consequences, but I will focus on one, that being the area of debate right now. It meant that everything had to be restarted. As a result of the Prime Minister wanting to avoid accountability, this motion was moved, because the House was prorogued.

The member spent a great deal of time talking about a bill and why it is important that we continue with that bill. I have heard other members talk about other issues. I could mention individuals like Crystal Saunders, Helen Betty Osborne, Roberta McIvor, Fonessa Bruyere, Danielle Vanasse, Therena Silva, Stephanie Buboire, Aynsley Kinch, Evelyn Stewart, Cherisse Houle, and many others. These individuals were murdered or are missing. There are 600 individuals in total. This was started to try to deal with this issue. This is one of the reasons the Liberal Party will be voting in favour of this motion. Liberals recognize the importance of carrying things over.

However, does the member not believe that the Prime Minister, when he prorogued the session, could have and should have, at the very least, come back in September? He did not have to wait until October. It is very suspicious that the reason he did that was to avoid accountability.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure, now that I have been moved to heritage as parliamentary secretary, that I would continue to debate and dialogue with the member for Winnipeg North. I can see, as will my good friend from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, that he is going to be dogging me and following me pretty much everywhere I go. I look forward to his questions and debate over the next number of weeks and months.

In answer to his question, the fact is that we have introduced a new throne speech. We have signed an agreement in principle with the European Union in terms of a free trade deal. If those are not examples of the direction this government is going to take, he needs to take another look at the throne speech to understand the aggressive nature in which we will be moving with respect to legislation and introducing the second part of our mandate for the 41st Parliament. I continue to look forward to debating those issues with him.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about what the member opposite asked about rewriting history. I would like him to comment on presenting history and the colour of government jets. We have colours that symbolize many things. Red is our national colour. Blue is the colour of the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that one of the favourite colours on this side of the House happens to be blue, but it is also a colour that happens to be a favourite of many in this nation. When it comes to understanding and relating to the colours of our country, I mentioned in my speech our Canadian flag and the fact that we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Canadian flag leading up to our celebration of the 150th anniversary and the 150th year of this country. Whether it is red, blue, or white, those colours fairly represent the direction and purpose of this country when it comes to identifying it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether I am the only person here who is feeling a little manipulated by this debate.

The motion before us is to give any minister opposite the power to reinstate any bill before the House in the last session to its previous place on the order paper, merely by getting up and reading it. The member has taken the opportunity, with this motion, to talk about a particular, individual, separate bill. Yet the reality is that if this motion passes, nobody on this side of the House will have an opportunity to debate any piece of legislation on this list introduced by any minister over there.

The member is taking the opportunity to use up the time on this motion to have his say about a bill that we are not really going to have a chance to talk about, because this is not a debate about that bill.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member was saying. Would he rather debate process here in the House of Commons or just stand to complain about the government? Would he actually like to take a few minutes and be productive and say he is going to come here to help build this country, represent his riding in a positive fashion, and when he has the opportunity to stand to talk about the promotion of the new Canadian museum of history, do so in a proactive manner?

We are here to talk about action. We are here to move this country forward. All I am hearing from the other side of the House, and this member has represented this extremely well, is, “Let's debate process”.

I spent the summer and the additional time I had during prorogation back in St. Catharines. No one in my riding said to go back to Ottawa to debate process for us. They asked me to take action and to make sure that we put people back to work in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that I can certainly see why he would want to debate an issue as important as changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate.

I am talking to you, Mr. Speaker, but as I look across the way, I can see that the member is talking and not looking at me.

The member is getting to know this file and has quoted directors and others who supported changing the mandate, but does he know that the museum's former director expressed strong opposition to the change? Is he quoting only the people he wants to hear? Two or three others have spoken out against changing the mandate. The government has to stop going on about everything that will change along with the mandate. Imagine if I told my wife we were going to renovate the kitchen and then I would do the cooking and we could make babies. That is how they talk to us about the museum. Hold on a second. Changing a museum's mandate does not necessarily mean switching the artifacts. In other words, that could have been done with the museum as it is now because it is a very good museum just the way it is.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not surprise me to hear that when it comes to Canadian history in our country and trying to get it represented in a museum for the first time in our country's history, someone from the NDP would stand to say that he is opposed to that. The NDP is opposed to Canadian history. It is opposed to talking about who built this country. It is opposed to talking about how this country stands out, whether in the G7 or the G20, in terms of its economic agenda and in terms of humanitarian compassion and the assistance we provide. I would only expect from the NDP that we would hear that.

On this side of the House, it is about how great this country is in its history, its present, and its future.