Debates of Oct. 30th, 2013

Canadian Museum of History Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to try to peer into the Conservative mind, but I am profoundly concerned about this reinvention of history, the creation of history in their image. I wonder if it is as honest and honourable as they might try to present.

As a point of fact, the Conservatives are cutting local archives and abandoning national historic sites all across this country. They have cut 80% of the staff at Parks Canada. There are only a dozen archaeologists left to care for 167 of Canada's national historic sites, and the Conservatives want to invest tens of millions of dollars to remove exhibitions from a very popular museum. What is it about the Hall of Canada or about postal history that so upsets them that it must be removed?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, to the member's last statement about the postal history exhibit that is set up, it will be moved, but it is not going to be abandoned or withdrawn. She should withdraw her remarks on that; she does not know her facts and is incorrect.

Second, experts in this industry understand what we are trying to accomplish here today. Let me read a couple of quotes from experts in the industry who understand what we are trying to accomplish together.

“...this government is sending a strong message that museums play an important role in our society”, said John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association.

Marie Lalonde, executive director of the Ontario Museum Association, said, “...we welcome the opportunity to explore new ways that museums may work with each other" and that the association looks forward to the new direction announced by the government.

I have lots more. Experts across this country agree with the legislation. They agree with the ministry and they agree with what this government is doing. Why will the members on the other side of the House not put their partisanship aside on one issue and stand and support what we are trying to do for Canadian history here in this country?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from experts too, and they are very upset with what the government is doing. They simply do not understand how it is going to benefit any of our museums across this country. The Conservatives are taking $25 million out of museums. Who is going to pay for that? Is it the small museums across the country that are going to suffer? This change would come with an incredible cost, and I want to find out exactly what we are going to have to pay.

The Conservatives claim to be interested in history. They have already gutted Canada's knowledge and research communities by firing and muzzling archaeologists, archivists, and librarians and by gutting national historic sites.

What more proof do we need that their motives are less than honourable?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Regional Development; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 today.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization, which Bill C-7 would turn into the Canadian museum of history, is located in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. Not only does this bill change the museum's name, but more importantly, it changes its mandate to refocus and reposition it.

Many of my constituents are questioning the Conservatives' real motives here. I have received many letters, emails and comments from Canadians asking me to oppose this bill. Many of them fear that the museum is being exploited for political purposes. This fear is also shared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which represents 60,000 members. As the member of Parliament for the riding in which the museum is located, I also share that fear.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have made repeated attempts to redefine Canadian identity.

The tens of millions of dollars of public money they spent on festivities to commemorate the War of 1812 is clear evidence of this, as is the completely pointless and costly addition of the adjective “royal” to the designation of Canada's navy and air force.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is too important an institution to be exploited. No one has asked for changes to the status quo.

Even just changing the museum's name will cost approximately $500,000. I am confident that Canadians do not approve of that kind of expense, especially given the current climate of budget cuts.

I am confident that Canadians would rather have good jobs instead of expenditures on a museum they hold dear and changes that they did not ask for.

No one in the region was consulted before the government announced its intentions. Public consultations were organized to determine what people want to see on exhibit in the new museum, not to determine if they agree with changing the museum's mission or name. That is not the way to do things. Canadians are open to the world and they expect that of their museum as well.

Since it opened, the museum has been extraordinarily successful. This is the most popular museum in Canada: 1.3 million people pass through its doors every year. It is a huge tourist attraction for Hull—Aylmer. In addition, it is a economic driver and a significant source of jobs.

Tourism workers agree with me that the museum is successful largely because it has a combination of exhibits on Canadian history and temporary exhibits on other cultures around the world. All of that will change with Bill C-7, which would turn the museum into an institution that focuses almost exclusively on Canadian history.

I have a hard time believing this government when it says it truly cares about Canadian history and heritage. Just last year it eliminated more than 200 jobs at Library and Archives Canada. At Parks Canada, 80% of the archeologists were shown the door.

I do not think that laying off hundreds of public servants who are responsible for preserving and promoting our shared heritage positively contributes to showcasing our Canadian history. It is quite the opposite.

We want to maintain the museum's existing mandate, which already has a considerable focus on Canadian history. The vast majority of the museum's resources are already allocated to exhibits on Canada, and Canadians have shown that the current formula works for them. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One of my constituents' main concerns is that the Canadian Museum of Civilization will turn into a second war museum. The government has been very clear that it intends to plan several military celebrations for Canada's 150th anniversary.

I have no problem with having the museum showcase the 150th anniversary. What I do have a problem with, as do my constituents, is using the 150th anniversary as an excuse to change the mandate of the most popular museum in Canada.

On that, we disagree.

I can hear government members say that the museum is an independent body and that the government cannot influence the content of its exhibits. If the government had not lost the confidence of Canadians and the opposition parties, we might believe that. However, in the current climate, no one can trust the government.

In May 2012, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages did not hesitate to publicly criticize the exhibit the Museum of Science and Technology chose to put on. The museum wanted to present an exhibit on sex education. According to the minister—who says he has nothing to do with museums and does not interfere in their decisions—this was an insult to taxpayers.

The government has never hesitated to bend the rules to pressure institutions that are deemed to be independent. We are seeing this right now in the Senate, which is also supposed to be independent. We know the score. It is far from independent.

One of the problems with Bill C-7 is the proposed mandate, which sets out not only the museum's general direction, but also the historical approach it should adopt. This approach is restrictive. It does not leave any room to showcase important developments in our shared history, such as gender relations and the impact of colonization on first nations, for example.

Normally, decisions about the type of approach adopted by a museum are left up to the museum's professionals and historians, specifically to avoid political interference. Who better than the museum's professionals and historians to determine the museum's exhibits now and in the future?

That is not what we have here. These are not the decisions of our professionals, who are opposed to this bill.

For all these reasons, we are voting against Bill C-7 at third reading.

[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, if Canadians trusted this government, we could have an open discussion and then come up with a bill dealing with a museum, or another bill dealing with another activity that would benefit Canadians. Sadly, that is not the case.

In the last two years, the climate of trust has been shattered. The government has interests that are contrary to those of Canadians.

This government has still not answered the question about the $25 million. This is not additional money; the museum is going to be changed with existing money. Which programs are they going to abolish? What is going to happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is in her constituency, but it also belongs to all Canadians.

She emphasized that the Canadian Museum of Civilization is interested in the whole world, thereby helping us to better understand our Canadian uniqueness. I would therefore like to give her the opportunity to express her fears that the museum is going to lose a lot of its ability to connect with the whole world.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

The museum is indeed in my constituency, but I understand that it also belongs to all Canadians. In fact, that is why I mentioned that, in Canada, it is the museum that attracts the most visitors, both from Canada and from other countries.

In terms of the lack of trust, in recent years we have seen everything focused on celebrating bygone wars and military activities. Yes, it is good to remember past military activities and wars.

That said, is that what a museum of civilization has to become? I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying that it is a fear born of previous experience. It is important to open ourselves to the world and to have other experiences, but it is also important to keep what we already have.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my two colleagues for their excellent speeches, which clearly explained the NDP's concerns about this transformation and these changes to the museum's mandate.

I would like to ensure that we have fully understood the key components of these regulations, which were presented in a catch-all bill that changes the museum's mandate. However, the bill also includes many bonuses. For example, artifacts will travel all over Canada and a student program will be established, among other things. These are all wonderful and noble ideas. However, of course, these exchanges are not scheduled to occur until 2017. That is fine.

Does my colleague not find that, although the people who will be an integral part of these artifact exchanges support them, their support is completely undermined by a lack of confidence in this government, which has demonstrated, time and time again, how it likes to abuse its powers? I am thinking, for example, of the commemoration of the War of 1812.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

It is unfortunate. In a climate of mistrust, people have a hard time believing that the government's proposals are in the best interests of all Canadians and not just based on ideologies that go completely against the museum's aim and mandate. It is important for Canadians and the entire world to know our history. It is important for Canadians to know the history of foreign countries and see what is happening there.

There is also concern that small museums will end up competing with the Canadian Museum of Civilization. That could be dangerous because the mission or primary purpose of this museum and museums outside the national capital region could be forgotten.

[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 know that there is a continued bogeyman theory that both the opposition parties seem to use when it comes to legislation. They make some attempt to say that the government wants to involve itself in the operations of every crown agency across the country. Even if that were true, which it is not, legislation and regulation would stand in the way.

I want to iterate, and get the member's comments on, section 27.(1) of the Museums Act, which we are not changing. It states very clearly:

No directive shall be given to a museum under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including (a) the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities; (b) its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and (c) research with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

We are not touching this part of the act. Will the member not acknowledge that the direction of the museum is not going to be touched? In fact, it will be left to those who are entrusted with that right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the main reason our caucus will vote against the bill is that we do not agree with the change of mandate. We do not like the idea that to focus on Canadian history, we need to get rid of the Museum of Civilization. We do not think it is Canadian to do this kind of thing. Canada celebrates what is universal around the world. In this way, we better understand Canada's history. Canada exists in the world. Canada is pleased to study the world and is pleased to have a museum on the world. It is a shame to shift this focus and destroy a museum that is so well regarded around the world.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his important contribution to the debate. I taught history for years and I am still quite passionate about it.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about one of the things that bothers me a bit here. One of the proposed changes to the mandate, to section 8, suggests eliminating the phrase “critical understanding”.

One of the first things I teach is that even though history tries to shed light on events that have happened, the understanding of these events is never over and evolves over time as historical documents and artifacts give us the points of view of everyone involved.

By replacing critical understanding with the simple notion of general understanding, does this shift not run the risk of resulting more in propaganda and less in a true understanding of historical events?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, but the problem is that the governing party, the Prime Minister in particular, is allergic to criticism.

Since they are allergic to criticism, they have removed critical understanding from the mandate. That is one of the reasons we must oppose this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could I get my colleague to expand on the idea of the current mandate and how Canadians have an expectation that goes beyond getting a better understanding of Canada? In fact, it is important for us to have a better understanding of the world. Changing the mandate, which would tend to exclude other regions outside of Canada, is not necessarily in the best interests of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member reads my speech, and I am sure it will be read everywhere in Canada, he will see how much I love my country and its history.

I am not aware of another country that would get rid of a museum of civilization to make it a museum of national history. The last country I would suspect would do such a thing is Canada, because so much of Canada is universal.

[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]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the mandate is a reversal of the former mandate. The former mandate was to focus on civilizations around the world, and through that, to learn about Canada. The new mandate is the exact opposite. We will focus on Canada, and as an afterthought, we will look at--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

In fact, I would be very pleased to have a museum of Canadian history. The problem is that killing the Museum of Civilization to do that is not something the government should be proud of.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this afternoon. Only the Liberals and the NDP could be opposed to our country wanting to celebrate our great history through a wonderful national museum. Not only would it be a national museum in the national capital region that Canadians could come and visit, but more important, the bill would allow small museums all across the country to have the opportunity to have artifacts go out to them.

Not every Canadian can afford to come to the national capital region and visit our national museum. This bill would allow small museums, like ones in Mississauga, Ontario, to apply to have artifacts come to them in the local community so that every Canadian could experience the wonderful history of this country.

Maybe the hon. member could explain why he does not want constituents in my riding to celebrate Canadian history by not having these artifacts come to my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it was for that purpose only, we would all agree to facilitate the ability to have artifacts circulating everywhere in Canada, including in the riding of my hon. colleague. It would be a very novel objective.

However, the government is destroying the Museum of Civilization in order to create another museum, with only $25 million, and is claiming that it is creating a new museum. However, we do not know where that $25 million is coming from. My hon. colleague should check. Maybe it has been taken from something in his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands referred to in terms of the bill. It is straightforward. The mandate is clear, and I actually think it is worth repeating:

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.

The member said he thought the move of the Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history was in some way not Canadian. Based on the mandate, based on the objectives that are trying to be accomplished through this piece of legislation and the Canadian museum of history, would he please explain to me why he would say that it is not Canadian to create the Canadian museum of history?