Debates of Nov. 6th, 2013

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the anger and the shouting and the contempt they show, because they do not want to respect a tradition that has hundreds of years behind it. The Conservatives can be bullies. They can shout and insult us, but our role is to debate.

Once again, the Conservatives are telling Canadians that the role of this Parliament is interfering with the work of the current Prime Minister and his little cabal who are trying to run this country.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this member likes to get the headlines in the paper, but I am not here for that. I am here for Canadians. I am here to follow the rules that are in place. For the member to pick and choose which rules he thinks are democratic, and to disregard those that are in the Westminster system, such as time allotment, for his own purposes, I think is wrong.

Frankly, for the member to insult Canadians' intelligence by changing my words, as I had said “delay for the sake of delay”, I think is unfair. That is the reputation that member continues to put forward.

I will not do that. I will tell the truth. I will not spin. I am going to do what Canadians want, and that is to rename this museum the Canadian museum of history.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague on her appointment as Canada's new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. I wish her every success in her role. I am sure that she will excel, as she has in all she has done since she was first elected to represent the great people of Saint Boniface.

I have listened to the concerns colleagues opposite have repeated on several occasions regarding this particular time allocation. However, what I did not hear from them was why 57 hours of debate is not enough time.

They are speaking as if this thing came up a few minutes ago, and now, all of a sudden, we are asking for a vote on the legislation.

After having heard an exhaustive 57 hours of regurgitated speeches from members opposite saying the same thing over and over, why is it important for the government to take some action, bring it to closure, and have a vote?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, put very simply, it is so that we can get on with the business at hand, which is to rename this museum so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast can allow us to celebrate our Canadian history with them.

It would allow us to focus on what has happened in the past to make us the greatest country in the world. It would allow us to focus on why we do the things we do as Canadians. Events in our history have led us down this path to being the Canadians we are. They have led us down this path to respecting one another, to having the rule of law that we follow and respect, and to being the Canadians of this Parliament, who Canadians are watching today, who will lead them into the future, concentrating on their asks.

One of their asks is that this change of name occur so that we can get on with the business of the day and allow Canadians to celebrate and share these exhibits from coast to coast to coast.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague spoke about democracy. I remind her that since the Conservatives were elected, they have shut down debate 57 times—three times since the new session started alone. They have shut down debate on 40% of their legislative agenda.

I would like to quote the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, who said the following on March 15, 2002:

For the government to, for the 75th time, prohibit members from speaking on behalf of their constituents and to the national interest on matters of grave concern, such as the budget implementation bill, is yet more unfortunate evidence of the government's growing arrogance and contempt for our conventions of parliamentary democracy.

I would like the member opposite to explain what parliamentary democracy means when they are imposing a gag order for the 57th time.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary democracy means following the rules.

This is clearly in accordance with the rules, and we want to address the needs of Canadians by listening to them. We consulted 20,000 Canadians who gave their opinion on the museum. We also held debates here, in this House. There were discussions in committee, hours of debate, discussions and consultations. Now is the time to move forward with this bill and to give Canadians and Quebeckers what they want: to move forward with the history museum, so that we can celebrate our past and move towards a future with a museum that will instill more pride and will acknowledge our country's achievements and accomplishments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a quick question from the honourable member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I would like to ask my colleague a question, and I congratulate her on her appointment to cabinet.

I am not sure that, when she was dreaming of becoming a minister, she thought that the first thing she would do as a minister in the House of Commons would be to impose a time allocation motion to limit debate. The logic is rather fascinating because she is telling us that we do not want to debate the bill, when all we really want is to have more time to debate it. They are the ones telling us that they want less time to debate this bill.

We, on this side of the House, are the ones who are truly interested in studying and debating this bill. They, on the other hand, want to spend less time on it and deal with it as quickly as possible. They are quite wrong in saying that we do not want to debate the bill. It is quite the opposite. We want more time to debate this bill, whereas she wants less time for the debate. I am asking her why.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. NDP colleague for his kind words.

Debates and consultations have taken place. Most of the people who talked about this change to the museum clearly said that they wanted to see this happen quickly, and quite frankly, we have let them down. This has clearly already been proposed in a previous Parliament by another minister. We have spent hours debating it and we always get the same response from the opposition: they want us to do nothing with this. Canadians, however, want us to do something about this. They want to celebrate Canada's history. We, the Conservatives, will follow all the rules. We will move this bill forward and give Canadians what they want—to rename this museum—and we will do so as quickly as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #8

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

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.

Third reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is official. We now know that the government does not want any more debate about its history museum. Discussion is being cut short; the executive branch has spoken.

This is incredible. The government wants to create a national museum, no matter what the cost, and it is even willing to muzzle the opposition if need be. Never has there been such haste to shut down debate in order to unveil a cultural asset. Never have such tactics—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We have moved on to resuming debate and the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher has the floor. If members wish to carry on conversations, I would suggest they do so outside of the chamber and not across the aisle from each other.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[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.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite makes it sound as if this bill has been rushed through Parliament. This bill has been debated for 35 hours: 20 hours in committee and, so far, 15 hours in this House.

We are talking about a museum, a glorious museum of history. It has widespread support. It would be wildly popular. It would be a one-time cost of $25 million in the nation's capital.

How long does the member opposite think Parliament should debate a museum?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my colleague opposite, whom I respect a great deal and who works very hard on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that he is not on topic. We are no longer talking about the amount of time we should have to discuss the bill. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the fact that a museum's mandate is changing, that it was unnecessary, and that there are other ways it could have been improved and updated. This big project involving the exchange of artifacts for 2017 still could have been done with the existing museum. Some improvements could have been made. There was no need to open the door to the Conservatives' usual interference.