Debates of May 28th, 2013

The Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley has only about 20 seconds left.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in many small rural communities in particular, and I have taught in several of those, they might have a local museum that really celebrates their community's history, the history of that small area of our country. The elementary children would go there, maybe in first or second grade. Then probably in third or fourth grade another teacher would take them down to the same museum and see the same artifacts. Then they might go there again with a different teacher in the eighth or ninth grade. This would give them the ability to maybe see something like Terry Fox's van, which will travel the country from our national museum. It would provide new artifacts—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a long 20 seconds.

I am happy to join in the debate this evening on Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

In plain language, it is a bill to change the name and mandate of Canada's most popular and successful museum for reasons that make the Conservatives happy, but has others wondering if we will sacrifice a world renowned museum in order to celebrate some sterilized 1950s version of Canada in its place.

In addition to that, we know that while the government is changing the name of the museum, it is financially starving and constraining those individuals who do the work the museum is built upon. If it sounds ironic, it is because it is.

At the heart of this debate is a basic contradiction. The government claims it is interested in the country's history and wants to celebrate it and make the public more aware of it. However, the same government has undermined research into our history more than any other government.

With respect to the bill, the government is not listening to the historians, archeologists, archivists, anthropologists and ethnologists, the experts on our history who make it their life's work. Sadly, this is consistent behaviour for a government that seems to value its opinion more than fact and goes out of its way to starve and silence those who prefer the benefit of strong empirical evidence.

We see that across all manner of legislation and this is merely another in a long stream. When it comes to silencing, dismissing and starving critics, we could be talking about environmental research, the census or even the work of the NRC.

It is part of a larger pattern of behaviour to reshape Canada in dangerous and limiting ways. Certainly we have heard from professionals, researchers and experts that budget cuts combined with the federal government's consistent meddling in their affairs in research will have lingering negative effects on their work and the research that ultimately helps us understand our history better.

It would seem the Conservatives want to have their version of Canada become the official history of our country, which would certainly amount to official revisionism. Revisionism is a dangerous thing that can happen when a government does not like the portrayal of its country and sets about meddling in history to suit its sensibilities.

Not understanding our history or whitewashing it to reflect governing party values is revolutionary in exactly the wrong way, and we have certainly heard a lot about whitewashing this past month.

It reeks of anti-intellectualism and reminds me more of the actions of tin pot dictators than it does of modern western democracy. Last week my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, gave a strong speech showing how the government was playing fast and loose with Parks Canada, which maintains many historic sites, including some that are certified “historic” by UNESCO, which is the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture.

He explained how the government had laid off more than 80% of the archeologists and curators, those who take care of historic sites and preserve our precious artifacts. Now there are only about 10 archaeologists working for Parks Canada across the country, for all of our national parks, national historic sites and world heritage sites.

The member also gave a frank and clear warning that world heritage site status was not a given and UNESCO could revoke that status at any time.

I would hope the government had been listening to the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, but will keep my expectation in check at the same time.

Tonight, the government has the gall to tell us that it wants to promote history when the facts are, through indiscriminate budget cuts, it is actually walking away from fragile historic sites across the country. For example, it is planning to remove carefully preserved artifacts from Parks Canada's regional facilities in Quebec City, only to put them in storage in Ottawa. It is unbelievable. That makes our history less accessible and can never be considered promoting it.

Sadly, this is in keeping with the actions of a government that continually says one thing but does another.

The Conservatives say they are interested in history, but at the same time they have set about weakening and destroying every single federal public institution responsible for protecting our history. They have cut deep into Parks Canada, which is responsible for protecting our 167 national historic sites as well as Canada's world heritage. They hobbled Library and Archives Canada as well. In fact, the guardian of Canada's archives for 140 years, both as the National Archives and as the National Library, whose experts, archivists, professional librarians and others are recognized and admired around the world for their work, did not escape indiscriminate cuts. Now those wonderful exhibition halls are closed and those people find themselves out of work. For a government that says it promotes jobs and the economy, that is not the way to go.

We have to be clear and understand that this is a government that cut millions of dollars from research and the preservation of Canadian history. This is a government that laid off hundreds of archivists, librarians, digitization experts, historians and professionals at Library and Archives Canada. This is a government that destroyed programs like the national archival development program, which supported small communities all over Canada to create their own local community archives, allowing Library and Archives Canada to accomplish an essential part of its mandate. This is a government that almost put a complete stop to the acquisition of historic documents and artifacts by cutting the Library and Archives Canada $1 million budget to $12,000 a year. Yes, members heard it right. The Conservative government cut the budget of Library and Archives Canada from $1 million to just $12,000. Unbelievable.

This is a government that has allowed irreplaceable manuscripts and relics of our history to slip through our fingers and be purchased by auction houses and speculators, and then be exported to shady warehouses in the United States.

When the Conservatives claim they want to promote history, we can be excused if we meet that claim with a good degree of cynicism. When they want to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, they should be reminded that it has existed in one form or another for almost 150 years. In fact, some of the collection existed before Confederation.

The museum's mandate is “…to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.”

Now this has to change and the focus would be on Canadian history.

One should not mess with success in that way. The Louvre has not been rebranded to promote more art from France. The British Museum has been going strong for hundreds of years. These are just examples. My point is that a museum requires continuity to gain credibility and become well known. That is what has happened to the Museum of Civilization, and the government is not willing to admit that a rebrand would amount to a new start and building a new reputation from the ground up. This is because of a notion that we do not celebrate our history enough.

Canada Hall will be gutted to make way for this. The fact is, arguably, the hall contains the most impressive display of Canadian history in the world. We will also be walking away from a commitment to maintain a collection of objects for research and posterity, which is absolutely shocking.

Many of these proposed changes indicate an interest in adopting a simpler story of Canadian history. However, critics worry that there is a risk of excluding different experiences from Canada's past that may not fit into an unchallenging narrative. That is not the Canada most people see or want to see. A country's greatness comes in some ways from the acknowledgement of its warts. The colonization of first nations or the regrettable treatment of ethnic minorities are not items that should be forgotten or marginalized.

We are supposed to learn from our history, but there is no guarantee that is what we will do. In fact, most of the renovations are shrouded in secrecy and we are being asked to give this our stamp of approval, which is something New Democrats are not prepared to do.

In closing, let us not change what works. Let us acknowledge the Museum of Civilization as a great achievement that celebrates Canadian history as it is and be proud of our achievement and contribution to the great museums of the world.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there go the NDP members again, insulting Canadians from beginning to end. Millions of Canadians across this country voted for this government and gave us a majority. Imagine equating a government that was democratically elected by the people of this country to a tinpot dictatorship.

That should not surprise us because the New Democrats question the value of the Canadian efforts in World War I and World War II. The NDP defend those disgusting comments made by their members as though those achievements meant nothing. The last time we debated this, one of its members suggested that anybody who voted for the Liberals must have had an intellectual lobotomy, suggesting that the people who vote for any party other than the NDP are too stupid to get it.

Here is the reality. Canadians are smart people. That is why the New Democrats have lost 16 straight elections in a row. No wonder they are so bitter. If I lost 16 straight elections in a row I would be bitter too.

The mandate of this museum—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will just stop the hon. parliamentary secretary there. I heard him say something and I hope he was not attributing personal characteristics to other members. I did not quite catch it, but I trust that he was not trying to inflame emotions in the House at this late hour.

He has had the floor now for a little over a minute. I would ask him to be a bit judicious in his words and we will go back to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for cutting him off. It is obvious that he is the one who is angry and that the "s" word he used is on his side.

The government should not be deciding what should be on display in our museums. That should be left to the experts, professionals, historians, archivists, ethnologists and curators, the people who do the research and the hard work to help us understand our history.

Although you have cut him off he keeps going. It is unbelievable how rude those Conservatives are.

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

Wow, that hurt. That hurt.

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

Why change a winning formula if not to impose an ideological vision?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage's idea to change the museum's name and redefine its mandate. He said so himself.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers had this to say:

We call on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to stop its process of redesigning that museum until a panel of distinguished figures in historical and museum work is created and has an opportunity to prepare recommendations...

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. Brilliant though he may be, is the minister a history or museum expert? I doubt it.

It is a typical Conservative move to make an announcement and then launch consultations to see how refining the proposal can score them some political points. It is completely unacceptable that experts in the field were not consulted.

Does my colleague agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly knows what she is talking about.

It is clearly not up to the government to make decisions on museum content. That is why professionals are in charge of research. They are the ones who make sure that artifacts dating back to another era have their place in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

This government is sticking its nose where it does not belong. This task really should be left to the professionals. However, the government is eliminating their jobs, and once they are gone, they are hard to get back because not everyone has these skills. It is important to ensure that our museums are well served.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver Quadra there has been a lot of concern from people at UBC about the muzzling of scientists. We have two important museums in Vancouver Quadra dealing with science. One is the Museum of Anthropology. The other is the Beaty Biodiversity Museum.

I would like to ask the member this. In her view, might the Conservative government's approach of clamping down on the ability of scientists to communicate extend to the curation of the exhibits in the museums in Vancouver Quadra?

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

Mr. Speaker, just like with any other museum, the government members or any other legislators have no place in determining the content or orientation of a national, publicly funded museum.

The municipal governments do not decide what is in the small museums in our communities. It is quite important for the curators to know what they are actually bringing in. They are able to do the research, whether it is the museum in Sheguiandah, Massey, Vancouver, Assiginack or the Old Mill Museum in Kagawong. Rick Nelson in Kagawong is a great curator. He puts on really nice displays.

Again, we have a great museum that is in danger of becoming much less, based on some vague notion of an inner circle and not the opinion and knowledge of antiquity experts--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is out of time, so we will have to move on and resume debate with the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has over 2,500 museums, made up of small local museums and medium and large-sized institutions. While many countries have opted in these challenging economic times to cut funding to heritage institutions and national museums, this government has stood by its museums and arts community, maintaining and even increasing its support to heritage organizations. The creation of the new Canadian museum of history is proof of that. Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

Alongside the Canadian museum of history, there are other great initiatives that our government has undertaken to support culture and heritage in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to bring one of these initiatives to everyone's attention, the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program, which was strengthened last year through Canada's economic action plan.

The Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program is a program through which our government assumes the financial risk associated with a presentation of significant travelling exhibitions showcasing Canada's and the world's treasures, so that these objects are accessible to all Canadians. This program guarantees that if damage or loss occurs to a loaned object, the government will compensate the lender. This government's guarantee helps museums and art galleries reduce their insurance costs when hosting major exhibitions, such as “Van Gogh: Up Close”, which was held at the National Gallery of Canada last year, or the exhibition celebrating 100 years of the Calgary Stampede presented at the Glenbow Museum last summer.

Without an indemnification program, most major international exhibitions in the country would not be seen because the cost of insurance is simply too high for many museums and galleries. We have recognized this challenge. We have also recognized that these blockbuster exhibitions provide significant economic benefits to the communities in which they are held with as much as $30 million in incremental tourism revenues for the surrounding regions.

The Picasso exhibition held at the Art Gallery of Ontario, which the government supported last year, saw nearly 310,000 visitors walk through its gates, placing it fourth on the gallery's all-time attendance list. The Van Gogh exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, which saw over 230,000 visitors, was the gallery's most visited show in the last 15 years. These numbers are good for both museums and the economy.

Since the year 2000, objects borrowed from prestigious collections worldwide were in turn seen by over 13 million visitors, in over 180 venues across Canada, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia. All of this occurred without a single claim, thanks to the program's rigorous risk-assessment process. Thus, every year since 2000, the government has saved host institutions from across the country some $2 million in annual insurance premiums, at no cost to taxpayers.

As impressive as these numbers are, this government realized that in the changing economy more needed to be done to support our heritage institutions. This is why we have introduced legislation through the 2012 economic action plan to double the financial capacity of the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program, from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. Our government has also increased the maximum level of support for exhibitions from $450 million to $600 million.

Thanks to the 2012 Canada economic action plan, Canadian museums and galleries have gained an important advantage when negotiating for major exhibitions because the cost of insurance premiums is often a decisive factor. Furthermore, this government has ensured that Canadians will continue to have access to significant artifacts and that all communities will continue to enjoy the benefits that come with major exhibitions.

Again, this is a simple measure undertaken without any increased risk to the government or cost to the taxpayer. On that note—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There is a point of order.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

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

Mr. Speaker, could we talk about the Canadian Museum of Civilization? We are completely off topic. The member is talking about insurance and protection programs for travelling exhibits. There is no correlation.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has raised a point of relevance, and I am sure the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville will bring his remarks to the bill as he develops his remarks on museums in general.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I am thrilled to report that the positive impacts of the legislative amendments introduced through the Canada economic action plan have already been felt. Indeed, shortly after changes were implemented last June, travelling exhibitions that could not be accommodated under the previous liability limit became eligible for full support. This was the case for the exhibition Frida & Diego: Passion, Politics and Painting, presented at the Art Gallery of Ontario, and Once upon a Time… Impressionism: Great French Paintings from the Clark, at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Thanks to the action of this government, these institutions saved a total of nearly half a million dollars in insurance costs.

As we turn our attention to the creation of the new Canadian museum of history, our government's commitment to the Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification program seems more timely than ever. Indeed, the program has become a tool, allowing some of the finest museums of this country to benefit from the circulation of significant travelling history exhibitions.

In conclusion, this government recognizes the important role that museums play in our society. We have a strong record of supporting heritage organizations, even in a period of economic uncertainty. The Canada travelling exhibition indemnification program as well as our investment in the creation of the Canadian museum of history is tangible proof of that. The Canadian museum of history will provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

As such, I am calling on the opposition parties to support Canadian history, support arts and culture and support this very important bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. In his conclusion, the member talked about Canada's identity. I would like to know how the bill defines “Canada's identity”. What definition does the bill give to the notion of Canada's identity, and how will the Canadian museum of history convey that identity?

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

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Canadian museum of history will allow Canadians to see presentations of this country. It may not be the longest history in the world, because as a country we are relatively young, and many countries in the world have a longer history. However, over the past almost 150 years, we have had a lot to show to Canadians, to teach them about our past, to teach them of our achievements and to make them proud of what we are.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and I thank him for it.

One of the aspects of the new Canadian museum of history that we are hearing a lot of enthusiasm about is the ability for Canadians from coast to coast to be able to see some of these important artifacts of Canadian history without having to make the expensive trip to the national capital region. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on the benefit of the exchange between the Canadian museum of history and local museums in all of our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we have over 2,500 museums across the country. With the program that would be offered to them, many artifacts could travel across the country and be shown in local museums like the Bradley House museum in Mississauga.

Instead of travelling to Ottawa or somewhere else, people, school children and residents of Mississauga and the GTA, could make a trip to the local museum and see those artifacts on display there. That would be great and it could be done all across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something. All night long, we have heard our colleagues across the floor talk about what a great program this will be and how it will be shared with all museums in Canada.

I must emphasize that the issue here is not all these peripheral points, but rather the heart of the bill, which is to change a museum's mission.

I would like to read the description that can be found on the Canadian Museum of Civilization website. It states:

—a panorama of Canadian history unfolds in a space more than 3,000 square metres...in area. Life-size settings of buildings and environments from the history of Canada are reconstructed, furnished with appropriate artifacts...

It seems to me that that is a description of Canada's history. What does the government have against that history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where this negative approach comes from. It should be in the interest of us all to show what great things we have in our country. It is something for Canadians to be proud.

If we talk about our past, about our history and even about the education, and one member said that we were interfering with the provincial jurisdiction, we should know what kids are taught at school. We should be concerned why so little is known about the great Canadian contributions to the First World War and Second World War, because there is very little known. It is absolutely out of the question that this should not be known and should not be presented.