Debates of June 17th, 2013

Report Stage

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on this subject, although the trajectory of some of the changes that are being considered in the bill saddens me to a certain extent.

The government announcement was that the new Canadian museum of history's emphasis will be on dates, events, heroes and narrative timelines: basically, in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. That is how many of us learned history back in the day, and it is one of the reasons I hated history.

I have since learned to love history for the simple reason that there have been teaching methodologies, teachers in particular, who have created a link between history and what it means to young Canadians today. They have brought out the relevance of that history.

My concern with this redirection of history into more of a “great man” approach—this person did this on this date, that person did that on that date—is that we lose the context of how certain things came to be. We lose the context of the contribution of so many different groups of people, so many different individuals who have done heroic things but may not be considered heroes in the context of great events.

We all know the adage that history is written by the victors. As the government likes to remind us far too often, Conservatives won a majority back in 2011. They have used that majority as a battering ram, as opposed to taking a responsibility to make sure that not only the majority are taken care of, but the minority as well. What we do not want to see in this situation is a majority museum, where the exhibitions, the explanations and the narrative speak to a selective memory of history, to selected events. It is an environment that is troubling to the work being done right now in the Museum of Civilization. It is something that is troubling even to teachers of history.

According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers, this initiative:

...fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy that has been emerging over the past few years. Alongside the great quantities of public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda—that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion.

This is even concerning teachers. They fear that instead of the Canadian history museum creating something that is inclusive of the contribution of people and telling some of the hard truths in the building of this nation, this adage of history being written by the victors is going to take place.

This is a great nation. I have worked very hard over the years to tell its story in our fight to make sure that we have Canadian content on our television stations, that our broadcasters are obligated to tell Canadian stories with Canadians, by Canadians, for Canadians.

That leads me to my second point. The idea of this museum being created to conserve Canadian history is rather ironic when we look at the Conservative cuts to the agencies that are tasked with preserving Canadian history. The budget of 2012 cut $29 million from Parks Canada, which is responsible for over 167 national historic sites across Canada. More than 80% of Parks Canada archeologists and curators lost their jobs.

Following the 2012 budget, the number of conservation professionals in the service of Parks Canada fell from 33 to 8. That means 8 employees along with 12 archeologists who are still employed by Parks Canada around the country have the daunting task of taking care of 30 million archeological objects under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. It means that basically 20 people are taking care of 30 million pieces of our history.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that is a rather daunting task. If we are talking about preserving Canadian history, cutting the number of people who are responsible for the preservation, discovery and care of those pieces of Canadian history does not seem to be a very supportive move.

Parks Canada also had to eliminate three research positions at national historical sites associated with the first nations people, and the Conservatives fired 50% of the Library and Archives Canada's digitization staff. There is a big push to digitize Canadian history and the work that Library and Archives Canada does, but now it is to do that with 50% fewer individuals.

The situation is also exacerbated by the consultation process, or the lack thereof, in the development of this idea of the Canadian history museum.

It was the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages himself who came up with the idea and then launched the consultation process. It seems to me that the naming of a museum should be left to museum professionals, historians, anthropologists, archivists, librarians and such, as well as individual groups who have a vested interest in how their stories are told and in ensuring that their stories are told. Examples are our first nations brothers and sisters, the Inuit and Metis. The contribution by women to Canadian history always tends to be marginalized in the history books in the context of mentioning that a certain person did something. As well, there is the inclusion and consultation of members of the cultural community, in particular the African-Canadian community and its contribution to the building of this country.

It is really important to educate people about how Quebec contributed to building Canada and New France.

We must consider all the issues on the subject of the museum of Canadian history, because Canada is made up of a multitude of different types of people from different areas and we have to make sure this history museum takes that into consideration.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech.

He seems to know what he is talking about, since he has done a lot of work in the arts. As he mentioned, he has spent much of his life telling our stories. That is basically the role of museums, as we know.

With regard to the name change, as well as the change to the museum's mandate, I think we can all agree that a big part of the activities of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in its current form is to promote and teach Canadian history, including the history of New France as well as more modern Canadian history.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate and how it will be altered by Bill C-49.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization's exhibits are the most visited in Canada.

Canada Hall is one of the most visited exhibitions. It goes deeply into the building of Canada and its history. Unlike what the website for the Canadian history museum purports, it starts at the arrival of the Vikings, which was some thousand years ago. Some 10,000 years before that, there were people who were living in this country, which would be later named “Canada”.

Right off the bat, we have a sense of the limitations and the exclusion of the people who built this country and contributed to building this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the members opposite have actually been to the museum. This is what the president of the museum had to say:

As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you'll find no mention of the Quiet Revolution or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how, or when the colony joined Confederation.

He said that there are modules about Upper and Lower Canada, but there is very little about Confederation. It is only listed on a timeline. He went on:

You'll find no mention of...the flag debate or the Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the conscription crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall is its starting point. If you've been there, you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall.

If members had actually been to the museum, they would have known that none of this is actually in there, which contradicts everything the member just asked in his question and that the other member just talked about.

Are these not important things that should be in our Canadian museum, whether it is called the Museum of Civilization or the Canadian museum of history? Do we not owe it to Canadians and to the rest of the world to update the stories in there?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed important that all the information and all the aspects of history he mentioned be included in the venues that represent Canada and its history.

Rather than basically changing the whole thing, why not create the means to give the resources to the Museum of Civilization to expand its mandate or to include them? I agree that these things should be there. Do we need to make a whole new museum to do that?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

As this bill has progressed through the House and through committee, there has been much discussion and debate about the specific language used in the bill. Every change to the language has been examined for confirmation that nothing in this bill could interfere with curatorial independence, reduce the research abilities of the new museum or end the ability of the museum to manage and maintain its collections.

It is important to understand that none of the changes to the clauses describing the capacity and powers of the museum are particularly new. Instead, changes have been made to ensure consistency with modern drafting standards, including clear, straightforward and understandable language, concordance in understanding between the English and French and language that is as non-restrictive as possible.

Legislation is drafted in both official languages, and both languages have equal validity under the law. They must therefore be interpreted in parallel. For this reason, many small changes, often the change from “and” to “or” or vice versa, were made to ensure concordance between the English and French versions.

The language used in Bill C-49 is, for the most part, not new language. It is completely consistent with the language used to create the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21, the most recent amendments to the Museums Act.

It is clear, straightforward and understandable language with concordance in understanding between the English and French language that is non-restrictive. Legislation is drafted in both official languages.

It is important to remember that the Museums Act was drafted almost a quarter century ago. The drafting conventions in 1990 where quite different from what they are today.

Purpose statements drafted for the national museums in 1990 tended to include not just the purpose of the museum but also language related to how that purpose could be carried out. Over time, the purpose statements have evolved to provide language that keeps as broad a lens as possible.

It is left to the section of legislation dealing with the powers of the museum to list the possibilities for how to carry out the purpose. The purpose statements for the national museums are now drafted to ensure that the capacity and powers of the museums are as broad as possible, that the language is more focused and that the mandate does not unduly restrict the activities of the museums. In other words, decisions on how to implement the mandate are made by museum professionals and experts.

As has been pointed out many times, the museums' ability and even responsibility to carry out research is addressed under powers and capacities and is quite clear. The president of the museum, Mark O'Neill, could not have been clearer. In his presentation to the standing committee, he said that research will remain a key function of the museum.

In fact, Mr. O'Neill announced that the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation has recently, in consultation with academics across the country, developed a research strategy, the first in its history. That strategy will guide the research activities of that museum over the next 10 years.

Mr. O'Neill also confirmed that the strategy will remain in place when the museum is transformed into the Canadian museum of history. Nothing in the revised purpose of this museum will in any way diminish the research capacity of the museum, nor will it interfere with the curatorial independence of the new museum.

Research at the Canadian museum of history will continue to be carried out by qualified, competent researchers as it has been carried out at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I also have confidence in the management and board of trustees at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am sure that they will continue to guide the corporation through its transformation into the Canadian museum of history.

I would also like to suggest to my colleagues that we should pass this bill, create the new Canadian museum of history and let the museum get on with its business, the business of creating Canada's newest national museum.

If I may, I will take a minute to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who announced last week important new initiatives to promote Canadian history, including the Government of Canada's history awards to recognize outstanding students and teachers who promote excellence in the study of history. I had the opportunity to attend that very important event, and I know that it was well received by many of the people there.

The minister also announced the strengthening of programs at Canadian Heritage to improve funding for local and national organizations to promote Canadian history in their communities.

In particular, I note that the terms and conditions of the museums assistance program will be modified to remove barriers to the circulation of museum history exhibitions interprovincially and to assist small museums in borrowing objects and exhibitions from the Canadian museum of history. This is good news for the small history museums that can be found in every corner of the country. There are many of these in my riding of Leeds—Grenville. These museums will now be able to receive assistance to borrow objects and exhibitions from the new museum and will also be able to access funding to develop exhibitions of local and regional interest that will travel within a province.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-49. 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.

In my riding of Leeds—Grenville, where Canada's early history still lives today, we are looking forward to this anniversary. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world. Passing the bill would be an important step in moving forward the creation of the Canadian museum of history.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we were to say that we wanted to improve the museum, it would not a big deal. I think we would all be in favour of that; it is how the government is actually trying to change the museum in its entirety.

Let us look at the waste of money. There is no problem investing in the museum and adding more stuff. There is already a lot, and they are going to be storing what is already there. We know that there are problems storing pieces of history. The preservation of it is unique.

When we look at administrative costs for this new museum at a time when we are trying to have a bit of restraint, we can see that it will be an estimated $500,000 to change the name and logo, et cetera. That would add to the more than $400,000 that has already been spent on consultations and promotional material for the museum.

How can the member justify putting all of that financing, a waste of money, in redefining the whole museum?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that an investment in celebrating our history is a waste of money. Canadians from coast to coast to coast would find that rather offensive. As one who has worked very much over the years in helping present our history and helping Canadians understand that history, never before have I actually heard that it is a waste of money.

By changing the name of this museum such that Canadians can clearly understand what it is attempting to do would be something that would help ensure that young people, especially, learn our history.

There are only four provinces in Canada where it is currently mandatory to have a history course as part of the high school curriculum. We have been able to commemorate the War of 1812 with all the events that have been going on, especially in my part of eastern Ontario. It has helped young people learn more about our history and how our country was actually created.

It is not a waste of money.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I was here when the bill was debated on May 28. The hon. member gave some assurances, which I thought were significant, and I will quote him. It is on page 17197 of Hansard:

It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present a history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum.

Yet on June 11, the Ottawa Citizen ran a story about Nishga Girl, which is a fairly significant centrepiece of the Hall, which was being removed.

What value are the assurances, and to what extent are they real, that he and another one of his colleagues gave to the House on May 28?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, much of what is currently there could be incorporated into moving forward with this new mandate. I know that some of what is there could be part of that presentation, but there is so much more that we could add to that. Canadians, especially outside of Ottawa, and people in my riding, are looking forward to having the opportunity to partner with the Canadian museum of history.

When I first heard about the concept last year and the possibility of having different displays come out to the smaller communities in other parts of Canada, I talked about it with some of the folks in my riding and they really looked forward to it. Having that and having displays going in both directions would definitely be a positive.

We should definitely look at some of the things that are currently there to make sure that they are part of that presentation.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues have shared their fears and concerns about how this bill is yet another Conservative government attempt to rewrite history. This bill would change the museum's mandate as we approach the 150th anniversary celebration of Canadian Confederation in 2017.

Here are just a few examples of the Conservative Party's efforts to politicize Canadian symbols: replacing two paintings by Alfred Pellan with a portrait of the Queen on a wall of the Foreign Affairs building; directing Canadian embassies abroad to display a portrait of the Queen; renaming the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force; installing a stained glass window depicting the Queen at the entrance to the Senate; changing many street and building names; and drawing tremendous attention to the commemoration of the War of 1812, a move still criticized by many historians.

Members of the House are not the only ones who are worried. Some historians say that this change comes at a time when the Conservative government is eliminating tools that are essential to history, culture and education. It has made cuts to Statistics Canada—particularly the long-form census—Library and Archives Canada, Parks Canada and many of our historic sites.

We do not object to the idea of a Canadian museum of history. After all, it is quite common for a country to have a history museum. Some people, including Pierre Anctil, a history professor at the University of Ottawa, fear that “Canadian history may be manipulated or politicized”.

According to Université du Québec en Outaouais professor of museology and heritage, Éric Langlois, “This is not just a change in name; it is a change in mission. It is tendentious.” He is concerned that the government will once again focus on the history of the British military and the monarchy in Canada with a sidebar about the War of 1812. He believes that this could “add fuel to the fire of differences in perspective between Quebec and the rest of the country”.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers echoed that sentiment, rallying over 60,000 professors against changing the museum's mission. In its presentation, the association says:

Alongside the great quantities of public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government’s political agenda – that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion.

Some journalists have echoed the questions and concerns about this change in mandate. They have said the change is a reflection of “the Conservatives' narrow vision of culture. A vision based primarily on old-fashioned patriotism at the expense of the openness embodied by the Museum of Civilization”. This quote was from a column published in La Presse.

Although museums are supposed to be independent under the Museums Act, that did not prevent the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology from opening an exhibition on different energy sources in Canada in November 2011. This exhibition included a section on Alberta's oils sands that took the Conservative government's pro-development stance. The exhibition was financed and designed in part by the oil sands lobby.

When the Canadian Museum for Human Rights was created, the minister at the time, Josée Verner, created an advisory committee whose mandate was to hear from the public and experts about three matters.

One of the matters was the museum's mission. The people who participated in the web-based consultations and focus group testing expressed concerns that the Canadian Museum for Human Rights could be influenced by political activities or special interest groups, in a manner that could affect, or be perceived to affect, the integrity and balance of its exhibitions and programs.

In addition, the committee's 30th recommendation states:

Be, and be Seen to be, Independent--The Board will need to not only ensure that it remains autonomous and free from influence, but also to be seen to be autonomous and free from influence.

Those are just two examples, and then there are the cases in which the government cuts funding to all the supposedly independent and autonomous organizations when they do not promote the government's values.

The government cannot simply claim that the act will prevent the minister from personally interfering in programming or in the choice of exhibits if it wants to reassure the public and the House about the real reason behind this change.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the largest and most popular museum in Canada. Indeed, it welcomed over 1.3 million visitors last year. It is an unrivalled success story.

Yet, in his announcement the minister claimed that:

Canada needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together...They define who we are as Canadians. They define our history—Canada’s history.

Diane Pacom, a professor specializing in arts and culture, is not too concerned about the change and pointed out that according to its guiding principles, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the “national institution responsible for preserving and promoting the heritage of Canada, and contributing to the collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians”. Therefore there is no inconsistency in terms of the new name intended for the museum. That is precisely where the problem lies.

The museum already had a mandate and mission primarily focused on Canadian history and culture, under the Museums Act. Why change them, then? What changed?

In the new museum's mission, the expression “objects of historical or cultural interest” has been replaced with “objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity”.

The reference to objects of historical or cultural interest initially contained in the museum’s four capacities and powers is kept in only one of the powers of the new museum, that of collecting. They have withdrawn from the new museum the power to sell, give away or lend these types of objects, or to organize travelling exhibits with them, which is quite strange given the new collaborative approach between the Museum of History and the regional museums that this government is promoting.

In addition to removing the reference to “objects of historical or cultural interest”, the bill takes away the new museum’s international vocation. It will no longer have the mandate to increase interest, respect and critical understanding; it will simply have a mission to increase knowledge of and respect for Canadian achievements. It is hoped that the new museum will promote events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and that it will make Canadians aware of world history and other cultures. The mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization was instead to promote 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.

The new museum will not have the power to undertake or sponsor research, primarily basic, theoretical or applied research. In the future, it will have the power to “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology”.

Two minor changes also in the two powers listed in the bill could pave the way for the appearance of a lack of independence. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization included establishing and fostering liaison with other organizations with similar purposes. It will now be up to the Museum of History to establish and promote—not foster—liaison with other organizations with a purpose similar to its own. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization included sharing the expertise of its staff by undertaking and sponsoring programs for training and apprenticeship in the professional and technical skills involved in the operation of other organizations with a purpose similar to its purpose. This will be replaced by “share the expertise of its staff by undertaking or sponsoring training and apprenticeship programs that relate to its purpose.”

In light of all these ambiguities and concerns arising from this bill, I have the impression that the Conservatives are getting a taste of their own medicine, in that their characteristic mistrust, arrogance and partisanship come through in this bill, rightly or wrongly. This means that if the bill had been introduced by a different government, perhaps no one would have made any fuss about it. It is sad and it is dangerous. With this bill, the government is going to learn that it cannot get away with playing with symbols as it is doing in this case and as it has done in a number of other cases in the past.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, we had the Minister of Canadian Heritage come to Winnipeg to announce the museum of history and what it meant to sign a partnership with Winnipeg. The excitement of the people in the museum and the children who came was just a fine example of what they were looking forward to in this country.

What they are looking forward to is sharing the artifacts. One point that was made was that a lot of our artifacts in Winnipeg have never been outside the city of Winnipeg, and people have not had the pleasure of being able to view them. This new initiative is very exciting to Canadians. They could share and enjoy history. They would not have to come to Ottawa to do that. Everything would be shared across the country.

I have a question for the member opposite. Does this member not want to share our great history with our great nation, from province to province to province, and do it in such a way that ordinary people could see it without having to spend a whole lot of money to come to a national museum in Ottawa? Does he not want them to have it right in their home town or city, where they could learn about what has happened all across our vast nation? I would just like his opinion on that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused about the point of the government member's question. There was no demand for a Canadian museum of history before Bill C-49 was introduced.

Our offices were not contacted by large numbers of constituents who felt that the Canadian Museum of Civilization absolutely had to be replaced by a Canadian museum of history. That was a government decision.

The fact that people in Winnipeg, Vancouver or Montreal supported or opposed the change at meetings or conferences organized by the government to promote the idea is no surprise. In fact, if any idea is proposed, some people will support it, while others will oppose it.

Consequently, it is utterly false to say that there has been any popular demand to create this museum. There was no specific demand by Canadians for such a museum.

I obviously want to know more about the history of Winnipeg and about the artifacts that the museums and organizations in Winnipeg, Montreal and Vancouver have. That is why there are travelling exhibitions.

The Sea Museum in Rimouski commemorates the Battle of the Atlantic and the sinking of the Empress of Ireland. Exhibits and historical artifacts from that museum travel across the country. One exhibition was at the Canadian Museum of Civilization last week. It will now travel to Vancouver, Toronto and other cities. There are already mechanisms in place that enable us to share Canadian history.

I do not think that there is any justification for changing the purpose of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and turning it into the Canadian Museum of History.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech and for the excellent work he is doing in his riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The issue of changing the name of this world renowned museum is of course a concern. From a commercial standpoint, the name is an invaluable and profitable brand. This museum is quite simply known around the world. A change to its name risks reducing attendance.

As my colleague said, this is a very popular museum about which we had heard nothing regarding a name change. My constituents definitely never phoned me, even once, to ask that its name be changed.

Does my colleague think that changing the museum's name could have an impact on attendance?

I would also like him to talk about the changes to the museum's mission. For example, instead of operating across Canada and internationally, the new museum will target only Canada.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that I will not have time to answer two questions, so I will just answer one.

I am a regular at the museum. What is more, I studied communications at the University of Ottawa and, as part of a student project, we had an unpaid contract with the Canadian Museum of Civilization that involved putting together exhibitions on Canadian history. The exhibition I worked on focused on New France.

Civilizations from both Canada and abroad have always been a key component of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I visited two major exhibitions at the museum: one on the history of ancient Greece, and the other on Egypt called “Tombs of Eternity”. The Egyptian exhibition was the most visited exhibition in the past five years. It showcased the history of the pharaohs in ancient Egypt.

The change to the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate means that the museum will no longer be able to house exhibitions that have a foreign focus or that emphasize key elements of the history of civilization. The fact is that those kinds of exhibitions were very popular.

Yes, I do have concerns about the future attendance at the museum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act to create the Canadian museum of history.

I could talk about all the wonderful things that Bill C-49 would do. However, given some of the misleading information being spread by the opposition, I would like to take the time to talk about what Bill C-49 would not do.

The bill would make a number of necessary changes to the section dealing with the current Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation to allow it to become the Canadian museum of history. However, one section of the Museums Act that would not change is the section that ensures the independence of the national museums, which is subsection 27(1).

Subsection 27(1) says that no directive shall be given to a museum with respect to cultural activities, including the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities; activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and research related to those activities.

The legal protection afforded to all national museums is comprehensive and includes the ability to conduct research. The independence of all the national museums has been guaranteed by law in the most comprehensive manner possible.

This is the case for all national museums. It is the case for the Canadian Museum of Civilization and it would continue to be the case with the Canadian museum of history.

The phrase “arm's length” is more than a concept. It is specific, it is comprehensive and it is the law. Bill C-49 does not propose to change section 27 of the Museums Act.

We all know that, from time to time, museums, including our national museums, present exhibitions that challenge and that arouse debate. That is the mark of a great museum.

Everyone has an opinion. That is normal. From time to time, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has expressed a personal opinion about an exhibition presented by one of our national museums. That is his right. What the Museums Act prohibits is political interference in decisions related to cultural activities. Bill C-49 would not change that.

Yet, there are still concerns about the curatorial independence of the Canadian museum of history. It has been proposed that we amend the bill to specify that a particular minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and a particular government department, Canadian Heritage, could not infringe on the new museum's curatorial independence.

As we have said before, such an amendment is unnecessary and redundant because comprehensive independence already exists in the law. More importantly, this kind of amendment could have unintended consequences.

Subsection 27(1) ensures the independence of all national museums. The addition of a clause that would apply only to the new museum could call into question, or even appear to diminish by comparison, the independence of the other national museums that fall under the act. In other words, all the national museums would be independent, but one would be more independent than the others.

By singling out a particular minister and a particular department, does that somehow create the impression that others are somehow now being given the option to infringe on the independence of the museums?

As I have already said, the amendment in question was proposed in good faith, and I am sure that none of the possible results I have described were intended. However, this shows that drafting legislation is a really tricky thing. We must consider the wording in legislation very carefully. That is the job of legislative drafters and jurilinguists, professionals trained to watch for the type of unintended consequences I just described.

The independence of the Canadian museum of history would be assured under the existing subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act. Intervention by the government in its activities would be prohibited by law. The new museum would table its annual report in Parliament as a crown corporation, as is the case with all the national museums. It would be accountable to Parliament.

Let us consider the highly qualified professional staff of the museum. There would be specialists who have dedicated their careers to a particular field, whether it be archeology, ethnology, history, folklore or museology. As such, they would also be answerable to their peers. To suggest that, up until now, they have acted independently of government and that with the adoption of Bill C-49 they would suddenly develop feet of clay would be unfair. The idea that we might be seen as calling into question the integrity of the men and women who work at the museum is something I know we all want to avoid.

The Museums Act will continue to guarantee the independence of the national museums and it would guarantee the independence of the Canadian museum of history. Let us support that long-standing legal protection as it currently exists.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Above all else, Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasure to the world. I am calling on all my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49 and support promoting and increasing Canadians' accessibility to our shared heritage.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my Conservative colleague can tell me whether there is actually any popular support for changing the museum's mandate?

Personally, nobody in my riding has asked the government to change the mandate of the museum, which truly is a Canadian treasure. We also know that it will be very expensive. The administrative cost alone is estimated at $500,000. And that is on top of the $400,000 that has already been spent on consultations and promotional material for the new museum.

What is more, the Conservative government is cutting the budget of Library and Archives Canada, thus depriving Canadian historians of the tools they need to do their jobs.

Can my colleague comment on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the claims made by my hon. colleague are quite misleading. More than 20,000 Canadians were consulted before we took action on this.

In listening to the speeches of the opposition and their claims that somehow this would not be accepted by Canadians, that it would change the course of history or that somehow it would create a history of Canada that Canadians do not want, I do not know where it all comes from. I truly believe we should all embrace the idea and show the world that we are not a cultural desert, that we are a country with a heritage. We have a lot to be proud of and to show to the world.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his inspired presentation.

I have heard a lot of the speeches and questions this afternoon. It is interesting that the last questioner asked whose idea this was as he had not heard anybody in his riding talk about changing the name or recommending that it was a good idea. Once the minister of heritage made the announcement, many people in my riding said it was a great idea and it would be the next generation of a great institution in this country.

With that thought in mind, I should mention that this facility has not been renovated in decades. The $25 million investment in the facility would really boost the quality of the facility, the display space and presentation ability. I wonder if my colleague could tell us how that money would be used.

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

Mr. Speaker, the investment would be used to renovate about half the space of the museum. Part of it would stay the way it is. The IMAX, the Children's Museum and the First Peoples Hall would stay as they are, but the rest would be renovated and we would truly be proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the very last part of my colleague’s speech, when he said that the government believed in our national museums. It practically sent shivers down my spine.

My question is quite simple. If the Conservatives believe in our national museums, why do they refuse to preserve the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

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

Mr. Speaker, they claim in their speeches that somehow we are trying to change history and show it the way we want. I am so surprised that it comes from their side. Not that long ago, it was their member who insulted our First World War veterans and praised commies.

How can anyone come up with this view of history? Communism claimed about a hundred million victims in the world. How can anyone look at the Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor, look into the eyes of the survivors of Tiananmen massacre, or the children and grandchildren of officers who were killed as prisoners of war with a single shot in the head in Katyn, Russia? How can anyone come with this kind of distorted picture of history?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Museums Act in order to create the Canadian Museum of History. Today, I would like to discuss the rich and long history of the museum and its transformation over the years. After all, 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.

The institutional origins of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are older than Confederation, dating back to 1841 when Queen Victoria granted £1,500 for the “...creation of the Geological and Natural History Survey of the Province of Canada...”. I would like to remind the House that the Geological Survey of Canada, the GSC, was officially founded in 1856, after the Province of Canada had passed an act enabling the GSC to establish a geological museum open to the public. The museum was originally located on James Street in Montreal, where scholars and scientists collected geological, archaeological and biological material. In 1864, the Province of Canada passed an act making the Geological Survey and its work a permanent provision.

In 1877, an act of Parliament ensured the continued existence of the Geological Survey, making it a part of the Department of the Interior. The GSC's official mandate had been broadened to include botanical, zoological and ethnographic specimens, traditions, languages and artifacts. It also suggested that the GSC and its museum be moved from Montreal to Ottawa.

In 1881, the GSC and its museum moved to a former luxury hotel at the corner of Sussex and George streets in downtown Ottawa. The museum attracted some 9,549 visitors in its first year, far more than it had in Montreal. It was in 1890 that the government passed an act making the Geological Survey a department within the dominion.

Construction of the new museum began in 1906. By 1907, the GSC became a branch of the newly created Department of Mines. The GSC museum received approval to add anthropology studies to its official mandate. In the spring of 1910, a new anthropology division was established under the direction of Edward Sapir, which included two sections in charge of archaeological and ethnological fieldwork. By the autumn of that same year, the GSC and its museum occupied the new Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street here in Ottawa.

When fire destroyed most of the Parliament buildings in 1916, the decision was made to house the Parliament of Canada in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. The GSC collections were put in storage until 1920 when the new Parliament buildings were constructed.

In January 1950, the GSC became part of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and the National Museum joined the Department of Resources and Development. The GSC and the National Museum then remained together in the Victoria Memorial Museum building. By 1956, the National Museum of Canada had been subdivided into two branches: natural history and human history.

I would like to also remind this House that in 1968, under the national Museums Act, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was established. The museum's human history branch became the National Museum of Man, and the natural history branch became the National Museum of Natural Sciences. The new National Museum of Man continued to be housed in the Victoria Memorial Museum building on Metcalfe Street. In 1969, the Victoria Memorial Museum building was closed for renovations and museum staff and collections were moved to temporary locations throughout Ottawa.

In July 1980, the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada was transferred from the Department of the Secretary of State to the Department of Communications. The transfer was made in recognition of the increasingly close links between culture and communications.

In 1982, the Canadian government announced its intention to house a National Museum of Man in a new building in Hull, Quebec. In 1986, the National Museum of Man was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the CMC.

In 1988, the National Postal Museum became a division of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the majority of the material history collection and staff were transferred. Other parts of the collection, including pieces of art, were transferred to the National Archives of Canada.

In 1989, the Canadian Museum of Civilization opened a new facility in Hull, Quebec. Internationally recognized as one of the world's modern architectural wonders, the complex was designed by architect Douglas Cardinal to reflect enduring features of the Canadian landscape. The world's largest indoor collection of totem poles is housed in the facility's stunning Grand Hall which has also been the site of numerous high-profile receptions for visiting heads of state.

In 1990, the federal government passed the Museums Act. The museum became a crown corporation and officially changed its name to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation which came into effect on July 1, 1990.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the subject matter of many CMC exhibitions, current and past, has been Canadian history. Bill C-49 does not represent a massive change. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of History merely indicates an unequivocal focus on Canadian history, something that I know will be done well for many years to come. It is important to note the historical change to the museum, because the name and mandate of a national museum is nothing new.

The Canadian museum of history would 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 that presents our country's treasures to the world.

I remain ready and able to take any questions or comments that any member may wish to pose at this time.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite.

It was quite fascinating to take a look at our history and to see that some progress has been made in the past. We would like that progress to continue, but unfortunately, the government seems to be taking us in the wrong direction. A total of 80% of archaeologists across the country are being laid off. Yet meanwhile, the Conservative government is telling us that it believes in Canadian heritage.

If the government really wants to preserve and promote Canadian culture and heritage so much, why has it laid off 80% of archaeologists employed by the public service? Why is it keeping artifacts in storage across the country?

The regions are asking that their artifacts be made available, but unfortunately, there are not enough staff to get the items out of storage. The Conservatives want to rename the museum. However, there is a huge collection of artifacts in storage and we cannot see them.

Why does the Conservative government not invest money in making these artifacts available and visible as a means of celebrating Canadian culture, rather than eliminating 80% of the archaeologist positions across the country?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006 when this government took office, in three parliaments this government has added some $142 million to national museums and culture across this country. In addition, we have created two new museums, one in Winnipeg and one in the Maritimes.

If the member recalls much of my speech to the House, he will recall that there have been huge transformations to how Canada conducts our museums and how we recognize our past. But one of the most important things, at least to the people I know and to my constituents and to Canadians at large, especially the over 250,000 new Canadians who have chosen to come here, this would be a museum that would talk to them about how this country was formed, about our beautiful history. That is something that is currently lacking and one of the principal reasons why the bill is before the House and the change in focus as Canada begins to grow into the 21st century.