Debates of June 17th, 2013

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, as we face our 150th anniversary, a very special time for all Canadians, would my colleague tell us how people in his riding will celebrate such a special time and how the Canadian museum of history will impact his riding and the museums and facilities that are local to him?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the salient parts of this whole act, and a thing that excites me, quite frankly, is the fact that we have so much right across the country. In my riding, I can think of at least five or six museums that exist and then there are neighbouring museums. One of them is in Stirling, Ontario. It celebrates the agricultural past and present of our country and some of the great advances in agriculture and machinery. I really recommend that Canadians go to the museums in their vicinity.

What this act would allow, and this is what I am most excited about, is the exchange of artifacts from the national museum and bringing in artifacts from the rest of Canada so all Canadians can enjoy them. Canadians come to Ottawa to see some of our national treasures as they are located in a central location.

What a wonderful opportunity for museums right across the country to share their culture and their past with all Canadians and visitors to Canada. That is what the act proposes to do. It is a wonderful opportunity that we should not miss.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the foreshortened debate on Bill C-49. After only one hour of debate, the Conservatives decided it was time to shorten the debate even further by imposing time allocation.

The minister referred to this legislation as having been on the books for eight and a half months. We are not in control of the agenda; the other side is in control of the agenda. If it chose not to bring it forward over the past eight and a half months, that is not our fault. The minister might want to speak to the government House leader to find out why it has taken so long for the bill to come forward.

Members opposite keep saying that we are creating a museum. This bill would not create a museum. It would destroy one museum and out of its ashes build another. It is a good idea. We on this side think a Canadian historical museum would be a good thing to have, but we should not destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which has an entirely different mandate and an entirely different purpose than a Canadian museum of history.

The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is:

—to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behavior 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.

This is a very broad and ambitious goal and the museum has met some of that goal over the course of the past 23 years that it has been in existence.

I have been there. It is an absolutely amazing place. What it puts forward is way more than just history. It is in fact about the culture and civilization of not just Canada, but of many places in the world, and of Canada not just the country, but Canada as it existed before the white man arrived. This is also in that existing human cultural achievements.

The new mandate of the Canadian history museum is

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

I emphasize the word “Canada's” history and identity because we now lose the notion of civilization. Canada did not exist officially until 1867. Does this mean we are only to discuss things that happened from 1867 forward, that the contributions of the fact that this continent was peopled by native North Americans long before any of us Europeans ever arrived on the scene? Is that not to be considered as part of Canada's history? It is hard to tell from the statement of mandate of what the intention of this history is.

We have in the Canadian Museum of Civilization an internationally regarded icon of something more than just history, and it is associated with the war museum. In France, there is no museum of war. There is a museum of peace and it too is internationally regarded as a place to discuss something other than historical artifacts leading to war, or historical art leading to war or whatever wants to be discussed. That notion of discussing peace lends itself to an international recognition. The notion of discussing civilization lends us to an international recognition, which I fear we will lose by focusing on only history and only the history of Canada.

In terms of the amendments that were proposed by the various bodies in the foreshortened again committee stage, one of the ones that the minister referred to earlier, was the suggestion that there should be curatorial independence. Curatorial independence means that the museum, whether it is the Museum of Civilization or the museum of history, should be in a position to decide itself what it wants to display, how it wants to display it and whether it should take on controversial displays.

The minister said today in the House, “As the minister, I have never once, nor could I ever interfere with the decision of a museum to put on an exhibit or not”. When he said that, I could not believe my ears, because it was just a few short months ago that an Ottawa museum, the Museum of Science and Technology, put on an exhibit that the minister said, “The exhibit does not fit within its mandate. Its content cannot be defended and is insulting to taxpayers”.

The minister will stand and argue that he did not actually tell the museum not to run it. When a minister gets up and publicly states that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers, he is questioning the curatorial independence of that museum. To stand here in the House today and suggest he has never done it is beggars belief.

When the museum put on that display, it was clearly going to be controversial, a display that the museum itself and its curators decided was important and within its mandate, but the minister interfered.

Is that making a statement publicly that something is not within its mandate and is insulting to taxpayers somehow not interfering in the mandate of the museum or in the ability of the museum's curators to have curatorial independence? In my view it does. Whether the minister actually pulled the display off the shelves with his own hands is not really the question. The question is whether the minister publicly went against the decision of the museum itself. That is what we, on this side of the House, want to see more strongly placed in legislation as we get the opportunity because of the events of the past year.

The third point I will make is the concerns we have about creating a museum of history at the same time the government has gone about rewriting history. For example, even today, when the minister said that he never did that, yet he did a year ago, is rewriting history. It is suggesting that it did not actually happen.

However, we are concerned we have a government that wants Canadians to be more focused on battles, on wars, on the War of 1812, on the relationship with the British Crown, on the battles that Canada has been in since Confederation and maybe a little before, because we have been talking about the War of 1812.

Twitter uses hashtags to get people interested in a topic, and the hashtag is, “HarperHistory”. That hashtag was created because the Prime Minister started to rewrite history in the House of Commons in question period by making erroneous allegations about the NDP. That hashtag, “HarperHistory” resurfaced again in the past few weeks when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage decided to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects of Canadian history.

There was a breakdown, a comparison of relevant standards of courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions and there were considerable numbers of people responding to the hashtag, “HarperHistory” who were—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I just caution the hon. member. Generally speaking, we do not make reference to other hon. members in the House by their direct name. I appreciate the hon. member is including it in a hashtag, but in the same way that members' names are used in reference in citations, we cannot do indirectly that which is prohibited directly.

The member has made reference to it. Hon. members will understand what he means by that, but we do not use the names of other hon. members, except by their titles or by their riding names.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the Twitter hashtag had been, “PrimeMinisterialHistory”, but unfortunately, that is not what it is and in order to accurately state it, and I will not state it again because I understood your reference, I had to state the word which was the hashtag.

In any event, the concern has again been raised by the Twitter verse that the party opposite is attempting to rewrite history by its review of the standards that Canadian schools are teaching. I am not sure what the boards of education across the country are thinking, but they cannot be happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I revert back to my speech of how museums from way back before Canada was the country it is today have transitioned. However, at the end of the member's statement he made a lot of erroneous statements. In fact, in the act itself there is a part that covers research, and this bill would not change the current direction of museums but rather focus attention on Canadian history.

What we hear, when Canada's official opposition talks about this, is that it cannot do away with its view of the world, that somehow learning more about the history of this great country would be a bad thing and that the bill is bad because the Conservatives want Canadians to know more about Canadian history. Members talk about what they would be giving up.

I have to say that, looking at battles such as the War of 1812, had we not been successful we would not be in this place. What is wrong with focusing on the events that made this country? Other countries in the world celebrate their history. For some reason, it would be a bad thing to celebrate Canadian history.

The hon. member needs to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did say at the beginning of my speech that celebrating history is something we should do, but not at the expense of another museum. If the government wants to create a Canadian museum of history, that is a good thing and we would agree. However, to tear down an existing museum and remove its mandate and purpose only to replace it with another mandate and purpose is misguided. I would wholeheartedly support the creation of a museum of Canadian history if it were not for the fact that we would destroy the Canadian Museum of Civilization in the process.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members across the way like to talk a lot about Canadian history. The member for York South—Weston has been involved in this so I will ask him this. There was a museum of aviation, which celebrated the Avro Arrow among many other planes and has been shut down because of lack of funding, because the government has called money in, because it was not able to stay afloat. The federal government ignored it and left it hanging to dry. I would like to ask the member about that lack of support for Canadian history by the government.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to get to the Canadian Air and Space Museum, which existed for many years on the site of the former military base at Downsview Park. It was in a historically designated building, plant 2 of the de Havilland factory. The crown corporation that owns and runs Downsview Park decided to kick out the museum, tear down the historical building and build a hockey rink in consultation with the Maple Leafs. That was somewhat misguided. We should try to preserve, not destroy, Canadian history using whatever government resources are available. That was not done in the case of the Canadian Air and Space Museum.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. In referring to the air museum at Downsview Park, the member for York South—Weston said in his remarks that it was situated within a historical building. That is not true. Downsview Park is located in the riding of York Centre, which I am privileged to represent. It was never designated a historical site of any kind whatsoever by the municipality, the province or the federal government. I would like to correct the record on that. I know the member would probably want to correct it himself and would appreciate my saying that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the web page that states that it was a historical site, which was deleted by the federal government from its records the day after we got a copy of it. It is designated by the City of Toronto as a historic property as well as by the Province of Ontario. However, the difficulty is that the federal government believes it has the right to take down designated historic properties without any reference to any municipality. That is what the intention was with that site.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, an act to create the Canadian museum of history.

World-class museums are widely respected centres of independent and inspired thinking. The curatorial staff members in these institutions are provided with the freedom to interpret the artifacts in their collections in a way that promotes independent thought and dialogue.

Our government believes in our national museums. We recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. To maintain the reputation of our museums as world-class museums, their experts must be given the freedom to present a narrative as they see fit. That is why it is imperative that museums remain independent of political influence.

Subsection 27(1) of the Museums Act makes it clear that our national museums operate independently of political sphere. Subsection 27(1) clearly states:

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;

...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and

...research....

Bill C-49 would not change the arm's-length nature of the new museum, nor would it change the governance structure that determines the organization's guiding principles.

As is the case with the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the board of trustees of the Canadian museum of history would be “responsible for the fulfillment of the purposes and the management of the business, activities and affairs of the corporation”.

The mechanism would ensure that this arm's-length institution remains an independent and respected centre for research and for learning.

The board of directors of the Canadian Museum of Civilization uses five key objectives as its guiding principles. These principles are:

Knowledge

...focus on the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

Authenticity

...communicating accurate information which is balanced and in context.

Coherence

...aim to be consistent, united in purpose and easily accessible.

Choice and Respect

...we can never include all themes, all perspectives, or all proposed artifacts. Our choices are informed by respect....

Canadian Perspectives

...present Canadian contexts, comments, or reactions on subjects of wider significance.

In addition, let me bring to the attention of my colleagues, who have expressed concern about the independence of our national museums, the existence of a document developed by the Canadian Museums Association and the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization.

In 2004, these widely respected organizations collaborated to develop the “Roles and Responsibilities of Museum Boards of Trustees”.

Museums across Canada have been encouraged to adopt these guidelines and use them as a reference point for a board's roles and responsibilities when dealing with issues related to museum policies and procedures.

An important statement is made at the very beginning of these guidelines:

All board members are fiduciaries who have the museum's collections, property, premises and resources in their care as assets in trust for present and future generations.

Clearly, this is a significant legal obligation that board members take seriously. They are in place to ensure the responsible stewardship of the museum, not to accommodate the wishes of members of Parliament.

The Canadian Museums Association's ethics guidelines speak quite clearly to the responsibilities of the board of trustees:

Whatever its formation, it is the legal entity that is accountable to the public and to the museum community for the policy, financing and administration of the museum.

It is evident that the board is not accountable to politicians.

The ethics guidelines also mention two key public trust responsibilities for museums: stewardship and public service. The guidelines state:

The trust of stewardship requires museums to acquire, document and preserve collections in accordance with institutional policies, to be accountable for them, and to pass them on to future generations of the public in good condition.

The trust of public service requires museums to create and advance not only knowledge, but more importantly, understanding, by making the collections...available to all the communities served by the museum. To this end, museums seek to be public focal points for learning, discussion and development, and to ensure equality of opportunity for access.

When we speak specifically of the case of boards of trustees for crown corporations, we can also turn to the Financial Administration Act, or the FAA, to provide very clear information on the responsibilities of boards of directors. Especially relevant to the topic, we see in section 109 of the FAA that “the board of directors of a Crown corporation is responsible for the management of the businesses, activities and other affairs of the corporation”. This is how we would ensure that the Canadian museum of history would operate freely and independently.

With all these measures in place, one must wonder why there are lingering doubts as to whether the Canadian museum of history would be able to maintain its independence when it came to its quality programming. Clearly, the museum would be equipped with many controls to ensure that it operated as it should.

Our government will continue to play a legislative role when it comes to our national museums, but when it comes to putting that legislation into operation, responsibility for content and exhibitions rests with the administrators, the curators, conservators, researchers, the board of trustees and all those who have helped solidify the reputation of Canada's museums as world class.

The management and staff of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are well respected and they have built a world-class museum. Nothing in Bill C-49 would change how the museum operates. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to support this very important legislation.

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. After all, Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his point of view. It is clear that he believes in this bill and is enthusiastic about it, but unfortunately, it takes more than a name to prove that you believe in Canadian heritage.

The number of people involved in the preservation of our artifacts will drop from 33 to 8, and 80% of the archaeologists in Canada have been laid off. Does this government really want to promote Canadian heritage or is it happy just to hide all the artifacts in the basements of museums with brand-new names? The items will still be hidden away; they will still not be available.

For years now, the people in the Gaspé have been asking for their artifacts to be sent home. It will not cost the government anything. The government will not even do that. It is not taking action, even though it will not cost anything. Yet, it is going to spend $25 million to change the name of a museum.

Does the member really believe in the value of Canadian heritage? Are the Conservatives really going to walk the walk and provide funding to make Canadian artifacts available and put them on display so that people can see them, rather than just going around changing names?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I am not sure where the hon. member gets his facts. In fact, I am not sure he even believes what he just said.

Let me provide just a couple of numbers. As I stand for this bill, the Canadian museum of history would be an opportunity to celebrate who we are as Canadians. I have talked to curators and executive directors of museums from across the country who are excited about this bill and about the opportunity to share the artifacts, the history of our country, in their own communities. In my community of Don Valley West, in Toronto, the Ontario Science Centre is one of the facilities that very much looks forward to being part of a partnership that would manage and preserve our history. We heard from other speakers that this is happening across the country.

I encourage the member to read the bill and get on board with this. Let us bring this thing to fruition and celebrate our history.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley West comes from a part of this country where there are quite a few new Canadians. They chose to become Canadians. They are hungry to share in the rich history of our country. It means something to them. This is a country they chose to come to. It was not an accident of birth. They chose to come here because of the rich history of our country and because of who we are. We need to celebrate that.

I wonder if the member could talk to me about some of his constituents who are new Canadians and about what he believes the benefits of this change in the museum's focus will be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to believe that all of us in the House, regardless of the party we represent, truly celebrate Canada as a wonderful place to live and celebrate our history.

I just mentioned the Ontario Science Centre as one example of a facility in my riding that is looking forward to sharing in our great history. My riding is as ethnically diverse as any riding in this country. When there are PD school days or when teachers have an opportunity to bring children to the Ontario Science Centre to experience what it is all about, the lineups are unbelievable. They line up around the block to get into this place to see what it has to offer. That is the type of excitement coming from school children of all ethnicities who have come to this country to learn about Canada, to live a better life and to have an opportunity. They are going to go to that facility and celebrate and learn about the history we are all so proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49. I want to begin by reading the current mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Its current mandate is:

...to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of, 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.

It is rather lengthy. It has long sentences with a lot of big words. Nevertheless, I wanted to read it because the debate on the museum centres on its mission. There are may factors at play in this bill.

Nonetheless, today's debate is not on the importance of Canada's history or on the people who may or may not have played a key role in our country and our identity. The debate is on the museum's current mandate and what the government wants to do with it.

Bill C-49 proposes new wording for the mandate. This could have major repercussions on future exhibits at the museum, its priorities, and how all that will be accomplished.

I will also read the mandate proposed in Bill C-49. If the bill passes, the mandate would be:

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

Does that mandate seem so bad? No, it does not. This new mandate proposed in the bill seems very worthwhile. However, compared to the old mandate, one might be concerned about what the new wording leaves out.

For example, what happened to critical understanding? It is now just understanding. Why is that? What was the rationale behind dropping the word “critical” in the expression “critical understanding”? Honestly, it is a question worth asking.

Is it because of a desire to dismiss criticism of our nation’s history? Perhaps, perhaps not; there is no explanation. Yet, when it comes to deciding to strike a word from the wording of the museum's mandate, this is no small matter. We need answers and we also need to understand what impact these changes might have on the direction the museum takes.

Another example of something that has been overlooked or distorted is the focus on social history and cultural achievements. The Canadian Museum of Civilization focuses heavily on social history and cultural achievements. It provides a critical perspective by including elements from outside Canada to compare and assess what is observed, take an interest in it, and develop various perspectives that differ from those based on our own Canadian history.

Under the new mandate proposed in Bill C-49, there is a far greater emphasis on the figures who shaped Canada’s history, and a far lesser focus on social history and cultural achievements. It is not as if the focus is no longer there at all. However, what I mean to say is that the wording was chosen for a reason and will have a bearing on how the mandate is interpreted.

It is, therefore, crucial that members be aware of the real impact that the choice of wording will have on the new terms of reference for museum exhibitions, and on the freedom museum curators have to carry out projects that they consider important and relevant.

I would also like to talk about how this bill ended up before us. In fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage boasted that the museum was his idea. I like the Minister of Heritage. He is, undoubtedly, a very good person and certainly comes up with very creative and ingenious ideas.

However, a museum's orientation should not be determined solely by the revelations of one minister or another. Are they aware that we have museologists, museum experts? Do they know we have historians? University researchers have extensive knowledge in the field and would probably have had a lot to contribute to the development of Bill C-49. However, the minister himself says that changing the museum's name and purpose was his idea. Congratulations!

It seems to me, however, that it is critically important to consult the experts who know about museum administration, exhibition management, the public's interest in the museum's artifacts, and history and how to convey it before announcing this kind of thing. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not a teacher, museologist or historian, hence the importance of not simply rushing to convert a spontaneous idea into a bill. There were public consultations, but they were held only once the bill was introduced, its wording developed and the museum's new name announced. It was not until the minister's idea materialized that we could tell him what we thought about it.

Will we see any significant changes? Why were these consultations not held before Bill C-49 was introduced? This is unfortunate. It undermines our confidence in this bill and in the approach adopted by the Conservatives. A preliminary consultation would have shown us that they take the opinions of Canadians and museology experts seriously. However, that was not the case, and, in my humble opinion, that undermines the credibility of the process and the very basis for these changes.

When a politician announces changes to the name and purpose of a museum, what is his aim if it is not political? We have challenged many government announcements of this kind because of this partisan angle. And this is another one. This is not necessarily what will happen, but our fears in that regard are definitely warranted.

A newspaper article related the opinion of the previous president and CEO, Victor Rabinovich, who deplores the fact that the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dropped. In his view, it has been the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector, "a brand that is known and respected throughout the world." This man, who was a key player at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has his doubts about the museum's name change and has proposed a compromise. Will he be heard? I very much doubt it, but only time will tell.

Now let us talk about priorities. Right now, the Conservative government is boasting about making Canadian history its priority. However, if this were really the case, would so many archaeologists be laid off and muzzled? Would there be so many archivists and librarians being muzzled and laid off? Would national historic sites be abandoned because they do not have the necessary funding or resources? Parks Canada and Library and Archives Canada are also suffering.

Frankly, if Canadian history were really a priority for the Conservatives, would 80% of the Parks Canada archaeologists be laid off? Would the deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, be resigning because of spending scandals and the Conservatives’ poor management? All of these issues make us wonder.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my opinion: this debate is not about whether or not we think our country’s history is important, but rather about the museum’s new name and mandate. In fact, we can do both: we can keep our Canadian Museum of Civilization as it is and at the same time find other ways of promoting Canadian history.

Why should we change a winning combination? The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most successful museum in Canada. Let us think twice before we change it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put some of the fears of the member opposite to rest. I would encourage her to put those concerns to rest, because in my speech I talked about the staff and the leadership at the Museum of Civilization and what they are going to bring to this new museum in taking it to the next level of its functionality.

We are on the right path in celebrating our history. Not only do I believe it, but I would like to read what a couple of historians have said, not just stakeholders but historians, great Canadian leaders, talking about the museum of history. Michael Bliss, a Canadian historian and award-winning author, said that it is very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history. In addition, John English, a former Liberal MP and Trudeau biographer, said, “Congratulations on the Canadian museum of history”. That is a great boost for this museum. Why does the opposition not agree with respected historians such as these?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for trying to put some of my fears to rest. Unfortunately, we are still not on the same wavelength about everything.

First, he spoke about the independence of the museum directors and their leadership. Perhaps the directors will indeed remain independent and will indeed continue to exercise the same level of leadership, but when the very mandate of the museum is rewritten, they are forced, without consultation, to follow the new mandate. According to the new framework, they may enjoy the same level of independence and the same degree of leadership, but when we ourselves define a framework, we cannot then claim that they will remain independent and that they will remain the leaders.

The Minister himself has admitted that it was his idea to change the name of the museum and its mandate. So much for independence and leadership, since the government has just interfered with something very basic: the museum’s mandate.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she talked about priorities.

At present, there are budget cuts coming from everywhere, and yet the minister has decided to spend $25 million to change the name of one of our best museums.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that Canadian Heritage could have found a better way to spend $25 million for the museum she spoke about, in the field of arts and culture, rather than spending that money to change the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, I know he is very involved in his riding. He listens to the residents of his riding, and he probably has a number of suggestions himself about what could be done with the money invested in changing the name of the museum.

I would also like to come back to another funding-related matter. In fact, Bill C-49 also opens the door to private sector support. I am not opposed to private sector support, but how is this going to happen? This is an important question, but it is not actually clear in Bill C-49. Will we have the Molson or Pepsi exhibition hall? We do not know. Will the private sector have more powers and be more in evidence in the museum? If so, in what way? Before supporting a bill like this, it is important to know what tangible form this is going to take.

I am not saying that we oppose investment from the private sector. What I am saying is that the bill is vague in this regard. It is important to ask the question before passing a bill like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would establish the Canadian museum of history.

A lot has been said in previous debates about the need to ensure that the research capacity of the new museum would be as strong as the research capacity of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I think we can all agree that research would be an important aspect of the activities of the new museum and its professional staff.

Research, either ongoing or related to a particular project, is at the heart of what great museums do and it would be at the heart of what the Canadian museum of history would do. In fact, the standing committee heard from Mr. Mark O’Neill, President and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, that in consultation with academics across Canada, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in its history. Mr. O'Neill indicated that this strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next ten years, confirming that the research strategy would be used after the adoption of Bill C-49 and the transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization into the Canadian museum of history.

I have confidence in the dedication and professionalism of the museum and its staff. They will continue to do the work of research that needs to be done in order to execute the mandate of the museum and provide a valuable service to the Canadian public.

The museum's research strategy, developed in consultation with experts from within the museum and across the country, will guide research at the new museum. I can assure all hon. members that the absence of the word "critical" in the description of the museum's mandate will have no impact on the research capabilities it would have. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the absence of the word “critical” may be a bit of a relief to some of the museum's researchers. Some members may ask why. Let me ask them how they would define “critical research”? The current text of the Museums Act does not define it. Would anyone suggest that, in the absence of the word in the text proposed by Bill C-49, the highly professional staff undertaking important research at the museum would somehow now abandon their professional ethics and judgment? I certainly do not believe so.

That is not what Bill C-49 intends and it is not what would happen. We would simply be allowing the new museum and the competent professionals who work there to have the freedom and flexibility to determine what research is necessary and how that research should be done.

If we are still concerned about this, let us look at what has been done elsewhere with some of the great museums of the world. The act establishing the Smithsonian Institute in Washington does not mention that research has to be "critical research". It talks about the increase and diffusion of knowledge across the country. Moreover, the word research is not even mentioned in the British Museum Act.

Let us also look at the modern of Te Papa, the groundbreaking museum in New Zealand established in 1992. Its founding legislation simply says that among its principal functions, the museum is to conduct research into any matter relating to its collections or associated areas of interest and to assist others in such research. Does it describe what kind of research? No. It leaves that to the highly trained professionals involved, and that is what the legislation should do.

Enlightenment and communication are central concepts governing the German Historical Museum in Berlin, a museum with impressive permanent and temporary exhibitions whose mandate and activities have been assessed and modernized over time. The absence of the word "research" in its mandate in no way diminishes the ability of the museum to carry out valuable research.

This museum has a long history of research. Research was carried out in the late 1800s, when the museum was part of the Geological Survey of Canada. The names Marius Barbeau and Diamond Jenness come to mind, both researchers who were known and respected around the world. Research was carried out when the museum was called the Museum of Man. The names Dr. J.V. Wright and Dr. William Taylor come to mind. In fact, Dr. Taylor, an archaeologist, was the director of the Museum of Man for many years.

Research continues to be carried out by the Museum of Civilization. I note that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard testimony last week from Dr. David Morrison, director of research and content for the new Canadian history hall. The research strategy recently developed by the Canadian Museum of Civilization is evidence of the central role that research will play in the Canadian museum of history. The research strategy includes subjects such as the changing north and aboriginal histories.

In Bill C-49, nothing will diminish the role of research at the Canadian museum of history. The capacity and power to conduct research can be found in clause 9 of this bill, just as it can be found in the power and capacity sections of the Museums Act. The absence of the word “research” in the purpose of the new museum does not reflect a disregard for the research function of the new museum. It merely reflects modern drafting standards, standards that define a broad overarching purpose, in other words, what the museum can do, complemented by a more detailed capacities and powers statement, in other words, how the museum will carry out that purpose.

In closing, I know that we are all anxious to ensure that the proud tradition of research in the Canadian Museum of Civilization will not be diminished in any way by Bill C-49 and the establishment of the Canadian museum of history. I know that this will not happen because I have faith in the professionalism and expertise of the museum and its staff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Apparently, he is very interested in Canadian history, and I congratulate him on that. It is very important.

However, I wonder what reason there is for changing a winning formula. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada at present. It is absurd, to me, to want to give it a new purpose, because it is the most popular museum. If we change its name and its purpose, it may no longer be the most popular museum. Perhaps the strength of this museum, and what makes it popular, are precisely its present name and mandate.

But let us go further and ask a few questions. The Canadian Museum of Civilization already has a reputation of its own. If we change its name, then we are going to have to make sure that people know the new name and the new direction.

Does the member know how much money will be allocated simply to changing the name and the mandate? I am not necessarily talking about the money that will be invested in new exhibition halls, for example, just the amount of money that will be needed to make the museum known with its new name and its new mandate.

Perhaps the member can quote me some figures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question about why we want to change what is already working.

All we have to do is look to the south, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. That museum is referred to as America's attic. This would be a version of that in Canada, where we can celebrate what is Canada, what our people have done and what our achievements are. Not only would we be able to celebrate that here in Ottawa as the museum currently does, we would be able to partner with smaller museums from coast to coast to coast.

As anyone involved in museums knows, most of their artifacts and displays are kept in storage. We have literally a treasure trove of great artifacts and displays in storage 90% of the time. This would free those artifacts up. They would be able to travel around Canada and smaller museums from coast to coast to coast would be able to use these displays to attract new people.

Why would we change it? We would be broadening the scope. We would be using this initiative to support small museums from coast to coast to coast.