Debates of June 17th, 2013

Report Stage

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley repeatedly. He is very learned and a former educator. I would like him to talk about how this would help educators learn more about Canada's history.

In addition to the expansion to the museum, there are some other announcements we have made. The Canada history fund, for example, which will be administered by Canada's National History Society, will honour outstanding students and teachers; the museums assistance program will bring some of these exhibitions to different parts of the country; and the virtual museum of Canada includes a teachers' centre.

Could the member please describe how this could be used as a much better learning tool for students so they can learn about our history?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a teacher for many years. My background was in history and social studies as a teacher, an educational administrator and someone involved in curriculum development.

One of the things that concerns me greatly in Canada is that currently, only three of 10 provinces require Canadian students to take a history course to graduate high school. The delivery of education is a provincial jurisdiction, but that concerns me as a former history teacher. That means that a lot of Canadians are graduating, and have been graduating, and have not had to take a history course. All the provinces offer history as a course, but students are not required to take those courses to graduate. I think that is a shame.

As a federal government, we can encourage the provinces to deliver some history in their curricula by developing, as was said, virtual online courses for teachers so that they have the resources they need to include this in the curriculum.

If our small museums, as I mentioned, had these artifacts and displays, they could really celebrate what is great about this nation. Those artifacts could be moved around the country. Teachers from coast to coast to coast would be able to take their classes to a local museum.

It is awfully hard for a teacher in the Yukon to take a class all the way to Ottawa to see the Museum of Civilization the way it is now. This would enable that museum to send its artifacts and displays all the way to the Yukon through some of the funding we would allocate for this project. This would free up those artifacts and displays, and that is great for education in Canada.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act.

The purpose of Bill C-49 is to refocus and reposition the Canadian Museum of Civilization and amend the Museums Act to change the name and legislative mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Since 1990, the museum's mandate has been:

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

Bill C-49 changes this mandate. In concrete terms, the changes to the museum's mandate will remove the phrase “critical understanding” and replace it with a general idea of understanding, and replace “human cultural achievements and human behaviour” with a simplistic concept, “Canada's history and identity”.

In short, these changes could detract from the diversity of the experiences that characterize our history, for instance, the effects of colonization on first nations, gender inequality, marginalization based on ethnicity, and so on.

In addition, the sudden and surreptitious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum shows a lack of transparency—yes, once again—even though the mail is an integral part of our history. While the changes set out in Bill C-49 might seem trivial, this closure and the Conservatives' approach to Canadian history make me wary of other nasty surprises.

I believe this museum has a winning formula. It is often a must-see destination on any school trip to Ottawa. This museum touches the imagination of all of the youth who visit it. I am thinking of the Canadian Children's Museum, in particular, whose central theme is “the great adventure”. This museum gives younger visitors an opportunity to travel the world. Exhibit themes promote intercultural understanding. The Canadian Children’s Museum has grown steadily since its inception.

The museum has welcomed over 8 million visitors since 1989, with an average annual attendance of 500,000. It is committed to the promotion of intercultural understanding among children and improving cultural, social, and educational opportunities for children. I recall having visited the museum myself on many occasions and having a remarkable experience every time.

Looking beyond the Canadian Children's Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. That is quite something. I wonder why the Conservatives are changing its mandate. Is it really necessary to change a winning formula? What if I were the owner of an ice cream shop, chocolate was my bestselling flavour and then one day I decided to make strawberry ice cream instead. I think that that would be a very poor marketing decision and that I would be taking a risk.

Dr. Lorne Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck...It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

Once again, I believe that the government is making decisions without thinking about the consequences. I believe that this is part of an effort to promote Conservative symbols: attachment to the monarchy, promotion of Conservative values, and so forth.

Furthermore, the changes will be costly. The administrative cost of changing the name and logo is estimated at $500,000 on top of the more than $400,000 that has already been spent. It makes no sense. I wonder who this will really benefit. It seems to me that there are more important priorities to be dealt with.

The private sector will be solicited for its support. We are not against involving the private sector but, in recent years, things have gotten out of hand at federal museums. For example, almost all exhibit halls at the Canadian Museum of Nature have been named after sponsors in the oil and mineral sectors and, in 2011, an exhibit at the Canada Science and Technology Museum was changed as a result of external pressure.

Of course, private funding is useful for the development of museums, but it must not influence their content, especially when it comes to a national history museum.

When I think of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, my mind turns to the hundreds of thousands of children who go on school excursions to the museum every year. My son has visited the museum several times with his school. He always comes home with lots of stories. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a gold mine of interesting information for young people of all ages, and for adults, too.

The other important thing that disappoints me about this bill is the change in direction of the museum’s mission. In fact, the proposal is to remove research and collections from the museum’s mission, which were contained in the first paragraph of its initial mandate.

The staff who work in the research and collections departments will be “reorganized”, a term that is not really reassuring to museum employees. It will mean that research and collections will take a back seat to exhibition planning and will no longer be based on the work and priorities of museologists. This represents a major shift in the museum’s mission.

The government has no business sticking its nose in these matters. Politicians are neither historians nor researchers, nor are they museologists. Perhaps some members are, but they are a rare commodity. The Conservatives are the ones thinking about making these changes. They are meddling in the museum's affairs.

Why not leave it up to the museologists and their interlocutors, including the first nations, to define the museum's mandate and content.

I know how important it is to have employees who are motivated and passionate about their work to present the museum.

In my region, the Forges du Saint-Maurice are grappling with major cutbacks. This year, tourists and visitors to the forges will no longer get to enjoy a dynamic presentation by guide–interpreters. Instead, they will have to read signs set up to replace staff who have been laid off. It is really sad to see a historic and tourist site of such great significance lose its value because the government is imposing its own ideology.

I would also like to draw members’ attention to another important problem arising from these changes. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in November 2012. We have not yet had third reading in the House. It has not yet gone to the Senate. Yet I noticed on the weekend that the minister was already making announcements as if Bill C-49 had received royal assent.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced a partnership agreement between the Manitoba Museum and the future Canadian museum of history. I repeat: the future Canadian museum of history. It has not yet been approved by parliamentarians.

We in the NDP want the museum's current mission to be maintained. We are asking that the budget proposed for this transformation be invested instead in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history.

The government has to stop doing away with things that enhance our knowledge of history, in particular research and the protection of historic sites.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague opposite. I can tell that a good deal of thought was put into it, and I appreciate that within the context of this debate.

It is a simple question I have. We have a specific piece of legislation here. It is not long. It is a new mandate we are offering for the Canadian museum of history. What is it in the new mandate the member opposite is opposed to? What exactly is it in that mandate? Which word would she take out? What words would she add? What is wrong with the new mandate being proposed in this legislation? Please be specific.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I was not part of the committee that examined this bill, but I can say that my colleagues worked very hard on it. A lot of thought went into our amendments. In fact, there were 19 amendments proposed.

It is not rare for us to work hard in committee, any committee, and for us to propose amendments and for them not to be considered. It is really important that we work together. Too often, we propose things and we are not listened to.

Actions speak louder than words and we saw that in the 2012 budget.

The government has taken $29 million away from Parks Canada. Parks Canada is responsible for 168 historic sites all across Canada. It is important to preserve these historic sites, because they help with archival research and protection. This is what enriches us, and taking money away like this is like taking a step backward, taking us in the wrong direction and to the wrong place.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have many validators for our position. My colleague quoted, in particular, Dr. Lorne Holyoak.

We also have the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Anthropology Society, Canadian Archaeological Association. They have said, “On behalf of our respective associations, we write to express our serious concern regarding the lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community”.

We have Victor Rabinovitch, president and CEO of the museum for 11 years. George MacDonald, founding director from 1983 to 1988, said, “I was shocked to hear”, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, “claim that the Aboriginal Peoples are excluded from the displays in the Canada Hall”.

The Canadian Association of Universities also backs our position.

There has to be a good reason why these associations are all backing our position, could the member expand on that?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we could go back and forth with quotes from people who were at committee and who were involved, stakeholders in the museum, archaeological departments, but what really bothers people is not knowing. The question is this. Do we have trust in the government? Can we trust it?

My constituents do not have any trust in the government. It is a government engulfed in scandals with the Senate. It allows $3.1 billion to go missing. It is a government that makes changes in omnibus budget bills and years later we are still finding out details. Our children are going to be affected by these changes. Therefore, do we have that trust? I do not think there is enough trust in the government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced a series of new measures to make our history more accessible to all Canadians, particularly our youth.

This announcement exemplifies the government's commitment and dedication to helping Canadians learn more about their history. Following the introduction of Bill C-49, the Canadian Museum of History Act, which is designed to change the name and mandate of the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, our government is forging ahead. It is introducing new measures that will help us to achieve our goal of promoting knowledge of Canadian history.

Included in these new measures is the creation of the Canada History Fund, which represents an investment of $12 million. This new fund comprises several elements.

First, the Government of Canada History Awards will be created to honour outstanding secondary school students and teachers who show an interest in Canadian history.

Second, the Speakers Bureau of the Memory Project, administered by the Historica-Dominion Institute, will see its funding doubled to allow thousands of students to meet with veterans and serving soldiers in the classroom.

Third, the Canada History Fund will increase funding to the Historica-Dominion Institute to create two new Heritage Minutes per year between now and 2017.

Fourth, references such as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia will receive enhanced financial support to allow for additional Canadian history content. These two invaluable online resources help teachers with their in-class work. This support is important for those initiatives.

For example, this is what Anthony Wilson-Smith, president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, said:

History teaches us how we got to where we are as a country, along with a sense of where we are headed. These new measures give Canadians important new tools to discuss and debate those lessons from our past. We at the Historica–Dominion Institute fully support these important initiatives.

It is clear that the government is honouring its commitment to promote Canada's identity, but that is not all. Starting this year, July 1 to 7 will become Canada History Week.

That week, starting on Canada Day, will be an excellent opportunity for Canadians to explore their country’s history through activities organized at the regional and national levels. We will also provide information on activities organized by history lovers as part of national and regional Canada Day celebrations.

They preserve our heritage, shape our collective memory and stimulate our sense of belonging to Canadian society. However, Canada does not have a national museum offering a detailed narrative of our history. That is why our government is preparing to establish the Canadian museum of history. This future national museum will create partnerships with regional museums to form a network.

The objective is to expand access to the national collection and increase its circulation across the country. In this way, Canadian museums, both large and small, will be able to exchange exhibitions with the Canadian museum of history and access some of the three million artifacts from those collections.

An investment of time and money is obviously required to move exhibitions and artifacts. The third measure announced last week is designed specifically to enhance the capability of certain Department of Canadian Heritage programs to do just that.

The Museums Assistance Program, for example, provides financial support for the work of Canada's museums and museum sector. We will ensure that this program, which facilitates Canadians' access to their heritage and history, plays a greater role.

The Exhibition Circulation Fund, one of the program's five components, assists museums in paying the costs involved in hosting travelling exhibitions. Those exhibitions may come from museums in other provinces or territories or simply from a federal heritage institution such as the Canadian museum of history. For a museum, these expenses usually include packing, transportation and installation costs, special costs associated with security and additional insurance premiums as well as general promotional expenses. As I said, the costs involved in moving exhibitions and artifacts are often too high for small history museums. We will therefore ensure that the Museums Assistance Program enables museums to borrow artifacts from the national collection of the Canadian museum of history to enhance their exhibitions. This activity was not previously funded. In addition, to help the smallest institutions, financial assistance may be provided to cover up to 100% of eligible costs for museums with operating budgets of less than $500,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, do you know there are over 1,700 Canadian museums in this situation? We are also going to make sure that the Museum Assistance Program facilitates the creation and sharing of exhibits about history by eliminating the requirement that exhibits circulate outside their province or territory of origin. This will help to encourage the circulation of historical exhibits to multiple towns in the same province or territory. By expanding eligibility and increasing the percentage of funding granted to small museums, these measures will increase the number of travelling historical exhibitions. Canadians will thus have better access to their history.

In closing, as Canada’s 150th birthday approaches, Canadians deserve a national museum of the history of Canada that will put their treasures on display for the entire world and tell Canadians about their collective history. Canada needs a national institution that tells its story. Canadian museums need to be encouraged and supported in creating a national network that will give all Canadians the opportunity to explore their history. That is what the government of Canada is proposing to us here today.

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

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

I would like to ask him a question. I do not doubt the importance of the history of Canada or the appropriateness of including a little more of it when it comes to teaching history and the associated exhibitions. What I wonder about is how we should proceed. Why are the name and mandate of the most popular museum in Canada being changed? I find this striking, and I am wondering whether this museum will still be the most popular one, with the highest visitation, if the government changes its mandate and name.

What is even more disturbing is that this idea does not actually come from a museologist or a museum director. It was the minister's idea. He undoubtedly has good ideas, but I find it worrisome for a politician to be proposing a new name and a new mandate for the museum.

Does my colleague know whom the minister consulted before drafting Bill C-49? He has said it was his idea, but apart from that, did he consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and museologists?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underscore the leadership of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and congratulate him on his initiative to establish this national Canadian museum, so important for the future.

I would like to come back to the mandate, because I think it is an important point. The Museum of Civilization Corporation will have new mandate that focuses on Canada’s history and identity, and its name will be changed to the Canadian Museum of History, a name that clearly communicates its role.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to know who the Minister consulted before making his decision.

I find it interesting, particularly because one of the questions that we often ask the members of the government concerns why we disagree with a position that is so popular with Canadians. However, not one of the members can tell me whether their own constituents have contacted them to ask them to change the name and the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which from now on will be called the Canadian Museum of History.

I would like to know what consultations were carried out by the minister before he arrived at this decision. I would also like to know why the Conservatives do not all agree on whether it was the minister’s decision or whether the decision was the result of many requests from constituents.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and tell him that this kind of decision is certainly taken in consultation with many Canadians.

We must remember that it is important to support the government’s investment, because it ensures that Canadians from all across the country will have an opportunity to learn more about history and about their own history, Canada’s history. The new museum will sign agreements with museums all across Canada, in order to be able to travel throughout Canada, to give smaller museums an opportunity to display the collections, and to provide all Canadians with an opportunity to see and admire these collections to learn more about our history.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments on the Canadian Museum of History.

It was a good idea to reinforce the message that it involves not only a name change for the museum, but also programs that will be travelling to other museums.

He talked about Canada history week, for instance, and the Canada history fund. It is therefore $25 million for the change to the museum, but it is $12 million per year for all these programs.

Could he tell us more about how these programs will go hand in hand with the changes to the museum, so that our history can be told all across the country?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important and insightful question.

I would like to remind him that in terms of increasing Canadians' knowledge about our history, only four provinces, namely Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec, require students to take a history course to graduate, and that over 80% of Canadians failed the Historica-Dominion Institute's basic history quiz. Fully 78% of Canadians believe that learning more about the history of Canada would be a significant factor in strengthening their attachment to Canada. A survey supported this finding.

I think we are on the right track. If we want to know where we are going, in our country, we have to know where we come from.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many in this House know that I am passionate about Canadian history, so I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-49, a bill to create a new Canadian museum of history.

The government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians.

However, while our national institutions do magnificent work as guardians of our heritage, not one is dedicated to telling the full story of our country.

That is why we are making a one-time investment of $25 million to establish the Canadian Museum of History. This funding is not new money, but rather comes from the existing budget for Canadian Heritage. This new national museum will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about our rich Canadian history.

The Canadian museum of history will grow out of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The government is refreshing the mandate and the orientation of the museum. Just as schools modernize the curriculum in accordance with new events and discoveries, the new Canadian museum of history will present a comprehensive story of this country, the best country in the world.

Change is not new to this institution. The history of the Canadian Museum of Civilization began as far back as 1856, with the establishment of a museum by the Geological Survey of Canada. With roots stretching back 157 years, the Museum of Civilization is one of North America's oldest cultural institutions.

As staff of the survey fanned out across the country, they gathered cultural information and artifacts as well as carrying out their main task in geology and science.

Ever since its beginnings from a modest collection the museum has been evolving. Indeed, its ability to adapt and evolve is what has made it so successful.

Just think, in 1862, the Geological Survey of Canada mounted its first ethnological exhibit, a single display case containing first people's stone implements, stone pipes and a few fragments of pottery. Today the Canadian Museum of Civilization welcomes over 1.6 million visitors, on average, each year. It houses permanent galleries that explore 20,000 years of human history. Its program of special exhibitions expands on Canadian themes and explores other cultures and civilizations, past and present.

The museum is also a major research institution, with staff who are leading experts in Canadian history, archeology, ethnology and culture.

In 1968, and with a new mandate, the National Museum of Man was established as part of a group known as the National Museums of Canada. Almost 20 years later, in 1986, it was renamed the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and it subsequently moved to Gatineau, into the fabulous building designed by the illustrious architect, Douglas Cardinal. The building itself illustrates the history of the museum, with a structure that suggests fluidity and flexibility.

The transformation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization will take place over the next five years, and will provide a number of opportunities to celebrate Canada's history in the lead-up to 2017.

At present, the museum has four permanent exhibition galleries: the Grand Hall, the First Peoples Hall, the Canada Hall and Face to Face, the Canadian Personalities Hall. The new permanent gallery would replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall.

More than 4,000 square metres, or 43,000 square feet, of exhibition space would be renovated to create a permanent exhibition space presenting a national historical narrative. This space would feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. It would be the place where Canadians could go to retrace their national journey and find national treasures. It would be where Canadians could learn about the people, events and themes that have shaped our country's development and have defined the Canadian experience, including key events and episodes from our past. It would tell some of the greatest Canadian stories.

The museum has carried out a series of consultations, online and in person, to solicit the views of Canadians on the stories, people, themes and events that they want to see in the new museum. More than 20,000 Canadians contributed, expressing what they expect of the museum in general, and particularly in the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights:

Canadians want our museums to be comprehensive, frank and fair about our presentation of their history.

They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past.

They want the museum to foster a sense of national pride, without ignoring our failings, mistakes and controversies.

They want to see various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways through different eyes.

I am delighted that the new exhibit space will feature national treasures such as explorer Samuel de Champlain's astrolabe, my hero, the “last spike” from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Maurice Richard's number nine Habs jersey.

At the same time, the president and CEO of the museum has said that the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history “warts and all”. That is an important point. Many episodes in our history are critically important, such as the internment of Japanese Canadians and the situation of our aboriginal people in residential schools. Canadians can learn so much from our history.

At present, there is no mention in the Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression and the conscription crisis. Most important, the Canada Hall does not begin with first peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century. Clearly, this needs to change.

The Museum of Civilization tells the story of human history and identity in Canada. The new Canadian museum of history will be the next phase of that story, helping define us as citizens of Canada and the world.

Why does our government feel that it is so important to focus the interest on Canada's collective history?

In 2017, the best country in the world will celebrate its sesquicentennial, which is 150 years. In the lead up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate and celebrate our history.

A new national museum devoted to our history will highlight our achievements as a nation and help Canadians learn more about our rich and diverse history.

I hope that as many Canadians as possible will celebrate the sesquicentennial in the freshly renovated exhibition halls of the new Canadian museum of history.

I hope all of my colleagues in the House will lend their support to Bill C-49.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you that I will entertain my colleagues' questions with the same respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week I was quite fortunate to take part in the debate on Bill C-49.

We can criticize how much money was spent on changing the name of the museum, a change that no one asked for except the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We can also talk about the changes to the museum's mandate, but I think this is also part of the Conservative trend. I am quite concerned about this trend because it seeks to promote a history of the military that is based on military events, and of the Queen and the monarchy, without any real regard for other aspects of Canada's history.

Last week, my colleague from Hamilton Mountain asked why we would not promote the history of women in Canada. The parliamentary secretary said, “I have never heard such nonsense”.

You can read it in Hansard. He said it was garbage. I was quite shocked.

Does the Conservative member opposite believe it is important to promote the history of women?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question.

In listening to the debate this afternoon and this evening, I see that a number of opposition members are wondering whether Canadians were consulted on this. In the presentation I just gave, I pointed out that we consulted more than 20,000 Canadians. As far as all the aspects of history are concerned, hon. members can rest assured that the Canadian museum of history will incorporate each aspect, including aspects that some in the past might have wanted to keep hidden away.

Now, I want to challenge the hon. member because she says we are only interested in military history. In my presentation I did not utter a single word about the role of the military. Nonetheless, I do hope this will be part of history, the good and bad alike.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our national museums are of critical importance, which Canadians will acknowledge. Winnipeg, in fact, is going to be getting its first national museum, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We are anticipating that this wonderful world-class museum will be coming to Winnipeg relatively soon, in the next year or maybe a year and a bit. It goes back to Paul Martin, Reg Alcock and others, and in particular, the Asper family, who played a critical role in ensuring that the rest of Canada could benefit by having strong national museums outside of the national capital.

I realize that this is a bit off topic, but it is important to recognize how important national museums are to all Canadians. I wonder if the member would like to comment on what will be our newest museum, which will be located in Winnipeg. It is something about which many Manitobans have a high sense of pride in terms of those who made it happen and in terms of being the city that will host this world-class national museum.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from across the way had such a thoughtful question. It might have been interesting, as he added to the list of Liberal icons, if he had acknowledged that, in fact, the people he named, especially those who sat on the Liberal benches, did not get it done. That is another thing they did not get done.

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is going to open imminently in Winnipeg, was actually put on the boards by this government, which dedicated several hundred million dollars to get it done.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the themes that has emerged from opposition members has been this notion that somehow perhaps the minister will be writing the storyboards at the new Canadian history museum. Could the hon. member, who gave a great presentation today in the House, comment on that and set the record straight?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House and all four, or now five, of our viewers watching television tonight will realize that there is no political interference in the way that history is presented across the country in all our national museums, and that will not change. There will be a greater focus on Canadian history. There will be a greater investment in Canadian history. Canadians, who are thirsty for their story from coast to coast to coast, will bond together and get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, the purpose of which is to change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in order to establish the Canadian museum of history.

In order to express our strong opposition to this bill, I would like to begin by reminding the House that this initiative is part of the Conservatives' broader plan to promote certain symbols that they cherish: the monarchy, military values, excessive celebrations of long-ago wars, and so on.

It is also important to note that their version of Canadian history does not include the important history of women, first nations and other histories that are also part of our national history.

Indeed, what we are seeing is a deliberate attempt to rewrite the Canadian identity. In that regard, I fully agree with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, whose position is as follows:

...[this initiative] fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy...[it] 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 a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should be run instead according to sound professional standards. Our past should not be a political plaything.

George MacDonald, the first director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has expressed strong opposition to changing the museum's name and mandate. He sees this as part of an attempt to impose the Conservative brand. According to him, no one in the museum community wanted a museum of history rather than a museum of civilization.

Similarly, another former director and CEO of the museum, Victor Rabinovitch, lamented the loss of the name Canadian Museum of Civilization. He described it as the most successful brand in the Canadian museums sector. He said it was a well-known brand that was respected by everyone. I would add that abandoning the name Canadian Museum of Civilization is as absurd as abandoning the brand Radio-Canada.

In addition to changing the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Bill C-49 contains a number of disturbing amendments to the organization’s mission. For example, the international mandate of the museum will be a thing of the past. Rather than focusing on Canada and the rest of the world as a whole, the museum will concentrate solely on Canadians, thereby stripping the museum of its mandate to share our history with the world.

In fact, this example truly captures the essence of the Conservative brand. Since the Conservatives came into power, Canada has been on a downward spiral in terms of its influence on the world stage: Canada is no longer seeking a seat on the UN Security Council, the international mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada has been gutted and Canada no longer has a shred of credibility when it comes to combating climate change. The list goes on.

Unfortunately, with the Conservative Party at the helm, Canada has become the laughing stock of the international community and is neglecting the important role that culture plays in Canadian diplomacy.

Moreover, Bill C-49 proposes to reorganize the tasks of establishing and maintaining a collection of artifacts for research and posterity. From now on, rather than being based on the work and priorities of museum professionals, research and collections will take a backseat to exhibition planning.

However, the most serious problem with C-49 is that it prescribes a minimalist approach to the museum based on events, experiences, people and objects. This is a decision that would normally be left in the hands of museum professionals and subject to a debate among historians and the academic community.

I find it worrisome and appalling that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is riding roughshod over the choices of museum professionals. To begin with, politics has no business in museums and, secondly, before thinking about lecturing Quebeckers on history, the Conservatives should start by familiarizing themselves with the history of Quebec.

I am thinking particularly of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, when he appeared on Tout le monde en parle, was unable to identify Guy Laliberté, Félix Leclerc and Robert Lepage.

I think it is a shame that exhibitions on different cultures and civilizations will take a backseat in the future. The museum used to focus heavily on transmitting an understanding of various cultures and civilizations. The museum had exhibitions that varied from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Many exhibitions traveled and gave the Canadian Museum of Civilization its international reputation. Moreover, these exhibitions attracted a great many visitors.

By refocusing the museum's mandate on Canada, the number of visitors could drop and we are definitely losing a cultural asset.

As Dr. Lorn Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

I note with some concern that the government has announced that there will be activities to solicit support from the private sector. I have nothing against the private sector. However, I am simply concerned that it will dictate the content of exhibits.

In recent years, some things have gotten out of hand in federal museums. I am referring mainly to the Canadian Museum of Nature, where almost all the exhibit halls were sponsored by oil companies after a former executive with Talisman Energy was appointed to the museum's board of directors. It is rather ridiculous. Members will also recall that the Canada Science and Technology Museum changed an exhibit as a result of pressure from a mining company that sponsored it.

In the case of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the historical and archival documentation plays an important role in determining economic rights, particularly of first nations, and it must not be subject to pressure based on commercial interests.

To sum up, private funding can help museum development, but I have difficulty understanding how we can ensure that private sponsors will not influence the content.

While the Conservatives are busy remodelling the Canadian Museum of Civilization so they can spread their propaganda, I lament the fact that they are attacking other important institutions that are guardians of our collective memory. I am thinking in particular of the cuts to Library and Archives Canada, where more than 50% of digitization staff have been laid off. I am also thinking of reductions to document preservation and conservation staff and cuts to inter-library loans, which enabled all Canadians to access their national library's collections.

We could also talk about the $29 million that was cut from Parks Canada in 2012. Parks Canada is an important vehicle for our historical consciousness. That organization manages 167 national historic sites in Canada. More than 80% of Parks Canada's archaeologists and curators have lost their jobs as a result of cuts in recent years.

My colleague from Québec eloquently demonstrated the impact of those cuts on Quebec and its regions when we learned that most of the activities of the Quebec City service centre would be consolidated in Ottawa. Laurence Ferland, former president of Université Laval's archaeology students' association, said that, in addition to harming university research in Quebec City, the cuts would undermine the preservation of monuments and the transmission of history.

When I see these cuts hitting institutions responsible for showcasing our heritage, I find it hard to believe the minister when he says he is changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to improve the dissemination of Canadian history.

To summarize, we are strongly opposed to this bill, which seeks to completely alter the Canadian Museum of Civilization for partisan purposes. We demand that the museum's current mandate be maintained. Canadian history must have a showcase and be promoted, but that is what the Canadian Museum of Civilization already does. We do not need to change the act or the museum's purpose to do it.

We also believe that the task of determining the content of the Canadian Museum of Civilization must be left to museology professionals, not politicians.

Lastly, the government must stop making cuts to the source of our historical knowledge, particularly archival research and the protection of historic sites.

Instead of spending large amounts of money to reshape the museum's mandate, the government would have done better to invest in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history, archives and historic sites and support small museum institutions, particularly with a view to Canada's 150th anniversary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what purpose continuing debate would be, since the NDP members still, after months and months, have not read the bill.

The member said it has no international mandate. I will read just the tail end of the mandate. It says: “...shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”.

Further down, it talks about research. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(f) talks about research. Proposed paragraph 9(1)(h) talks about international exhibits.

The member talked further about leaving it up to the researchers and professionals. This is a quote from the president of the museum. He said:

The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum, led by Dr. David Morrison. This team is made up of researchers, curators, and museologists working in close collaboration with advisory committees composed of historians and experts from across Canada.

Dr. Morrison has a Ph.D. in archaeology from the University of Toronto. He is very well written. He has over 20 years of experience in doing this, so clearly either the New Democrats have not read the bill or they just do not care about the things that are actually going on and are happy to just continue to tell Canadians mistruths about what is happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with this bill, in fact. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has read the bill he is defending.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he has actually consulted Canadians and the following groups: historians, first nations, stakeholders in the Outaouais region and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage within the context of its study on Canada's 150th anniversary.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary name a single historian or a single first nations group that he consulted before this bill was drafted.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing the government does not seem to understand is the lack of confidence this side of the House has in the government's decisions, such as those proposed in Bill C-49. All of the Conservatives' decisions are aimed at redefining Canadian culture and symbols. We see rebranding the Canadian Museum of Civilization as the Canadian Museum of History as another step in that direction.

People have spoken about the lack of consultation. Our heritage critic put his finger on the problem when he spoke about the consultations, which were practically non-existent or done simply to get them out of the way. The consultations were done quickly.

Does my colleague feel that our opposition here stems from our lack of confidence in this bill and in the decisions the Conservatives are making about Canadian history and culture, over and above the changes to the mandate and the other options the Conservatives could have chosen for promoting Canadian history?