Debates of June 17th, 2013

Canadian Museum of History Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore, in the Toronto area, for his speech. There were interesting points in it, of course. The fact that he believes in Canadian museums is inspiring, and I congratulate him.

On the other hand, it worries me that almost 80% of the archaeologists in Canada have been laid off. I do not see how the government can be respectful of the mandate of Canada’s museums if there are no employees to do the work.

I have already asked the question and I still do not have an answer. How can they justify laying off 80% of the archaeologists when, at the same time, they are saying that the Conservative government believes in the mandate of Canada’s museums? I would like him to discuss this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, of the funds that will be devoted to the Canadian Museum of History, $25 million will be used for to carry out renovations and develop the museum's new mandate. There will also be new funds to celebrate Canada’s history. New projects will be launched, such as the Canada history week and the Canada history fund, to provide more tools for the educators who teach the subject. There will also be funds to truly spark students' interest in history.

There is a whole program to discover and celebrate history. There is so much going on in addition to the museum. In fact, there is a host of other programs that will be implemented as part of this new vision that we must celebrate. We have to tell Canadian stories.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are just five years away from our 150th birthday. As a country, what a great opportunity we have to celebrate the great things of Canada.

More than the name and the mandate of the Museum of Civilization would change. I wonder if my colleague would tell this House how the Canadian museum of history would bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Don Valley West for all his fine work in the House, on Parliament Hill and in his own riding.

When we talk about bringing Canadians together, it is one thing to have a museum in the national capital region, but it is important that these artifacts and stories be celebrated throughout the country. It is a vast country. There are 2,500 local and regional museums in Canada. Already the Canadian museum of history is setting up partnerships with regional museums around the country. Just recently it announced partnership agreements with the Manitoba Museum and the Royal B.C. Museum.

We need to get these artifacts out of storage. I do not know if the House is aware, but over 90% of the artifacts are actually in storage. Sharing with other museums would allow people to put on exhibitions and collectively share. It would require the museum of history to act as the focal point and the coordinator across the country. That is why it is important to have this mandate.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, because I think his comments clearly show the gap between the Conservatives' current methods and what most people and experts in the area think.

If the government really wants to highlight Canada's history, it should restore funding for Library and Archives Canada and the administration of historic sites in Canada. Once it has done so, it can then envision creating a new museum with a mandate to ensure that the history it presents is untainted by political ideology.

I would like to know how my hon. colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore would respond to Mr. Turk's comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

There is always a debate, and that is why we have this Parliament—to discuss the issues together.

Those who support the new mandate of the Canadian Museum of History include many historians, such as Richard Gwyn, Jack Granatstein, Charlotte Gray, Réal Bélanger and Yves Frenette. The Canadian Museums Association is also a very vocal supporter of this initiative.

I should also mention certain organizations that are heavily involved in history education and training, such as the Historica-Dominion Institute. These organizations are aware that it is very important to have a new museum with a clear national mandate to share these stories everywhere in Canada, from coast to coast.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-49 tonight. Bill C-49 would create the new Canadian museum of history.

The new Canadian museum of history would undoubtedly support our rich national heritage. As Canadians know, our government has supported and will continue to support the preservation of important artistic, historical and scientific objects in Canada.

Our government believes in our national museums, and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. Before I get to the main thrust of my speech this evening, allow me just to briefly summarize some of the important aspects of, and some of the rationale for, the creation of this legislation.

The legislation would build on the work that we, as a government, have already been doing and on our reputation here in Canada of having some of the best national and local museums in the entire world. In fact, since 2006, our government has invested an additional $142 million in our national museums. We have also created two new national museums, the museum at Pier 21 in Halifax and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, the creation of the new Canadian museum of history would be an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as 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. One of the aspects I most appreciate is the fact that one of the ways we would be doing this is by enabling content to be shared with and by local museums all across this country.

Certainly the aspect I find to be most important is the fact that there is so much of our history in the collection at the museum now that obviously is not on regular display. There would be an opportunity for some of the other museums in the country to share that content and those displays.

I think of some of the fine museums back in my riding of Wild Rose. There is the Nose Creek Valley Museum in Airdrie. There are some fine museums in the towns of Olds and Didsbury. Banff has a number of fine museums as well, and of course, Canmore has the Museum and Geoscience Centre.

There are a number of those types of museums all across the country that could participate in these kinds of programs to have content shared with their museums, and vice versa. They could share some of the content they may not have on display with the museum here in the national capital region as well. That is one of the key aspects that I had a chance to speak to in more length in the House previously.

I would like to get into some more specifics tonight. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss a very important act, which would benefit the new museum of Canadian history. Since its adoption in 1977, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act has served to encourage and ensure the preservation of Canadian heritage.

This act accomplishes this objective through a number of provisions. First, there is the designation of cultural institutions that have demonstrated the capacity to preserve cultural objects and make them available to the public through things like tax incentives that encourage Canadians to donate or to sell significant objects to designated institutions; and through grants to assist those designated institutions with the purchase of heritage objects; and through export control.

The act controls the export of significant cultural objects and creates the opportunity for our museums, art galleries, libraries and archives to acquire and preserve cultural content for future generations.

The act also contains tax incentives, which encourage Canadians to support our cultural institutions by donating or selling important objects to these organizations. Archeological objects, first nations objects, works of art, military medals, vintage vehicles and even rare fossils and minerals are examples of the types of objects that have been preserved in Canada because of this act.

Objects that are refused export permits can be delayed for up to six months to allow institutions to raise funds and apply for a grant to help purchase them.

Moveable cultural property grants can help museums and other cultural institutions to buy these important cultural and heritage objects. In 2006-07, The Rooms in Newfoundland received a grant to acquire two rare painted caribou skin coats made by the Innu. One was made in the late 18th century and the other in the mid-19th century. Both coats were about to be exported from Canada.

In 2010 the program supported the purchase of the world's largest sample of the Springwater pallasite, which is a rare type of meteorite that crashed to the earth near Biggar, Saskatchewan, in 1931. The Royal Ontario Museum purchased the pallasite with a grant before it too was exported from Canada.

These important objects, and many more, will remain in our heritage institutions as a result of the export controls and the movable cultural property grants program established under this act.

Funds are also available to repatriate important heritage objects to Canada. These objects may have been removed from Canada many years ago but are important to our history. For example, in 2007, the Museum of Northern British Columbia received a grant to repatriate objects from the Dundas collection. This is a significant collection of 19th century ceremonial objects, decorative works and everyday items used by some of the first inhabitants of British Columbia's northwest coast. The collection went to Scotland in 1863 and remained there until it was sold in 2006. Several Canadian museums went to great effort to purchase the collection and return it to Canada.

Another grant was awarded to the University of Alberta library in 2008 to repatriate the Sir Samuel Steele collection. Sir Samuel Steele was one of the most famous members of what is now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His papers, which documented the Red River expedition, the early history of the RCMP, the Klondike gold rush and his participation in the First World War are now accessible to all.

Speaking of World War I, in 2009, an important grant assisted McMaster University with the purchase of a map collection of the western front of World War I between 1914 and 1917. These maps were used by Canadian troops on the Western Front and were critical in the Battle of Vimy Ridge and in subsequent victories at Passchendaele. The significance of this collection continues to grow as we approach the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War.

All of these important objects and collections now have a permanent home in public collections in Canada, where all Canadians have the opportunity to learn from them.

The act also encourages Canadians to donate or sell important cultural objects to Canadian institutions through a special tax incentive. About 260 institutions and public authorities across Canada have been designated under the act and are eligible to offer this incentive. These institutions include not only our national museums and major provincial establishments but also smaller regional organizations that preserve our important heritage and make it available to all Canadians. From the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts to the Moose Jaw Museum and Art Gallery and the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre in Yellowknife, these organizations have the capacity to preserve cultural objects for the long term and make them available to Canadians through exhibitions, research access, loans to other institutions or on their websites.

Objects that are certified as being of outstanding significance and national importance to Canada by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board receive the tax benefit. The review board is an independent tribunal of experts created under the act. It determines the importance of the cultural object and its value. Since 1977, thousands of objects have been certified. In 2012-13 alone, 1,360 objects valued at $72 million were donated or sold to Canadian institutions through this incentive program. As a result, museums, galleries, archives and libraries have enhanced their collections and Canadians have had the opportunity to see, study and learn about objects and works of art that otherwise might have remained out of sight and behind closed doors.

In conclusion, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act has enabled museums, galleries, libraries and archives all across Canada to acquire important objects that tell Canada's story to Canadians and to the world. The act continues to protect important cultural objects in Canada and allows for the return of significant heritage objects to Canada. Its provisions have enhanced our public collections with objects that are of outstanding significance and national importance to Canada.

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 presents our country's treasures to the world. Therefore, I am pleased to support Bill C-49, which would create the museum of Canadian history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my government colleague's speech and was interested in two points, on which I have some questions.

He mentioned, for example, some artifacts and documents that in fact constitute our military history. We already have the Canadian War Museum, which was designed to give Canadians and foreign tourists access to that part of history.

I would therefore like to understand the relevance of talking about the museum of history as proposed in Bill C-49 because several aspects noted by the government member are already covered by a number of other museums. When we talk about history, there are several museums for that in various municipalities and cities. In Montreal, for example, the McCord is a very good museum specializing not only in the history of Montreal and Quebec, but also in that of Canada.

I would like to understand the relevance of replacing the Canadian Museum of Civilization with a Canadian history museum, when a number of aspects of our history are already covered by other museums.

The second point, which he discussed to a lesser extent in his speech, but on which I would like to have his opinion, is Canadians' supposed desire to have a museum of Canadian history. I did not receive a single request in that regard before Bill C-49 was introduced. Our members have never received a single request on the subject either. Furthermore, I suspect there was no demand either, except that created by the government's program. I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to some examples that I used in my speech, and there were a number of examples of great pieces of Canadian history, certainly including some pieces I referred to that were part of the important and proud history of our efforts in world wars. However, there are many other aspects of our Canadian history that are very important.

He referenced the partner museum to this one. The Canadian War Museum has many artifacts and it is a very valuable museum that many Canadians enjoy. There is so much more to our history over the 150 years of history in this country, and even before, to be shared with all Canadians through this great new museum of history.

The member also asked about the support among Canadians. There is no question that the museum carried out a series of cross-country consultations and gave Canadians all across Canada the opportunity to give their opinions on the personalities, events and milestones that tell the Canadian story. There are many of them. In fact, in total, more than 20,000 Canadians were consulted on the change to the name and the mandate of the museum. They contributed their ideas to the website, panel discussions and round tables all across Canada and shared with us what they would like to see in this new museum of history.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members will know, I am planning to support this bill, but I have concerns. One of them is that initially I thought $25 million was a good amount for distributing and sharing exhibits with more of our regional museums across the country. I recently met with some folks who knew what it really costs to put together an exhibit. The First Peoples Hall had initially cost $20 million, so $25 million begins to sound as if it would not be sufficient to get the exhibits and share them with museums.

Does the hon. member for Wild Rose have any idea if there is thought to augmenting the budget to ensure that pieces of our history, including women's history, first nations history and the complex dimensions of our history, are actually sufficiently funded to meet all the demands of smaller regional museums across Canada?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member raised this issue, because it is one that I believe is a very key part of this new mandate for the museum, including the sharing of our key national treasures with other museums across the country, and vice versa. They will have the opportunity to share theirs with the museums in the capital region. I appreciate her giving me the opportunity to highlight that one more time, because I believe it will be a huge benefit to museums all across Canada and to Canadians, by extension, whether it be at local museums or key national museums here in the capital region, to have greater access to some of the key artifacts and treasures of so many great aspects of our Canadian history.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it was perhaps nine months ago when we talked about museums and the mandates of the national museums here in Ottawa. One of the things that struck me as a concern to a lot of people was that many of the national museums do not really involve themselves with the rest of the museums across the country. Certainly there is a yearning to do a lot more of that. There has been a great degree of co-operation, no doubt, but there should be a greater degree of co-operation in the fulfillment of the mandates of each and every museum across the country.

I say this because I want to follow up on a comment from the hon. member for Wild Rose. He talked about how this is a key part of the bill, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is a key element of taking this institution and sharing it with the country, especially now that we are just a few years away from celebrating our sesquicentennial anniversary. I practised saying that word for 20 minutes.

This is a model that is going to present itself to other museums across this country, those national scope, certainly, but also as local as they go, such as the Manitoba Museum, which was announced just a few days ago, and The Rooms in St. John's, Newfoundland, which is a good example in my province.

I thought that this was a key point of the proposed legislation. However, as the hon. member, the leader of the Green Party, pointed out, $25 million really is not going to cut it. The capacity that can be created with just $25 million is just not going to be sufficient. If the bill is going to create a model by which smaller museums could take advantage of it down the road, then that is fine, but it would certainly take a larger investment than $25 million.

I will go back to the issue of why we are doing this, which has to do with branding, a name change, tweaking the mandate and that sort of thing. A lot of the fundamentals from the Museum of Civilization would remain, as the government has said, but then we have to ask ourselves what was wrong with the original plan for the Museum of Civilization going out the next five to 10 years. What was so wrong with it that it needed a name change?

The question then becomes how much greater we can make this institution in the lead-up to 2017, the 150th anniversary of Canada, by changing its name. How much greater would this institution present itself to the entire nation and even to the world?

Let us go back to its base degrees for a moment.

We do not have an equivalent, as has been said, to what is happening with the national museum in the United States and in nations like Germany and other nations. They have their own museums based on their own history, but there is one specific museum. Now we have this.

Let us just leave the Museum of Civilization out of this for just a moment. Let us say that we do not have a Canadian museum of history, but a museum of Canadian history. This is something that actually makes a little more sense if we want to celebrate things like the institutions we have in Maurice Richard's hockey sweater, Jacques Villeneuve's racing suit or the first microphone ever held by Céline Dion. I am just making this up, but members get the idea.

These are icons of this country, like the first hockey stick of Wayne Gretzky. It is not that I am important, but maybe it could be my first school jacket or something like that. Someone just yelled out a very good example. I am a huge fan of Bonhomme Carnaval. Why can we not have his story brought to the country? To do that, we would create a museum of Canadian history.

There were a couple of renditions of this idea when some people talked about converting the conference centre to a museum of Canadian history. However, if we have that, and all the Conservatives are talking about these sweaters and jerseys and this artifact and that, then eventually that museum would probably look more like the West Edmonton Mall than anything else.

That is fine if that is what we want, but we should not fuse that element into what is a fantastic national and international institution like the Museum of Civilization.

At committee Victor Rabinovitch, the former president of the Museum of Civilization, was very concerned about the level of research that was going to be missed out on under this new mandate because some things have been changed and some of the language has been tweaked. For instance, there was talk about an understanding of a Canadian artifact and all things Canadian when it comes to representing our history, but the government omitted the word “critical”. It is no longer a “critical” understanding.

One might think what the difference is with that; well, there is a difference when one is involved in any museum as a curator or an archivist, because for those people to have their work exposed to the general public and get a critical understanding, it has to be opened up to the experts to say what history meant. The interpretation of history will change over time, because people have different interpretations. We have to accept that.

This past weekend I was listening to two historians talking on a CBC radio program. One historian feared that we are now launching into a study of history already knowing the answers, whereas we should be looking at history to change what the understanding was prior to today. Maybe we should use a more critical lens in how we view our history; then we would get a common understanding.

All these nations, all these places that have great national museums go through this process, but the language of the bill dictates that we are slowly getting away from that. Some of the buzzwords like “research” and “independence of the curators” are there, but some of it is missing. The fear is that we are turning this into just a display of artifacts, and that is it.

A museum is a living, breathing mechanism through which we understand ourselves, but that can only be useful to us in the future if it is willing to change, if it is able to look at things and say that this is no longer a static display, this is something that we have to look at again, whether technology dictates it or whether it is some other type of information elsewhere that tells us to go back and revisit how we used to look at history.

When Mr. Rabinovitch talked about this, he was wondering why the government would do this, given the fact that the Museum of Civilization carries with it a tremendous international name. European countries and Asian countries marvel at what the Museum of Civilization has done. It is pretty good for a country with fewer than 40 million people. We have punched above our weight, as the saying goes, when it comes to museums, especially this museum.

He proposed what I thought was a reasonable way of looking at this. He proposed to call it the Canadian museum of history and civilization. It is a good compromise. It recognizes the fact that we have a rich history, as young a country as we are compared to other countries in the world, but it also recognizes the great work that we have done. The name says that we are willing to keep that tradition of having the Museum of Civilization, but enshrined within a context of what it is to be Canadian: the Canadian museum of history and civilization.

To a great extent I understand why we would want to have something that is labelled as Canadian. It shows who we are. It gives a critical understanding of who we are, and that way it attracts more people.

Some people said they came to Ottawa when they were younger and did not know what civilization was, but they realized that it was more about Canadian history. That is a valid point. As far as the marketing goes, we can attract more people that way.

Already some of our national museums find themselves in a financial bind. The Science and Technology Museum needs $3.4 million to handle major structural repairs. The 50-year-old building on St. Laurent Boulevard needs work. Every museum has to find ways of generating more revenue, and this could be one of them. Could a name change do that? To a certain degree it could. It is not the ultimate solution for getting more revenue, but it probably could go in that direction.

I wish we had kept to the theme of putting more Canadian culture within the context of the Museum of Civilization, as opposed to changing some of the language in this legislation and ultimately the corporation. I think that does a disservice to the people who keep updating our artifacts and turning this museum into the international icon that it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep going back to the bill on this. I think I already know what the answer is going to be from the member opposite, but I will keep asking.

The president of the museum, in his opening remarks, said this about research:

Finally, we will continue building our national collection, and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years.

To go back to the actual bill, it says:

undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research

Further on it says:

promote knowledge and disseminate information related to its purpose, throughout Canada and internationally, by any appropriate means of education and communication

Finally, he went on to talk about Dr. Morrison, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto in archeology. He said he would be working with a team of researchers, curators and museologists in collaboration with advisory committees composed of historians and experts from across Canada in helping develop the new displays at the museum.

Clearly it states throughout the bill that research would continue. Clearly there is a team of experts who have been with the museum and will continue to be with the museum who are undertaking the new displays, so I am not entirely certain what the members fear. Do they not have faith in the staff there to put together something that all Canadians would continue to be proud of?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the parliamentary secretary is right in all of what he is saying about how this would affect where we find ourselves in 10 years with this particular museum.

What I fear is that if it is as good as, or even better than, what it is currently or would be 10 years down the road, why did the government fundamentally change some of the language surrounding what the government wants the museum to do? I do not understand where the genesis of this change comes from. Why would the Conservatives disagree with the fact that some of the greatest aspects of the Museum of Civilization will disappear?

I am not quite sure that everyone buys into this idea. To go back to what the professor at York University said this weekend, he said that it is almost as though we are delving into history knowing what the answers are already.

I am not going to say I totally disagree with him. I am just going to say that I hope 10 years down the road, he can prove me wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the point my colleague raised very interesting. Museums change over the decades and Canadian history is important.

However, does he know whether anyone—a museum professional, a present or past director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, historians or university professors—was consulted when Bill C-49 was developed?

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said this was his idea. Does my colleague know whether anyone was consulted when the bill was developed? If not, what does he think is the ideal process for redefining the mandate of a museum as important as the Canadian Museum of Civilization?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the funny thing is that there are several versions of how this consultation took place. We have the government's version and we have other people's versions. It seems that the genesis was a backroom discussion of some sort. It led itself to the minister's office. The proposal was there. It was out as a discussion, but it seemed as though before all of that happened, the legislation was in place. Again, it is almost as though the answer was there before the question was asked, which seems to be somewhat of a pattern here.

Let me put that aside for a moment and say that I hope that in the future the government will consult more broadly. I wish the bill had had the review process that we proposed at committee, but it does not. Nonetheless, I hope that the museum will act as a model to other museums, at least in the vision by which it shares itself across our nation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Durham.

I would caution that we only have seven minutes left in the time allocation motion to hear this debate.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in this House today to not only pledge my support for Bill C-49 but also to tell my personal story in relation to my passion for history and why I totally agree with the vision and applaud our minister and his able parliamentary secretary for bringing the bill before this House for debate tonight.

The bill is known best as the bill that would establish the Canadian museum of history. Really, this would not re-create or re-establish an important national museum. In many ways, it would actually reassert its important mandate as a national institution in Canada. It would also extend that national mandate to all the small towns, villages, and cities across this great nation. History does not just belong in the nation's capital. Indeed, it belongs across the country.

In many ways, the bill is about one of the last crown jewels in the collection of important national museums our government has supported across Canada, going back to our support in 2008 for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, being established in Winnipeg, and, in 2010, to our government's reassertion of the importance of Pier 21 as Canada's national Museum of Immigration, in Halifax.

I had the good fortune to visit Pier 21 in its early years, thanks to the vision of the Goldblooms in Halifax, who brought that important institution to our country.

The day after my wedding, in Halifax, my wife and I, dreary-eyed as we might have been, with my parents, took my grandmother, Madge Hall, to Pier 21, where she first stepped into Canada with her husband and infant daughter, Molly, my mother, after World War II. Not only did we experience that museum but we looked up the manifest of the Lusitania, which they boarded to come to Canada and a tremendous new life. I only wish one of those three people was still here to see their grandson sitting in Canada's Parliament.

In many ways, the bill would refocus our national history museum. I will speak to why I think the national network this museum would create is even more important than the rebranding and refocusing of the institution in Ottawa.

It is indeed a travesty that 90% of our historic artifacts and treasures are in storage. It is time to free these important artifacts from the shackles of indifference and dust and to share them with the small towns across Canada, or indeed, the large museums, such as the ROM or the Royal British Columbia Museum, so that they too can feel an attachment to these important artifacts.

However, the converse is perhaps even more important than getting this national artifact network established. It is also important for museums such as Scugog Shores in Port Perry or the Clarington Archives or the Clarke Museum in Clarington or the Lucy Maud Montgomery museum in Uxbridge to share some of their local artifacts with our national institution in Ottawa.

Thanks to the vision behind Bill C-49, and our Minister of Canadian Heritage , we would have visitors to Canada exploring the Canadian museum of history and seeing the artifacts and the history of the small towns and villages in Durham at our national institution in Ottawa. That would be truly remarkable and important. There would be a dedicated permanent space for exhibits from over 2500 museums across this country.

It is also an honour for me to tell a bit of my personal story tonight, and in my first year, to utter only my second Winston Churchill quote. Churchill said, “Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft”.

My friends on this side of the House should really read more history to learn those secrets to try to take our side of the House. The very fact that they have not leaves me resting assured that we are going to maintain this side of the House, because we have followed the edict of one of the world's greatest parliamentarians.

My love of history started when I was an 18-year-old officer cadet crossing the parade square at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. We had a mandate, as young gentlemen and lady cadets of the college, to learn the history of that historic site.

We gazed at the RMC flag, which was designed by the dean of arts, George Stanley, who shared his vision for the nation's flag in 1964 with John Matheson, a distinguished gunner from the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and later the MP for Leeds. John Matheson is still alive and, at 95, is really one of our living veterans who truly tells the history of this great country.

George Stanley at RMC taught generations of historians who are with us today as leading voices. At RMC he taught Desmond Morton and Jack Granatstein.

In many ways, this debate on why Canada needs a national museum of history was started by one of George Stanley's students, Dr. Jack Granatstein, who, in 1998, wrote Who Killed Canadian History? In many ways, in the years since then, Canadian history has been given a new life. In many ways, this bill would give our national history museum a network of history and a life across the country.

It is my pleasure to rise today in full support of Bill C-49. Indeed, it is our government's answer to the question, "Who killed Canadian history?" We may not be able to answer that, but we certainly know who is breathing new life into the subject.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 10:07 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 15.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, 2013, tomorrow, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.