Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues have shared their fears and concerns about how this bill is yet another Conservative government attempt to rewrite history. This bill would change the museum's mandate as we approach the 150th anniversary celebration of Canadian Confederation in 2017.
Here are just a few examples of the Conservative Party's efforts to politicize Canadian symbols: replacing two paintings by Alfred Pellan with a portrait of the Queen on a wall of the Foreign Affairs building; directing Canadian embassies abroad to display a portrait of the Queen; renaming the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force; installing a stained glass window depicting the Queen at the entrance to the Senate; changing many street and building names; and drawing tremendous attention to the commemoration of the War of 1812, a move still criticized by many historians.
Members of the House are not the only ones who are worried. Some historians say that this change comes at a time when the Conservative government is eliminating tools that are essential to history, culture and education. It has made cuts to Statistics Canada—particularly the long-form census—Library and Archives Canada, Parks Canada and many of our historic sites.
We do not object to the idea of a Canadian museum of history. After all, it is quite common for a country to have a history museum. Some people, including Pierre Anctil, a history professor at the University of Ottawa, fear that “Canadian history may be manipulated or politicized”.
According to Université du Québec en Outaouais professor of museology and heritage, Éric Langlois, “This is not just a change in name; it is a change in mission. It is tendentious.” He is concerned that the government will once again focus on the history of the British military and the monarchy in Canada with a sidebar about the War of 1812. He believes that this could “add fuel to the fire of differences in perspective between Quebec and the rest of the country”.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers echoed that sentiment, rallying over 60,000 professors against changing the museum's mission. In its presentation, the association says:
Alongside the great quantities of public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government’s political agenda – that is, the evocation of particular features of our past as worthy of official endorsement and promotion.
Some journalists have echoed the questions and concerns about this change in mandate. They have said the change is a reflection of “the Conservatives' narrow vision of culture. A vision based primarily on old-fashioned patriotism at the expense of the openness embodied by the Museum of Civilization”. This quote was from a column published in La Presse.
Although museums are supposed to be independent under the Museums Act, that did not prevent the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology from opening an exhibition on different energy sources in Canada in November 2011. This exhibition included a section on Alberta's oils sands that took the Conservative government's pro-development stance. The exhibition was financed and designed in part by the oil sands lobby.
When the Canadian Museum for Human Rights was created, the minister at the time, Josée Verner, created an advisory committee whose mandate was to hear from the public and experts about three matters.
One of the matters was the museum's mission. The people who participated in the web-based consultations and focus group testing expressed concerns that the Canadian Museum for Human Rights could be influenced by political activities or special interest groups, in a manner that could affect, or be perceived to affect, the integrity and balance of its exhibitions and programs.
In addition, the committee's 30th recommendation states:
Be, and be Seen to be, Independent--The Board will need to not only ensure that it remains autonomous and free from influence, but also to be seen to be autonomous and free from influence.
Those are just two examples, and then there are the cases in which the government cuts funding to all the supposedly independent and autonomous organizations when they do not promote the government's values.
The government cannot simply claim that the act will prevent the minister from personally interfering in programming or in the choice of exhibits if it wants to reassure the public and the House about the real reason behind this change.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the largest and most popular museum in Canada. Indeed, it welcomed over 1.3 million visitors last year. It is an unrivalled success story.
Yet, in his announcement the minister claimed that:
Canada needs a national institution that celebrates our achievements and what we have accomplished together...They define who we are as Canadians. They define our history—Canada’s history.
Diane Pacom, a professor specializing in arts and culture, is not too concerned about the change and pointed out that according to its guiding principles, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the “national institution responsible for preserving and promoting the heritage of Canada, and contributing to the collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians”. Therefore there is no inconsistency in terms of the new name intended for the museum. That is precisely where the problem lies.
The museum already had a mandate and mission primarily focused on Canadian history and culture, under the Museums Act. Why change them, then? What changed?
In the new museum's mission, the expression “objects of historical or cultural interest” has been replaced with “objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity”.
The reference to objects of historical or cultural interest initially contained in the museum’s four capacities and powers is kept in only one of the powers of the new museum, that of collecting. They have withdrawn from the new museum the power to sell, give away or lend these types of objects, or to organize travelling exhibits with them, which is quite strange given the new collaborative approach between the Museum of History and the regional museums that this government is promoting.
In addition to removing the reference to “objects of historical or cultural interest”, the bill takes away the new museum’s international vocation. It will no longer have the mandate to increase interest, respect and critical understanding; it will simply have a mission to increase knowledge of and respect for Canadian achievements. It is hoped that the new museum will promote events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and that it will make Canadians aware of world history and other cultures. The mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization was instead to promote human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.
The new museum will not have the power to undertake or sponsor research, primarily basic, theoretical or applied research. In the future, it will have the power to “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology”.
Two minor changes also in the two powers listed in the bill could pave the way for the appearance of a lack of independence. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization included establishing and fostering liaison with other organizations with similar purposes. It will now be up to the Museum of History to establish and promote—not foster—liaison with other organizations with a purpose similar to its own. The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization included sharing the expertise of its staff by undertaking and sponsoring programs for training and apprenticeship in the professional and technical skills involved in the operation of other organizations with a purpose similar to its purpose. This will be replaced by “share the expertise of its staff by undertaking or sponsoring training and apprenticeship programs that relate to its purpose.”
In light of all these ambiguities and concerns arising from this bill, I have the impression that the Conservatives are getting a taste of their own medicine, in that their characteristic mistrust, arrogance and partisanship come through in this bill, rightly or wrongly. This means that if the bill had been introduced by a different government, perhaps no one would have made any fuss about it. It is sad and it is dangerous. With this bill, the government is going to learn that it cannot get away with playing with symbols as it is doing in this case and as it has done in a number of other cases in the past.