Debates of June 17th, 2013

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #756

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has four minutes left in his debate time.

Could I ask all members who are not going to stay for the debate to depart the chamber now and those who are staying to stop talking in your loudest voices, please. Try whispering.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

It is okay, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem talking over the opposition.

It is a pleasure to rise again to complete my discussion on the Canadian museum of history. As I said in questions and comments earlier, it is really a shame that for the 50th time we have had to force the opposition to debate a bill in the House. The opposition has been so afraid to do work that, for the 50th time, the government has been forced to bring in time allocation, after eight and a half months of those members delaying and refusing to deal with the important business of the people of Canada. We have been forced to bring in the motion so we can deal with the important matters of governing. It is truly amazing, and I am sure the massive amounts of people watching at home are wondering to themselves what would happen in this country if we ever let the opposition govern. Nothing would get done. Those members would probably talk themselves in circles.

We have heard a lot about what is actually in the bill. Opposition members keep saying we did not listen to them with respect to amendments, and it keeps talking about how we brought in time allocation. As the minister said, this piece of legislation has been before us for eight and a half months, and as much as the opposition has talked about the things it does not like in the bill, 99% of the amendments it brought in were focused on one thing and that was the addition of one word to the name of the museum. Opposition members focused on that in committee. They were okay with calling it the Canadian museum of history, but they wanted us to add the word “civilization”. That made up 99% of their concerns.

After eight and a half months and hours of debate, this legislation sailed through committee. It did not even take us the full amount of time in committee to deal with the proposed amendments. As a result of there being so little opposition by the parties opposite, the legislation sailed through. Because we did not agree to adding that one word, they want to continue debate for many more months.

A number of things have been brought forward by the opposition. I will focus on the opposition critic, the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who talked a lot about critical understanding. Using his own words in his speech, he said, “What a scary word. The museum will no longer have the mandate to share its wealth of knowledge with the rest of the world”. That was one of the reasons he will not support the bill. Had he read paragraph 9(1)(h) on the second page of the bill, he would have seen it says that the museum will be continuing to do research.

That member also talked about how the people of Ottawa and Quebec and the tourism commission would react to this legislation. We already know that the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau support the bill. The original architect Douglas Cardinal supports the bill. Thousands of Canadians participated in discussions and consultations with respect to the new mandate of the museum.

Hundreds of Canadians across Canada are excited about this new Canadian museum of history. Communities across the country are excited at having the opportunity to share in the collections that are currently in storage. Even more important, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday we would have a new institution that would tell the stories of Canada, not only to Canadians but to people around the world. We live in the best country in the world and we should not be afraid to show that off, not only to Canadians but to people around the world.

I commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for bringing the bill forward. I also commend all those members on both sides of the House who will be supporting it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has said that no substantive amendments were brought forward, but in fact there were two very substantive amendments. He is mistaking substantive with simple. They were simple and substantive at the same time. Those members over there have a problem with some of this stuff. The amendment was around research and posterity. It was a motion that included bringing research and posterity back into the language. This is important because we heard witness testimony from the former head of the museum stating that, time and time again, he and his staff referred to the mandate of the museum as a way of guiding them in their internal decisions. That is why we thought this amendment was so crucial.

There was another amendment that included just adding the word “civilization” back into the title of the museum.

Both of these amendments were simple and substantive, and the government voted them down. Those members are mischaracterizing the debate that went on in committee. They allowed only one day for witnesses to come forward for this study. Also, earlier this afternoon we heard another motion for time allocation.

Why does the member opposite have such a hard time parsing simple and substantive, when both of those measures were simple and substantive?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny listening to the member because he tried to pull this in committee. He said we only allowed one day for witness testimony. Then the Conservative members called him on that and actually went back and unanimously decided to release the minutes of the committee meeting to the public where it had been unanimously agreed how long we would spend dealing with witnesses. They had agreed to how long we would spend talking to witnesses. The New Democrats say one thing in private and another thing in public and they have been caught out on it.

This is the same thing. They ask why we have to bring in closure. It is because they say one thing in public and another in private. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to move forward with things like the Canadian museum of history, as well as jobs and economic growth. We do not have time to play the silly, childish games of the NDP.

Specifically to some of the other questions, the member talked about research. Had he read page 2 of the bill he would have seen that in paragraph 9(1)(f) it talks specifically about research. He talked about putting history in the name. The whole mandate of the museum is Canadian history. I do not know what more we have to do to put it in. He talked about curatorial independence. The only people who are asking the government to interfere in the museum's independence are the New Democrats.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned something about only a very small portion of the amendments dealing with the name change. In our case actually that represented less than 20% of the amendments that we put forward.

One of the amendments that I thought was a reasonable one was that a review process would be set up, similar to what was proposed in Bill C-11, the Copyright Act. I said every three years, but would have been open to five years. By doing that, we would get to review the mandates of each of the museums, not just this one. This was a golden opportunity to open up all these national museums, because we are now getting into an area where we are looking at these national museums, this one in particular, sharing their resources with the rest of the country.

I thought this was a good way to review how this process would be being played out for the sake of the institutions across the country that want to share in this. How does he feel about this review process?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian heritage committee, we have jurisdiction to do that any time we want. We do not have to wait three years to review the mandate of any museum.

The Liberals and the NDP have a number of opposition day motions that they can bring forward for us to debate in the House. At committee, we can discuss anything we want whenever we want and call whatever witnesses we want. In fact, if the member looks, he will find that at Canadian heritage committee many of the motions that we have brought forward and that we have discussed recently have been motions that were brought forward by the opposition.

Do I think we should be reviewing it? Absolutely. That is our job. Does it need to be in legislation? No, because I do not think as parliamentarians we need to be told when and how we should be reviewing any of the functions of government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very keen to rise today to voice the opinion of many Canadians, especially many of this country's historians, and to debate the Conservative government's Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History.

In my humble opinion, this is not a very good or a very welcome idea. Of course, that is quite the opposite of what we have been hearing for a number of hours, but I believe that I have some points that deserve to be shared, considered and discussed.

Why is it a bad idea? First of all, I strongly suspect that the Conservative government—particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage—does not know what history is, who makes it, and the issues related to teaching, education and Canadian history. In fact, the last few minutes of debate have bolstered my convictions. I am talking about history with a capital “H” because we are talking about the science, not Canadian history.

Perhaps there is an excuse. After all, he is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not the minister of history. That would explain the confusion because when we talk about heritage, it is easier to draw up a list of cultural assets and items that attest to the identity of a country, a people or a nation.

Historical objects are a part of heritage. However, history itself, the historical narrative and the Canadian identity are not as easy to put on display. If that were the case, historians would have stopped producing works about Canada's colonization, the establishment of the parliamentary system in our country or the emancipation of women in our society.

The fact that we continue to debate these phenomena is proof that our understanding of them is not static. When I say “we”, I am referring to historians rather than politicians. By putting these phenomena in a museum, we run the risk of ending debate and dissimulating the reality.

In even clearer terms, creating a museum with objects that represent Canadian history and identity stems from a particularly dated concept or vision of history. There are not many historians left in Canada or the world who describe the science of history in this way.

Many historians would say that this idea could only come from a conservator. I mean that in the sense of a conservator who wants to preserve something in its existing state and perhaps even wants to have something preserved by the state. Who knows? The idea that history is an unchangeable, written, eternal truth that lends itself to being put in a museum is an idea that no longer holds true in this day and age. That goes without saying.

There may be one exception. There was a major history museum project in France, championed by President Sarkozy. However, after much opposition, the project completely fell apart. No, we should not be following France's example. I agree. However, when it comes to museums, it could be useful to look at what our partners are doing. France does have a certain amount of museum expertise that warrants our respect.

It seems that the history museum was, by his own admission, the Minister of Canadian Heritage's idea. I heard him say it. Since when do politicians deal with history-related issues? Leave that to the historians.

As politicians, we may have the luxury—perhaps even the duty—of creating history through our actions and our contributions, but we should never impose our perspective on history. Politicians are involved in commemorating and celebrating historic events, but they are not involved in history with a capital H. Those issues are far too serious for us as politicians. It needs to be said: we are not experts in teaching history.

For pity's sake, let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists, or at the very least, let us consult them before going any further. Moreover, the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressed a number of misgivings, particularly about the way things were done. The members of the association said:

We call on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to stop its process of redesigning that museum until a panel of distinguished figures in historical and museum work is created and has an opportunity to prepare recommendations on a more appropriate direction for re-developing this outstanding heritage site.

Note the use of the verb “call on”. This is rather strong language. The members are not saying, “we ask”, “we advise” or “we suggest”, but rather, “we call on the Department of Canadian Heritage”.

Clearly, therefore, it is not simply a matter creating a new museum out of thin air, a museum that will grow out of nothing. It is about transforming a museum that already exists and that has already acquired a sterling reputation.

As I stated, these issues are far too serious for the humble politicians that we are. Let us leave history to historians and museums to museologists. Let us allow them to decide among themselves how best to define the parameters, the strategic directions, the problems and the subject matter that will be exhibited at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will eventually be renamed. The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation is a crown corporation set up under the Museums Act. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is therefore responsible for it and the act determines the museum’s mandate.

Before changing a winning formula—one of the most-visited museums in Canada, and certainly one of the best-known outside our borders—why does the minister not consult the various interested parties more broadly? For example, he might consult the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, stakeholders in the Outaouais region, historians and the first nations, who are heavily involved in and well represented at the current Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Once the announcement was made, public consultations were held in about a dozen Canadian cities, but the consultation process seemed bogus because the decision was already made. Earlier, I heard that contracts had already been signed. I therefore wonder what we are doing right now in the House.

The examples of decisions made on this issue unfortunately leave me no ray of hope. The sudden closing and hasty dismantling of the Canadian Postal Museum show the total lack of transparency around the process. There were tightly controlled consultations, which had limited success. However, the consultations did not allow Canadians to question the decision to transform the museum, despite opposition from a large number of Canadians who traveled to take part in them. The minister is intervening in an area that is not his cup of tea, and without extensive consultation with experts.

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said I had total confidence in this bill and in the future of the museum. Over the weekend, just when I was telling him about the bill, a friend of mine who is a historian said the following. I am quoting him, because I would have great difficulty putting it any better: “It is difficult to express an opinion on the real intentions of a Conservative government that is as reluctant to show exactly what is underneath this matter as it is to show exactly what is underneath women’s clothes.” We spent the rest of the time just having a friendly discussion.

There is another aspect of this bill that bothers me. With the change in the mandate and the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the public is being introduced to the idea that political power, that is, the Conservative government of Canada, may decide on its own about the content and significance of the exhibits that will be presented there, or at least strongly influence them. I find the possibility of partisan politics interfering in a world-renowned scientific and cultural institution to be absolutely unbearable.

The artist that I am, or that I am modestly trying to be, is completely averse to any use of culture and the arts for partisan purposes. While scientists and artists look at the world with creativity and critical judgment, the political world is generally quite risk-adverse, especially the party opposite.

As my time is quickly coming to an end, I will leave out some of the arguments that I had kept in reserve. I will conclude by saying that it is because I am certain that Canadian history and Canadian historians deserve better that I cannot support such a bill.

The role of a government in the area of culture is to allow debates to be held and to provide locations for meetings, research and expression. I cannot support this partisan initiative, as it promotes Conservative symbols, such as an attachment to the monarchy, an insistence on military values in a civilian context, an inordinate celebration of old wars, and so on.

This is a deliberate strategy designed to rewrite Canadian identity. This is not the role of the House of Commons, and it is not the role of a member of Parliament or a minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments and my question specific to the member's discussion with respect to content in the new museum. He talked also about one of the witnesses at committee, the representative of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, James Turk.

At committee, I asked Mr. Turk if professors taught the same lesson plan year after year. Professor Turk answered back as I expected, that they certainly did not. I asked if they modified it and updated it and he said yes. I asked him why they did that and he said that knowledge and information changed. Therefore, I thought that somehow within the teaching of education things changed, but our museums were supposed to stay the same forever. They were never supposed to change.

More specifically, he talked about the content of the new museum and who would put it together.

We heard from the president of the museum. After the consultations, when we had hundreds of thousands of responses from Canadians across the country, he said:

Those comments, suggestions, and pleadings will inform our every decision going forward. The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum...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.

Does the member know something about Dr. David Morrison, who has a Ph.D in archaeology, is very well published and has years of experience? Is there something about him that we should know that makes him unqualified to lead the research into these new exhibits?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am all the more comfortable answering it since I myself changed my lesson plans to adjust them to each new element that shed light on what I was teaching, on my assigned mandate.

The idea today is not to determine whether new light can be shed. The bill in fact changes the purpose of the course. The difference is like night and day. It goes without saying that a qualified teacher who says that updates are always welcome is absolutely right as long as the objective and the subject of the course remain the same. However, the aim of this bill is to change the subject of the course.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives tell us, this bill does not just change the museum's name. Several amendments have been made to section 8 of the Museums Act. The purpose of those amendments is to change the museum's areas of interest. Thus, instead of covering all of Canada and other countries, it will focus solely on Canadians.

In many instances, culture is also a way of engaging in diplomacy. Under the Conservatives, unfortunately, Canada has become the laughingstock of the international community in negotiations on climate change and in its lack of support for Canadian culture.

As my colleague said, Canadians and Canadian history deserve better than the Conservatives. Does he have any comments to make on that subject?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for appropriately raising that point.

One of the legitimate fears regarding Bill C-49 is that it will become a symbol of an inward-looking attitude. The Museum of Civilization, as we currently know it, is probably one of the Canadian museums, if not the Canadian museum, with the greatest international reputation. We would be depriving ourselves of that and would stop developing our international brand in order to turn inward and focus on our history. Not that we should stop studying our history, far from it, but we would be studying Canadian history without viewing it in a distinctly broader international context.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. 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 its history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

The Canadian museum of history would strive to be a national and international destination, but would also focus on its role as a leader, a hub in the network of Canadian history museums and a centre of expertise. The Canadian Museum of Civilization has always had an international role as a knowledge-creating institution. This will not change. Indeed, the museum will continue to conduct scientific research and share its expertise on collections, management, research and conservation with other museums around the world.

It is important that we all understand that the focus of research in the archaeology, history and ethnology sections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization has always been the advancement of Canada's human and military history. The new mandate confirms that focus and nothing in this legislation will diminish that role in any way.

In fact, it is expected that the museum would create its activities working closely with the network of Canadian museums to make its national collection available through loans and travelling exhibitions. It would also provide a permanent venue and an additional 7,500 square feet at the new museum for other Canadian museums to showcase their collections and contribute to the national narrative.

I am pleased that these partnerships would do four things. First, they would further the collective telling of Canadian history. Second, they would leverage strengths of partners, for example, in the area of loans expertise and exhibitions. Third, they would focus on gaps in the collection. Finally, they would achieve financial benefits, such as cost-sharing and joint initiatives. Partnerships would promote collaboration and co-productions, the sharing of artifacts, the development of online projects and the exchange of professional expertise.

I would like to outline how the museum plans to establish three levels of partnership. These plans include a history museum network, a museum affiliate program and formalized partnerships with federal organizations and other key public and private institutions.

First, the history museum network would consist of several of the largest museums in the country, museums that have significant capacity and have the mandate to cover the history of Canada. There will be many advantages to members of this network, including a venue at the new museum where exhibitions and programs produced by members can be showcased, the ability to receive exhibitions and programs developed by the Canadian museum of history, opportunities for co-production of exhibitions and programs, visual brand association and identity and links to the Canadian museum of history and Canadian War Museum websites.

Second, the museum affiliate program would consist of a group of generally smaller institutions across the country that, subject to criteria and standards, would be able to borrow or co-operate on collections, programs and exhibits. These advantages to affiliates would include, but not be limited to, the ability to borrow collections, programs and travelling exhibits from the Canadian museum of history, the ability to partner with the Canadian museum of history as a research affiliate and opportunities to showcase affiliate-produced exhibitions at the Canadian museum of history.

I am particularly excited that the smaller museums will be able to borrow collections at the national level. This means that these exhibits, which display our rich history, will travel across the country. Also, affiliates will be invited to an annual affiliates conference in conjunction with the Canadian Museums Association, which will be an opportunity to share expertise and ideas that will benefit all.

Third, the Canadian museum of history would have formalized partnerships with key public and private organizations. It would play a leadership role as the hub in a network of Canadian history museums.

I am pleased to relay that all of the partner museums will have a role to play in shaping and reshaping the network over time. It will be a collaborative effort with local museums being able to contribute and share knowledge.

The museum network will be able to take coordinated, common approaches to the history and exhibits of key moments in Canadian history. These moments will not be defined at the national level, but rather defined by local museums from one end of the country to the other.

The years leading up to 2017 will provide many great opportunities for our history museums across the country to celebrate Canadian history. The millions of people who visit Canadian museums of history will not only see exhibits created by staff at that museum, but they will see exhibits created by museums of all sizes in all part of Canada. They will, perhaps for the first time, be presented with key historical events, people, experiences and objects that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

We all have museums in our ridings. In many ridings, museums are housed in an old mill or factory, or maybe an old school or train station. In these museums, there are often not any employees, only volunteers. These are people who may not be recognized around the world for their expertise in museums, but who are certainly recognized in their communities for their dedication to doing their best to conserve and display objects for future generations.

The network of Canadian history museums is just one of the reasons why I urge my colleagues to support Bill C-49. This is one of the most important bills before us.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, it is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is only the beginning, because if we want to explain history to Canadians, it first must be written. We will have to remember what happened in a country where a war of conquest took place, where slavery once existed, where aboriginal populations were repressed and where colonial laws have reigned for the past 150 years.

Who will write it and whose version of history will we be able to agree on?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Canadians themselves.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more controversial than history. We have not yet finished learning about our past. Soon we will have no more archeologists to carry out digs where they are urgently needed.

It will be such a disaster the day they begin trying to tell their version of history. We have to wonder who will write this history and how it will be used.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member asked about the chaotic development of a museum. I am not quite sure what the question was. He kind of rambled around from the history of long ago to the history of today and which venue of history we would believe in.

However, there is only one venue to believe in, and that is the historical truth of Canada. We will rely on museums that are in existence and we will rely on expertise that can help us develop those museums further. As I said in my speech, we have dedicated 7,500 extra square feet to do just those kinds of things.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague spoke about the Canadian museum of history, he talked about the 150th birthday that Canada would soon be celebrating and the importance of the museum.

Could he reflect for a moment on its importance to his riding, how this museum would tie directly into his riding and how his constituents would then celebrate our 150th birthday of Canada?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, 150 years are fast approaching. A couple of years from now we will be there.

In the riding of Palliser there are many museums. One of the finest is in Moose Jaw. It is air conditioned and heated to the tune that it will house any kind of painting. It is the only facility like that between Toronto and Vancouver. There are many opportunities for other smaller museums to enjoy borrowing a display from larger museums for a number of days, returning it and taking another display. I am thinking of those in Assiniboia, Rockland and Avonlea, which are small but unique museums.

That 150th anniversary will be an exciting time, and we are looking forward to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, how are those museums that the hon. member mentioned going to afford to do that? Do they get in on that $25 million as well? Perhaps they have their own way of doing it. It could be problematic if there is no financial support for these places to be able to share in this national collection.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. member from across the floor, some dollars would be earmarked for the exchange of artifacts between museums. That amount has not been determined. Restructuring of existing dollars may well handle the whole operation without any further drain on the taxpayer.

The museums themselves often stage various fundraising events that make a lot a money. I am always surprised how small communities of 700 or 800 people are able to raise $10,000. There are avenues to explore other than just government grants. I am sure they would do that.