Hélène Laverdière

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

If he remained quiet, if he stopped talking and listened to me, perhaps he would be able to understand the point that I am trying to make.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

My colleague says that I said there was not, but I never said that. This proves once again that he really has a problem with listening.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think that if anyone has not understood something here, it is my honourable colleague. He has really not understood the points that I mentioned.

Previously, promoting Canada’s image abroad was part of the goal. Of course, we are keeping an aspect such as the understanding of the history of the world by Canadians, but this element of promoting our image abroad has disappeared. Of course, there is a research element. A museum cannot exist without a research element. A distinction must be made.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if it were not so depressing, it would be laughable. The bill before us does an extremely good job of representing the Conservatives’ attitude towards knowledge, learning, education, science and even Canada's place in the world.

Allow me to summarize the situation. Let us discuss the role of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in maintaining a collection of objects for research and for posterity. Done. Finished. That is precisely what the Conservative government is all about. To hell with research and to hell with posterity. This disdain for posterity can also be seen in its environmental policy.

The museum's mandate, which until recently was to cover Canadian and global content, has suddenly lost the second component of its work. It is no longer a matter of telling people abroad about our history and about who we are. Now, we care only about ourselves, in a narrow vision of what our interests are from a minimalist standpoint.

Reading over the bill, I wondered in fact if it had been written by the Minister of International Cooperation, because it has his usual trademarks.

Not only that, but the museum’s current mandate refers to critical understanding. Critical. What a nightmare for the Conservatives. Anything critical, even a critical mind, is not something they are fond of. No problem. They simply got rid of the word “critical”, just as they would like to get rid of criticism in general.

As if that were not enough, they are changing the museum’s name. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is history. In my time in the House, my impression has been that “civilization” is another word that the Conservatives do not like much. It is worth noting that the exhibitions on cultures and civilizations, which are extremely popular, will now have to play second fiddle.

The tragedy is that the Conservatives’ scorched earth policy is not only affecting the Canadian Museum of Civilization. They have already decimated knowledge and research throughout the government and the country. They have muzzled and fired archaeologists, archivists, librarians and scientists, and are shunting basic research aside. The list appears to be endless.

Even in my riding , they are on the attack—that is the only word to describe what they are doing by scuppering the Biosphere.

Since there are many similarities between the Biosphere file and that of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, I will take the liberty to speak for Hervé Fischer, president of Science pour tous, and a group of Quebeckers who recently released a letter on the subject, from which I will quote the following:

On the heels of cuts imposed on the Biosphere in July 2012, the federal government is now laying off most staff and putting in employees from the meteorological services. The Environment Museum will not survive. Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review its mandate. Some public access will be retained, it would seem, but what form will they take? How can a museum like this one be operated without staff? Such is the fate reserved for this emblem of Montreal! Inaugurated in 1995 as the result of an agreement between the city of Montreal and the federal government, it became the sole environment museum in North America in 2007. Today, we bear witness to its painful demise.

Goodbye to museologists, educators, interpreters, designers and technicians! Too bad for visitors from here and elsewhere. Gone are the major events that left their mark at the site, such as Cousteau’s Calypso, Vittorio’s drawings and children’s craftwork around fire hydrants, the Recycling Artists Eco-Fair, and so on. Disappointment awaits those classes of young people who were warmly greeted and were offered activities that were both recreational and educational. The same goes for the others from all over Canada who could gain video conference access to educational activities in their mother tongue.

[Drastically reduced] public access to the greatest architectural masterpiece by Buckminster Fuller...The Biosphere’s fate extends beyond tourism. Environment Canada was a major source of scientific and technical knowledge. The Biosphere could have continued disseminating this knowledge to the public, which is something that clearly does not appear on the list of priorities of the current government...As museum and heritage institutions are on the chopping block, the end result is that young people will be losing irreplaceable expertise...A sad fate indeed.

I would like to point out that one of my proud constituents, Mr. René Binette, president of Écomusée du fier monde, will present a resolution to the Canadian Museums Association this week. I am sure the association will also address the issue of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

I would like to comment further on the Canadian Museum of Civilization. I would like to echo James Turk, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I fully share his point of view. In his opinion, this decision is a mistake. It needlessly eliminates the largest and most popular museum in Canada. Some parts of the current museum will be integrated into the new Canadian Museum of History, but others, such as the immense Canada Hall, the largest and finest social history display in the country, will not be. If the government really wants to highlight Canada’s history, it should restore funding for Library and Archives Canada, renew its support for local and regional archives and reinstate the budget for the protection and improvement of historic sites in Canada. Once it has done so, it can then envision creating a museum of history with a totally independent board of directors that would ensure the institution does not become a vehicle for government propaganda.

In fact, just as Canadians said about the Biosphere, the only thing you can say is “what a sad fate”. I hope that all Canadians who are concerned about this situation will join us in opposing the bill as strongly as possible.

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be, once again, too little too late. Prabhdeep Srawn is a Canadian Forces reservist who has been missing for two weeks in Australia, and when his family reached out for help, the government ignored them.

Mr. Srawn has proudly served our country. Now our country should be doing more for him. Why will the Conservatives not listen to the concerns of his family? Why have they not listened and worked to bring him home?

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments made by our colleagues opposite bring back memories. They are telling us that they are doing or are going to do all sorts of things. They are making excuses for not doing the right thing, which would be to agree with referring the bill to committee for further study.

This is a very important bill, especially in the current context. The government is putting more emphasis on natural resource development in developing countries, as part of its international co-operation strategy.

The development of natural resources can certainly be part of the equation, but it has to be done properly to benefit Canadians, particularly the poorest people in the country.

The problem is that the government thinks of itself as a sort of magic wand. I am seeing a growing tendency toward this type of magical thinking. The government says it will develop natural resources and that—just like that, by waving a magic wand—everything will automatically be better and everyone will be happy. I do not think that the Conservatives realize how complex this issue is.

One of the first questions that needs to be asked when we talk about natural resource development is whom does it benefit and what control do the people of a resource-rich country have over the way their government manages the benefits of that development. We know that far too often the elite of those countries has easy access to non-tax revenue, which allows them to eschew accountability and even oppress their own people.

To avoid that, greater transparency is key. That is why, for years now, so many agencies and countries have been working to improve transparency.

In Canada we have the Resource Revenue Transparency Working Group, which includes the Mining Association of Canada, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and Publish What You Pay Canada. Publish What You Pay is a global network of organizations around the world. Together with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, PWYP is one of the most active organizations when it comes to transparency.

The hon. member was saying that we want to be on a level playing field with the other countries because, otherwise, it would not be fair for Canadian businesses. We know that the other countries have made a great deal more progress than Canada has to date. For example, in 2010, the United States passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which contains measures that are fairly similar to the ones proposed in the private member's bill before us today.

The European Union, Australia and the United Kingdom are also planning to implement similar standards. The G8 also wants to make this a priority at its next meeting, which is scheduled to take place in June.

Canada, the country with the most registered mining companies, is lagging behind. That is why we appreciate the idea behind this bill. The bill seeks to require Canadian mining, oil and gas companies to submit annual reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purpose of furthering mining, oil or gas activities.

[Syria, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Syria is getting worse by the day. Here in Canada, the Humanitarian Coalition launched an appeal to Canadians, calling on them to join forces to help the people of Syria. Last week alone, they raised $170,000 in donations.

Will the government follow the example set by these generous Canadians and also answer the call? Will it commit to matching their donations?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental roles of Parliament and the opposition is to scrutinize and examine budgets and expenditures.

All the necessary tools must be made available to MPs so that they can do their job on behalf of the people they represent. This includes various measures. It includes the budget office. It also includes having the time to thoroughly examine budget bills. All the tools must be made available to MPs so that they can perform this essential role.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which was excellent as always.

Two main points were raised here. One of them is vital, and that is knowing what could have been done with that money. I mentioned that we could have helped close to a million people who rely on food banks every month, continued to participate in international efforts or participated in programs such as the eco-energy program. I am also thinking of the fight against homelessness, which is an extremely important issue that affects my riding in particular.

However, we do not know what could have been done with the money because we do not know where the money is. The Auditor General made that very clear. Of course, we cannot say that the money was misspent but nor can we say that it was well spent.

Why is the government refusing to get to the bottom of this? Is this an indication that the money was in fact misspent? If the Conservatives are so confident that the money was well spent, why not simply agree to get to the bottom of things?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

As I mentioned earlier, not just about the amendment, but basically about the substance of the motion, I have a great deal of difficulty believing that members who represent their constituents can refuse to shed light on a matter that all Canadians are concerned about.

I am sorry, but I do not understand their logic and reasoning.