Mauril Bélanger

[International Co-operation, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when there was a coup d'état in Mali in the spring of 2012, many countries, including Canada, suspended their bilateral assistance programs.

Shortly after, when a provisional government was sworn in, only a few countries reinstated their programs. However, after this summer's presidential election and once President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta was sworn in on September 5, the majority of countries reinstated their assistance programs. Canada did not.

Why?

[Co-operatives, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Co-op Week. Last year, the House recognized the importance of co-operatives by unanimously adopting my motion to create a special committee, which worked hard and achieved positive results, including shifting responsibility for co-operatives to Industry Canada.

Now we have to keep this going. That is why we announced earlier this week that my colleague, the member for York West, would at the earliest opportunity move a motion to create a subcommittee of the industry committee and that this subcommittee's work would be dedicated to assisting co-operatives across the country. We hope our colleagues from all parties will support this motion.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that today is International Credit Union Day and that credit unions also deserve that we pay more attention to them.

I wish to reaffirm my commitment, and that of my party, to do our best to create an environment that helps co-operatives flourish and contributes to their members' well-being.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question.

I just want to say that on the weekend I had the great pleasure of reading a fairly well-written piece in The Globe and Mail about our Supreme Court Chief Justice. I think colleagues here may wish to read that report, because the Chief Justice did make comments about the direction the bill we are now going to be debating for the next five hours or so is headed. I think members might want to take it into account before they cast their vote.

[Privilege, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the issue being debated is very serious. Since the House will, in all likelihood, adjourn this week—on Friday, according to the parliamentary calendar—Canadians are wondering what is going to happen if the issue is not resolved this week. I have two questions for my colleague.

Can we expect the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to sit today and promptly report to the House, so that the House may dispose of the matter this week? If not, can we expect the committee to sit in the days following adjournment, rather than wait until the fall? It is important that this question be asked because Canadians will want to know what is going to happen over the days to come.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I was here when the bill was debated on May 28. The hon. member gave some assurances, which I thought were significant, and I will quote him. It is on page 17197 of Hansard:

It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present a history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum.

Yet on June 11, the Ottawa Citizen ran a story about Nishga Girl, which is a fairly significant centrepiece of the Hall, which was being removed.

What value are the assurances, and to what extent are they real, that he and another one of his colleagues gave to the House on May 28?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, museums must be able to do research and critical analysis. Museums are not supposed to glorify anyone. I am very proud to be Canadian. I always have been and I always will be.

However, it is important for national institutions to be created in a spirit of harmony and respect, for their mission to be objective, non-partisan and not focused on a reductionist approach to our society as a whole.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to criticize, I would hope he would criticize with facts. The amendments we put forward included re-establishing the research component of the museum, which is crucial.

Also, what I said about Mr. Morrison was not that he cannot do his job. He said that they have a mandate. That is not accurate, because until Parliament changes the mandate, the mandate of the Museum of Civilization stands. There is no new mandate until Parliament says so, no matter how much he would like it.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of what we are witnessing here today, I suspect that if the museum becomes the Canadian museum of history, future generations will see this period in our history as a dark period, when equality between men and women actually took a major step backward.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I, too, am deeply troubled by this initiative and the way it has been presented.

I sat in on some of the committee sessions, including the one where Mr. Rabinovitch and five other witnesses were presenting their views, half of whom opposed the changes. There were some very constructive changes that came from them. One of those recommendations was that instead of the name being the Museum of History, it would be the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization. The reasoning behind that was quite straightforward: why change a great brand? To say anything else would be inaccurate because the Museum of Civilization is a fairly significant brand.

Mr. Rabinovitch said, “The Museum of Civilization is described throughout the global tourism industry as one of Canada's must-see landmarks. It actually receives a three star billing from the Guide Michelin; Parliament only receives two stars”. It may be only one star these days. He also mentioned Frommer's Travel Guides, Lonely Planet and on it goes, as examples of guides stating that people must visit this place.

He further stated, “Visitor recognition of the name and the style of the CMC is enviable. It's one of the country's bright spots in showing itself. Foreign diplomats make this point repeatedly, and they use the museum as a key orientation point for new staff who arrive, and also for dignitaries”.

I thought the recommendation that the name be changed to “The Canadian Museum of History and Civilization” was very constructive, but it was unfortunately not even taken into consideration.

The other point that was brought up, and was far more troubling, was the abandonment of the research component. Again, I understand that the member for Lethbridge said the current president, Mr. O'Neill, supports it. However, he is in a bit of a quandary. If he did not support it, that would leave him very few options, since he is the one who is currently employed there. If he did not support it, I think we would probably see another Munir Sheikh appear on the national stage. The fact, though, that two previous presidents, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Rabinovitch, are both adamantly opposed to this speaks volumes, yet the Conservatives refused to listen. Therefore, it is troubling that they would do that.

What were the reasons advanced for it? The Conservatives said that the government is going to put $25 million into the museum and that it needs to change the name. Sorry, that does not wash. If they are going to encourage the museum to share its collection, I am absolutely in total agreement there. No one in his or her right mind would oppose that. The question is very simple: Do they need to change the name of the museum to do that? The answer is no. The Museum of Science and Technology does it, and the Museum of Aviation does it. We have not seem them change their name. Although, the Museum of Aviation actually did change its name by adding the word “Space”. That was very welcomed, but that did not stop it from making exchanges. Therefore, this notion that they need to change the name of the museum in order to encourage them to share their exhibits is total nonsense.

On the other matter, do they need to change the name to enter into agreements with other museums? Absolutely not, yet that seems to be advanced as one of the reasons.

The other thing is the $25 million. I am sorry, but I would be very curious at the end of the day to see how much of the $25 million will have been used to renovate this museum. That seems to be where it is being directed, yet we would say it is going to be used for these further exchanges. If that is the serious intent of the government, it is not nearly enough, and we will see that.

There are other significant problems. We were given some assurances by some of the government members in this House during the time we had second reading debate on this. The member for Leeds—Grenville said, in part, “the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, would remain an integral part of the new museum”.

Also, the member for Wild Rose said, “It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First People's Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum”. If that is the case, I have some questions.

I would like to quote a story that appeared in the newspaper this week about the removal of one of the significant pieces in the museum, the Nishga Girl. The article confirms that the showcase in the First Peoples Hall is going to be removed from the museum, to the surprise of those who donated it, yet assurances have been given to us in the House that things like that would not happen. What is going on? Have we been misled? Have the people of Canada been misled? If that is the case, there is a serious breach of fiduciary obligation and respect for Parliament. That is not the way we should conduct ourselves.

The other thing is that Mr. Morrison, who has been recently hired to work there, is quoted in that story as saying, “We have a new mandate here”. He was trying to pooh-pooh the comments of the previous president, Mr. MacDonald. With all due respect to Mr. Morrison, he does not have a new mandate, at least not yet. Parliament has not yet passed this bill. It has not gone through report stage or third reading, and it has not gone through the upper house yet. For employees of the museum, no matter what position they occupy, to say that they have a new mandate is disrespectful of Parliament.

I received an invitation from the historical foundation to an event that will occur in October. I think all members have it. It will be an evening of celebrating Canada, a great event. When I saw on the invitation that it was to occur in the Canadian Museum of History, I was a little taken aback. The Governor General is associated with that evening. How is it that people who understand Canada's history, democratic principles, and the legal mandate that flows from Parliament, the House and the Senate, are presupposing the decisions we will be making? They have invited us to a museum, when the bill has not even been approved at second reading.

I did get a letter of apology from Deborah Morrison, who is the president, because she realized it was a mistake. However, the government is treating this bill as if it is a fait accompli, a given decision. It speaks volumes about the government's attitude. There were some very serious, thoughtful and constructive amendments proposed at the committee stage, and they were all turned down.

I will not reveal with whom, but I have had private conversations with members on the government side. They thought the amendments were helpful and constructive. I thought for a brief moment, naively, of course, that perhaps the government would approve some of the amendments. If we are going to create a national institution, it is better if it is approved by multiple parties in the House and Senate, as opposed to being approved by the dominating one. That is not how to construct a society, not by ramming things down people's throats and making affirmations that are not accurate. There are words that we are not allowed to use in parliamentary language.

Affirmations were made that were not accurate, such as receiving assurances that there would be no changes, yet even before the mandate is changed, there are changes occurring in the museum. Mr. Speaker, there is something dreadfully wrong, and you might want to look at that. It is disrespectful of Parliament. How is it that there are changes going on in that museum now when the mandate has not been approved? I hear no one from the other side saying that is fine, or not fine, which would be the more appropriate thing to say.

We have a situation where a very strong institution has been a great showcase throughout the world for Canada. It is all encompassing. When we talk about civilization, we are not talking about just one component of civilization, which is history, though that is absolutely an important one.

I am with the gentleman who was at the committee the other night who said that he would love to have a museum of history in this country, but not by carving out the Museum of Civilization.

I would hope that the government, and I know it is probably wishing against hope, would seriously consider what it is doing, because I do not think it is constructing positively for the future of our country. I think the Conservatives have to rethink their approach and consider very sound proposals by past directors of this museum, past presidents, to make it, perhaps, much more acceptable to everyone in this country.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by the member for Lethbridge. I will give my comments in English so that he will not have to go through the translation device.

Twice the member referred to history and civilization together in the same sentence, with which I totally agree. History is a component of civilization, and so are culture and arts and other matters. One of the criticisms that has been directed at this initiative is that it is reductive in nature, in the sense that it reduces the current mandate, which is of civilization, to history, which is a component of civilization.

To reflect the will, it seems, of the government to proceed in any event, there were recommendations by the previous executive director of the museum, Mr. Rabinovitch, that the museum be called the Museum of History and Civilization.

The member referred to that twice in his speech, and I am wondering why the government members of the committee vote against that particular suggestion.