Pierre Nantel

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but we are all mistaken because I am quoting Gregory Thomas from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the idealistic tone of the speech by my colleague opposite. It is important for those watching us today to truly understand what has happened.

A Conservative member introduced a bill that will allow the public to find out exactly how much money all federal employees making more than $188,600 are paid. He believes that this could lead to greater transparency in the public service and government agencies. We might think that he would have the support of his party, which was elected on the promise of transparency. Despite this reassuring tone, that is not at all the case.

On the contrary, his party let the member go ahead, the bill proceeded and, when the time came, the order was given to simply torpedo the bill, just like in a game of Battleship. When the bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, all the Conservative committee members calmly raised their hands, without a word of explanation, and gutted the bill. They changed the wording so that only 1% of the public service—those earning more than $444,661 a year—would have to disclose their earnings. That is an absolute farce.

My colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who I imagine was quite baffled, suggested that we rename the bill to better reflect its content. He suggested that it be named “An Act respecting the transparency of public servants earning more than $444,000 a year, with the exception of PMO employees”. I appreciate my colleague's rigour and concern for accuracy. We must call a spade a spade.

The last few months have been very difficult for the government. There have been major missteps and blunders, which generally indicate the end of a party's reign. The evolution of the bill is itself one of the Conservatives' major blunders.

Everything that elected Conservatives say they stand for, all the principles that they claimed as their own when campaigning and wanted to defend by putting their name on the ballot and asking for their neighbour's support, the very reasons they came to Ottawa for the first time as parliamentarians and proudly took their seats, all these principles are today back on the table. They are being called into question; they have been violated. It is shameful.

I am not questioning the good faith of most of my colleagues opposite. On the contrary, I put myself in their shoes, and I wonder how they might explain what happened here to their constituents or their base. On what basis can they justify and accept the government's actions in this case? There is some cause to wonder. There are some grounds for serious doubts, right?

No, that does not seem to be the case, since the Conservative members knew that one of their own wanted to introduce a bill on the disclosure of salaries of public servants and federal agencies. This is something that many of them would have probably supported, but they knew that there was an order from above, probably from the famous little boys in short pants running around in the Prime Minister's Office. We now know that they kept a close watch on everything that was going on in Ottawa to neutralize the provisions of the bill that amended the Privacy Act in order to allow for the disclosure of salaries.

This was to be a quick and dirty job, done discreetly and swiftly. Furthermore, the member who had the thankless task of proposing amendments to gut the bill, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, whom I have to name here, did not even bother to explain himself or defend his position. He had to know that he was doing something that did not smell quite right. He clearly did not try to draw attention to his actions.

Moreover, all the Conservative members here fell in line and voted for the amendment. That said, all this was done in silence. No member bothered to speak. There are some things you just cannot talk about.

The government loudly and constantly claims to speak on behalf of taxpayers. However, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressed its disgust—yes, its disgust—at the government's actions on this front.

The federation's representative, Gregory Thomas, had this to say after a close look at Bill C-461: “Not one witness, nor one committee member even spoke to why increasing the threshold was a good idea. Probably because they couldn’t think of even one good reason.”

According to him, “Canadians expect openness from the Harper government, not cover-ups and stonewalling.”

He went on to say, “This is another example where the government is not walking its own talk when it comes to accountability.”

In closing, he stated that, “In light of recent scandals, we need more information and accountability from this government, not less.”

He was right when he said that not one witness supported the idea of increasing the threshold for disclosure. On the contrary, those very witnesses, including the Office of the Information—

[Champlain Bridge, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but I am not reassured, and neither are people from the greater Longueuil community.

A lack of planning is exactly how we got to where we are today. Successive governments never thought that the bridge would eventually reach the end of its lifespan and that we would need new bridge before cracks started appearing all over. It is disheartening to see the Conservatives making the same mistakes.

Does the government understand how urgent it is to work with local elected officials and municipalities? It needs to develop a contingency plan as soon as possible in case the Champlain Bridge is shut down completely before 2021.

[Champlain Bridge, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about cars, let us talk about stalled cars.

Yesterday, The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated announced that a second lane on the Champlain Bridge would be closed, after it discovered that the crack that led to the closure of the first lane had gotten worse.

People are worried. There is an increasingly real risk that the Champlain Bridge may not hold up until the new bridge opens in 2021.

Can the government tell us what contingency plans it has if the Champlain Bridge is shut down completely before it is replaced in eight years?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This may seem somewhat funny, but I really feel as though I have a teenager in front of me who is swearing to his father that if he gives him a car, he will go back to university.

There was no need to completely change the museum to share all these beautiful exhibits with Canadians. Does the member really think that the museum had to be changed for the 2017 celebrations for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing us back to basics, to the common sense that any person who manages a family budget would use. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is exactly the case for the museum.

Unfortunately, the reality is altogether different. For this government, it is simply an opportunity to meddle in a museum and to replace the symbols dear to most Canadians with its own symbols and values, which it believes better reflect its own vision. It is precisely to change Canadians' points of reference that they are doing this type of thing, this type of exercise that we have seen at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Indeed, it would have been quite simple to propose changes that everyone could agree on, such as a name change or improvements to existing exhibitions, instead of simply coming to this place, back at square one, as usual, without any consultation, with the Conservatives claiming to know what is best for Canadians, wanting to start fresh and carve out a whole new exhibition, and of course, wanting to take advantage.

It is unfortunate, but basically, we do not trust them. Canadians do not trust those folks across the aisle on this matter.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my colleague opposite, whom I respect a great deal and who works very hard on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, that he is not on topic. We are no longer talking about the amount of time we should have to discuss the bill. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the fact that a museum's mandate is changing, that it was unnecessary, and that there are other ways it could have been improved and updated. This big project involving the exchange of artifacts for 2017 still could have been done with the existing museum. Some improvements could have been made. There was no need to open the door to the Conservatives' usual interference.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, never have such strong-arm tactics been used to amend national museum legislation. I want to congratulate the members opposite.

The way this government expects Parliament to do its bidding would make anyone's blood boil. Not only are the Conservatives asking us to stand quietly by while they shove a museum down our throats, but they are also asking us to trust them. That takes the cake.

They are getting ready to shut down the existing Canadian Museum of Civilization and, at the same time, they are asking us to believe that the museum will be just as popular, just as accessible and just as non-partisan as it has been for the past 20 years. More than anything though, the Conservatives are asking us to trust their word when they swear that the government will not interfere with the new museum. We know that the government is passionate about certain historic topics, at least when presented in nice, little 30-second television clips.

They are asking Canadians to close their eyes, fall backwards and hope that someone will be there to catch them. There are far more reasons not to believe them than there are to trust them.

We know what the Conservatives' commitments to the independence of crown corporations really mean. We are well aware of examples of their interference elsewhere in government. I am especially thinking of Bill C-60, which is the most obvious example of their taste for excessively proactive management of arm's-length agencies. We know that the government is always elbow-deep into the operations of any organization that needs to operate autonomously and at arm's length.

The Conservatives also ask us to trust them when they tell us they have consulted experts. However, the national associations of archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have publicly expressed their outrage at not being consulted. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them, just as we would like to trust the government to protect our national institutions, such as Library and Archives Canada and Parks Canada, institutions that the Conservatives have deliberately gutted in recent years. They were stripped of their experts and their researchers, individuals who work hard to protect our history. I do not need to remind you that Parks Canada and its historic sites recently lost 80% of their archaeologists thanks to the Conservatives. This kind of behaviour is astounding. Then, they ask us to trust them

Tonight, they will ask us to trust them to create an independent museum, free to choose its content and direction, yet we are being told exactly what that content will be, and how it will be new and improved—not to mention that there are still significant concerns about ongoing interference at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. After all this time, what we hear everywhere is that no one trusts them. That is the issue.

It is clear that the museum or its experts did not come up with this idea and proceed to present it to academics, stakeholders, and then the public. In committee, the minister at the time clearly told us that this all started in his own office. It was his idea. This is what he said in committee. He started thinking about this in May 2011. Then, the minister made an announcement on the spot, at the museum, while the museum employees and experts themselves were kept away by security guards.

It was only after this announcement that they thought of introducing the bill. Now, that is strange. Then they decided to inform the opposition parties, and it was only after all this that they thought of consulting the public. Finally, someone decided to talk to historians, archaeologists, museum curators and experts. Everything was done backwards.

The members opposite said that we had a lot of nerve to oppose the bill before it was introduced in the House. They told us that we were not respecting parliamentary matters. That is pretty pathetic, coming from them. The reality is that when they introduced this bill, their minds were made up. The Canadian Postal Museum was already closed and dismantled, without warning and in secrecy. They had already made plans to dismantle the Grand Hall that depicts Canada's history.

The parliamentary stage of their plan to gut the Canadian Museum of Civilization was simply a nuisance for them, a speed bump on the fast track to a museum created by the Conservatives for their own enjoyment. By rejecting all of our amendments in committee, they have confirmed that impression.

Now let us talk about the consultations. We are not the only ones saying that the government does not want to hear anyone's opinion on this project. In committee, the president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Lorne Holyoak, said that he felt the museum and the government did not make an effort to adequately consult the professional community of historians, anthropologists and archaeologists.

The head of the Canadian Anthropology Society said this about the museum consultation:

The meetings on the new museum that have been convened to date do not meet the definition of true consultation, a formal discussion between groups of people before a decision is made. The public meetings held last fall were brainstorming or awareness sessions, but not actual consultations.

National associations of historians and archaeologists have said the same thing. They were not consulted either.

The museum's CEO was asked to talk about that in committee, and my colleague from Hochelaga, who is an archaeologist herself, asked whether Canadians and museum experts were consulted about the changes to the mandate. The CEO responded that they did not ask Canadians if they thought the mandate should be changed.

This is from the Canadian heritage committee hearings:

Mr. Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed.

That is the president of the museum speaking.

Once again, there is a profound credibility gap between what the government has been promising us and what has actually happened at the museum. It is very difficult for us to put our support, and as we all know, it is impossible for Canadians to put their trust in a process that has not been straightforward. This process has not been an open one, as it could have been. This is a question of credibility for the government and it is a question of trust for us.

It was clear to everyone that the government's mind was made up before the consultations were held. Even the mayor of Gatineau was not consulted. He was invited to the minister's announcement, where he learned about this plan at the same time as everyone else. He seemed rather surprised, I must say. Then, he was asked his opinion on a bill that had already been introduced.

The effect of this complete lack of consultation has been particularly clear for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community.

Last June, a group of first nations people decided to visit the Museum of Civilization to see an important artifact that is on display in the existing Canadian history hall on the fifth floor. I actually encourage my colleagues to see this massive, very impressive exhibit. The people came to see the Nishga Girl, a fishing vessel built by Japanese-Canadian boatbuilders unjustly confiscated by the Canadian government during the Second World War and then donated to the Museum of Civilization by one of the hereditary chiefs of the Nisga'a First Nation.

First nations visitors arrived at the museum in June to see the boat that they had donated, and they discovered it was gone. It had been sent off to storage, and the museum was about to get rid of it. That mistake caused a huge amount of anger for first nations and for the Japanese-Canadian community. We brought this up in the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was very delicate, as always, and he called it “storage”.

The Museum of Civilization officials have since apologized personally in Winnipeg to leaders of both communities and have promised to return the boat to the museum's exhibition.

This is what happens when consultation does not take place; this is what happens when politicians try to draw their own museum exhibits; this is what happens when the people at the top think that consultation is not important.

The Conservatives do not appear to be trying to change the Canadian Museum of Civilization because the current museum is lacking in history, or because the first nations are not adequately represented, or because of any of the other oversights that the Conservatives have already brought up in the House and continue to talk about in the media. Instead, it appears to be because the Conservatives are not satisfied with the version of history that is presented: an archeological, cultural and community-based history; a history of survival, commerce and trade; a history of the builders of this continent; a history that they do not think fits in with their identity or policies.

This all boils down to an issue of credibility and trust. We cannot trust this government, which has wasted every opportunity, which has exaggerated history and has distorted it for its own political purposes. It bypassed the experts who could have taught this government a lot about Canadian history and about how to appreciate and promote it.

We cannot trust a government that spent $70 million on television ads about the war of 1812 during the Super Bowl and that continues to cut staff and archeologists from archeological and historical sites.

The member for St. Catharines dared to say last week that we oppose history. In response, I say, on the contrary, we are defending history, while the Conservatives are harming it by suffocating researchers. For all of these reasons, we cannot support Bill C-7.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is official. We now know that the government does not want any more debate about its history museum. Discussion is being cut short; the executive branch has spoken.

This is incredible. The government wants to create a national museum, no matter what the cost, and it is even willing to muzzle the opposition if need be. Never has there been such haste to shut down debate in order to unveil a cultural asset. Never have such tactics—