Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[International Trade, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since they are so disconnected from what is important to Quebec, I will tell them. Quebec's cheese industry is booming. It creates good jobs, often in rural areas that need these economic drivers, in addition to providing delicious cheese to Canadians.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will keep his promise of maintaining the supply management system as it currently exists?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we could go back and forth with quotes from people who were at committee and who were involved, stakeholders in the museum, archaeological departments, but what really bothers people is not knowing. The question is this. Do we have trust in the government? Can we trust it?

My constituents do not have any trust in the government. It is a government engulfed in scandals with the Senate. It allows $3.1 billion to go missing. It is a government that makes changes in omnibus budget bills and years later we are still finding out details. Our children are going to be affected by these changes. Therefore, do we have that trust? I do not think there is enough trust in the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I was not part of the committee that examined this bill, but I can say that my colleagues worked very hard on it. A lot of thought went into our amendments. In fact, there were 19 amendments proposed.

It is not rare for us to work hard in committee, any committee, and for us to propose amendments and for them not to be considered. It is really important that we work together. Too often, we propose things and we are not listened to.

Actions speak louder than words and we saw that in the 2012 budget.

The government has taken $29 million away from Parks Canada. Parks Canada is responsible for 168 historic sites all across Canada. It is important to preserve these historic sites, because they help with archival research and protection. This is what enriches us, and taking money away like this is like taking a step backward, taking us in the wrong direction and to the wrong place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-49 to amend the Museums Act.

The purpose of Bill C-49 is to refocus and reposition the Canadian Museum of Civilization and amend the Museums Act to change the name and legislative mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Since 1990, the museum's mandate has been:

...to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour...

Bill C-49 changes this mandate. In concrete terms, the changes to the museum's mandate will remove the phrase “critical understanding” and replace it with a general idea of understanding, and replace “human cultural achievements and human behaviour” with a simplistic concept, “Canada's history and identity”.

In short, these changes could detract from the diversity of the experiences that characterize our history, for instance, the effects of colonization on first nations, gender inequality, marginalization based on ethnicity, and so on.

In addition, the sudden and surreptitious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum shows a lack of transparency—yes, once again—even though the mail is an integral part of our history. While the changes set out in Bill C-49 might seem trivial, this closure and the Conservatives' approach to Canadian history make me wary of other nasty surprises.

I believe this museum has a winning formula. It is often a must-see destination on any school trip to Ottawa. This museum touches the imagination of all of the youth who visit it. I am thinking of the Canadian Children's Museum, in particular, whose central theme is “the great adventure”. This museum gives younger visitors an opportunity to travel the world. Exhibit themes promote intercultural understanding. The Canadian Children’s Museum has grown steadily since its inception.

The museum has welcomed over 8 million visitors since 1989, with an average annual attendance of 500,000. It is committed to the promotion of intercultural understanding among children and improving cultural, social, and educational opportunities for children. I recall having visited the museum myself on many occasions and having a remarkable experience every time.

Looking beyond the Canadian Children's Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada. That is quite something. I wonder why the Conservatives are changing its mandate. Is it really necessary to change a winning formula? What if I were the owner of an ice cream shop, chocolate was my bestselling flavour and then one day I decided to make strawberry ice cream instead. I think that that would be a very poor marketing decision and that I would be taking a risk.

Dr. Lorne Holyoak, president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, said:

You’re taking a Rolls-Royce, and you’re chopping off the roof and tearing out the backseats so you can turn it into a pick-up truck...It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.

Once again, I believe that the government is making decisions without thinking about the consequences. I believe that this is part of an effort to promote Conservative symbols: attachment to the monarchy, promotion of Conservative values, and so forth.

Furthermore, the changes will be costly. The administrative cost of changing the name and logo is estimated at $500,000 on top of the more than $400,000 that has already been spent. It makes no sense. I wonder who this will really benefit. It seems to me that there are more important priorities to be dealt with.

The private sector will be solicited for its support. We are not against involving the private sector but, in recent years, things have gotten out of hand at federal museums. For example, almost all exhibit halls at the Canadian Museum of Nature have been named after sponsors in the oil and mineral sectors and, in 2011, an exhibit at the Canada Science and Technology Museum was changed as a result of external pressure.

Of course, private funding is useful for the development of museums, but it must not influence their content, especially when it comes to a national history museum.

When I think of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, my mind turns to the hundreds of thousands of children who go on school excursions to the museum every year. My son has visited the museum several times with his school. He always comes home with lots of stories. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a gold mine of interesting information for young people of all ages, and for adults, too.

The other important thing that disappoints me about this bill is the change in direction of the museum’s mission. In fact, the proposal is to remove research and collections from the museum’s mission, which were contained in the first paragraph of its initial mandate.

The staff who work in the research and collections departments will be “reorganized”, a term that is not really reassuring to museum employees. It will mean that research and collections will take a back seat to exhibition planning and will no longer be based on the work and priorities of museologists. This represents a major shift in the museum’s mission.

The government has no business sticking its nose in these matters. Politicians are neither historians nor researchers, nor are they museologists. Perhaps some members are, but they are a rare commodity. The Conservatives are the ones thinking about making these changes. They are meddling in the museum's affairs.

Why not leave it up to the museologists and their interlocutors, including the first nations, to define the museum's mandate and content.

I know how important it is to have employees who are motivated and passionate about their work to present the museum.

In my region, the Forges du Saint-Maurice are grappling with major cutbacks. This year, tourists and visitors to the forges will no longer get to enjoy a dynamic presentation by guide–interpreters. Instead, they will have to read signs set up to replace staff who have been laid off. It is really sad to see a historic and tourist site of such great significance lose its value because the government is imposing its own ideology.

I would also like to draw members’ attention to another important problem arising from these changes. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in November 2012. We have not yet had third reading in the House. It has not yet gone to the Senate. Yet I noticed on the weekend that the minister was already making announcements as if Bill C-49 had received royal assent.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages announced a partnership agreement between the Manitoba Museum and the future Canadian museum of history. I repeat: the future Canadian museum of history. It has not yet been approved by parliamentarians.

We in the NDP want the museum's current mission to be maintained. We are asking that the budget proposed for this transformation be invested instead in a Canada-wide project to preserve Canadian history.

The government has to stop doing away with things that enhance our knowledge of history, in particular research and the protection of historic sites.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Is it 46? Anyway, they keep coming.

I have two questions. From all the speeches we have heard today, we are all on the same page. This is important, and we have to move forward. If this was so important to the Government of Canada, I am wondering why this came from the Senate, which is unelected and full of scandals.

Second, is there going to be more financing for local police stations moving forward to actually make a difference and combat contraband tobacco?

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech. There was a moment of clarity and honesty we have been looking for all day. It was kind of missing in question period, but it was really nice to see. I do not even know what number we are at right now when it comes to time allocation motions on these bills.

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Michel Morin, has been waiting for months for his appeal to be heard by the Social Security Tribunal.

The problem is that the transition is rather chaotic, with cases being transferred from separate tribunals to the single tribunal. Wait times are very long and Canadians are not getting justice.

How long will Mr. Morin have to wait before getting an answer?

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, two major crises occurred on his watch.

It is high time he started taking some action, but his solution is to cut funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and make the already overworked employees take on additional tasks, rather than hiring more staff. If the minister continues down that path, we are surely headed for a third major crisis.

Will the minister allow the Auditor General to conduct a comprehensive review of operations at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?

[Food Safety, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is the minister's failure. It is his responsibility. He should apologize.

The issues raised in the report are the same as those identified in the report on the listeriosis crisis. Two crises, two reports and no action.

His mismanagement is endangering people's lives, and that is to say nothing of the impact that the cuts in his department are having.

What will it take for the minister to act? Another crisis?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. I congratulate all of my colleagues because we work hard.

I am not talking just about the members of Parliament, but also about our research team and all of the assistants who help us every single day with our work. We truly do work hard and take our jobs seriously.

It is very sad and disappointing to see that the Conservatives will not accept any of our amendments. We work very hard, but when we show up in committee to move our amendments, they have already decided, as my colleague indicated, that they will not accept anything. They have decided that their bill is perfect as is.

I have a hard time understanding why they refuse to accept anything. There were witnesses who supported our values and many of our amendments. I have several testimonies, but I do not have the time to read them all. It is very sad.