:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank my colleagues.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you Bill , the Canadian Museum of History Act, and to respond to questions you may have. Accompanying me today are Daniel Jean, Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage and Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Heritage.
I will keep my remarks brief to allow as much time as possible for discussion and to answer your questions on the bill.
[English]
Bill is a very short bill. It's not a tough read, of course. It spells out the mandate for the proposed Canadian Museum of History. The mandate is very simple and clear. It reads:
The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History is to enhance Canadians' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.
That's what the bill says. There is nothing ideological about this. It's actually quite straightforward.
[Translation]
In 2017, we will be celebrating Canada's 150th birthday. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to celebrate all that Canada has accomplished, to look back at 150 years of history, to be thankful for our past, and to think ahead to the next 150 years.
[English]
We have in Canada today, sadly, an entire generation of Canadians who are largely illiterate about Canada's history. It's the truth. With the proposed Canadian Museum of History we are going to start building the national infrastructure that I think this country so desperately needs, so that we can tell our stories one to another so that Canadians can better understand our local histories and our shared histories.
I feel that we've had a constructive debate on this legislation in the House. Some members of Parliament have raised some concerns about what this museum could lead to, and I just want to respond to a couple of the specific concerns that I know were raised in the House by Mr. Simms and Mr. Nantel.
First, let me quote from the Museums Act, particularly on the issue that has been raised that the museum could be interfered with by the government, the minister, or, frankly, any member of Parliament. The Museums Act is very clear. It spells out in a straightforward way the independence of all of our museums, including this museum. Section 27 spells out the independence of our museums when it states: “No directive shall be given to a museum...with respect to cultural activities, including...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and...research”.
Section 27 of the Museums Act is very clear, it's straightforward, and it dispels any false accusations that this bill or the creation of this museum would be in any way a politicization of Canada's history, because it's the law.
[Translation]
In fact, I am pleased by the widespread, non-partisan support this project has received from historians and historical associations across the country.
[English]
I want to say that I'm very pleased with the broad-based support that the proposal of creating a Canadian museum of history has received. Of course, no support for a proposal is ever unanimous, as I said to Mr. Simms in the House.
I remember the debate when the Liberals, at a time of recession, made the decision to create the Canadian War Museum. That was a very controversial decision, and it turns out that today the Canadian War Museum is indeed one of the best museums in this country. It has, as its only peers in the world, Les Invalides in Paris, and the Imperial War Museum in London. It's a fantastic museum that I think all Canadians, regardless of ideology, believe in.
That museum was launched with a great deal of difficulty and if you look at the proposal that we have here to create a Canadian museum of history and the broad-based support this museum has received, I think it's important that this be pointed out. This museum has been supported, for example, by Douglas Cardinal, the original architect of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It's supported by the Mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson. It's supported by the Mayor of Gatineau, Monsieur Bureau.
This project also has the support of celebrated historians from across the country, including award-winning historian and author, Michael Bliss, who had this to say about this bill. He said:
it is very exciting that Canada’s major museum would now be explicitly focused on Canada’s history, thanks to this government for making the museum possible.
Jack Granatstein, of course the former chair of the Museum of Civilization, supports this legislation and the creation of this museum. He said:
This move is exactly what I thought should happen. I'm delighted the government and the museum are doing it.
John McAvity, who is going to be with you later this afternoon, also supports this because he recognizes the value of this large national institution, the largest museum in all of Canada, and the value of creating a pan-Canadian network of all of Canada's museums, which can teach and disseminate information about Canada's history and share resources and collections and move items around the country.
This will be of benefit not only for this great institution here in the national capital but also for every museum across the country, as they could potentially become official partners of the museum, thereby allowing them access to the 3.5 million items that are in the collection of this museum, of which more than 90% are in storage and to which no Canadian now has access.
The Historica-Dominion Institute is also supporting this—which, by the way, is also one of the great organizations across this country, working with and reaching out to children across this country—and recognizes its value as well. The Ontario Museum Association has come out in support of it—also, by the way, important historians who are not Conservative and probably would chastise me or anybody for suggesting that they might in any way be Conservative.
For example, as I noted in the House, John English, a former Liberal member of Parliament and a biographer of Pierre Trudeau, has come out in support of this legislation, congratulating the government for supporting this initiative, as has Richard Gwyn, who is a biographer of both John A. Macdonald and Pierre Trudeau.
Deborah Morrison, the head of Canada's national history society, has said, “the potential for the new Museum to help create a national framework for our history is compelling. And the time is right.”
I agree with her. I have to say as well that I was very pleased, when we had the second reading vote in the House of Commons, that an independent member of Parliament, one of our colleagues from Thunder Bay, supported this legislation, as did Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. They support this legislation, as do, by the way, New Democrats on the provincial scene in British Columbia.
I'm also pleased to say that this past weekend I spoke at the national meeting of the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in Vancouver. As part of my lunchtime speech to more than a thousand delegates, I presented this project, which was entirely well received; there were no complaints. When I met with the executive of the FCM in a closed-door meeting before my speech, there was unanimous support for this from mayors across the country—from Mayor Nenshi of Calgary, from Gregor Robertson of Vancouver, a former MLA in British Columbia who sees the big value of this project and what it would mean for the city of Vancouver and, indeed, for all of this country.
This is a proposal that we've put forward as we go toward Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. It has broad-based support from Canadians of all kinds of ideologies and all kinds of backgrounds—and, by the way, of non-ideologies, just people who are passionate about the teaching and the learning of Canada's history, who think that we deserve to have our own Smithsonian; that we deserve to have a large national museum about which we can be incredibly proud. We do have that in the Museum of Civilization, but we can do so much better with a new Canadian museum of history, by tying all of our institutions across this country together as we head towards our 150th birthday and celebrate the incredible stories of Canada's history gone by.
Many of you have been in the House and have heard me speak in the House on the details of the reforms we are putting forward. There is $25 million to do the changes of half the floor space in the existing museum. The Children's Museum, which is in the museum itself, will stay as it is. The Canada Hall will be reformed, in the back. The First Peoples exhibit, which is award-winning and spectacular, will stay as it is.
We're reforming the floor space as well, because it hasn't been updated in over 20 years. As a matter of fact, in the Canada Hall there is virtually no representation of aboriginal Canadians whatsoever, and that needs to be updated and improved.
We can do better; we should do better. We're heading towards our 150th birthday. We have great stories as a country to tell. I think we ought to do a service to them.
I would close by saying to my colleagues that I understand that there are some concerns about this. Maybe this will be a circumstance of “hear me now, believe me later”, but I'm here to tell you that this is a project that has broad-based support across the country; it's self-evident in the votes we've had in Parliament and in those who have publicly come out to endorse this project. It's time for this country to think big and to do something bigger than just the obvious stuff and to have great national institutions that bind us together.
As I said to Scott, those are the great moments. I'll say this: in the sweep of Canada's history, the best of the NDP has been seen when they have supported national projects that they thought were national in scope and national in consequence; for example in the support of medicare. That was a national idea, an idea that was good for the entire country and that they advocated, and they went beyond partisanship and reached out to get support. Of course, it was a Liberal federal government that did it, but it was a national idea that they worked with others to get done, because they believed in it.
This is equally true with the Liberal Party; they have had some national projects and national efforts. And Conservative governments in the past, we've had ours as well. Along with the other institutions that we have in this country, I think this museum will be a part of the fabric of what we're trying to do: to strengthen the fabric that binds this country together.
When you think about it, Canada is the second largest country in the world in size, but in terms of population we're the 34th largest country in the world. What unites us as a country? It is language, the arts, culture, a shared sense of history, an understanding of one another, an understanding of our grievances, of the difficulties of the past and how we got over them and how we still struggle, our shared sense of identity.
In a massive country like this, that has historically been divided—English and French, east and west, north and south, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, labour and business, Protestant and Catholic in the early days—we've been able to overcome these divisions through the sweep of Canada's history because we've had a better understanding over time about what it is that we can accomplish.
We are moving forward as a government with this. We're very proud of this project. I deeply and sincerely thank all those who have come on board across this country, from all kinds of different political and ideological backgrounds, to support this effort. I would urge my colleagues on this committee, and indeed all members of this House, to look at it that way. That's how I presented this.
My colleagues know that I presented and discussed this legislation with them. I talked to my colleague, the heritage critic from the NDP, before we tabled this legislation. I told you about this idea. I showed you the legislation. I showed you what we had in mind. I showed it as well to the Liberal critic. I showed it to Elizabeth May, as the leader of the Green Party in the House. It's one of the reasons that she's supporting this bill. I want to work with other members of Parliament to get this project right.
I'll turn it back to you, Chair, and to colleagues for questions about this project. I would urge you all to give this serious thought, to support this institution, to support this effort to build this network, this pan-Canadian network, of great history institutions that will keep this country united and better educated, with a better understanding about our past, so that we can stay united going forward.
Thank you.
:
Let me focus the substance of the question this way. In Budget 2012, as colleagues know, that was where we put in place what we call DRAP, the deficit reduction action plan of our government, which is the reduction in government spending so that we can arrive at a balanced budget in 2015.
Now, within the Department of Heritage—and by the way, Heritage is the third-largest department in the Government of Canada, not in terms of its budget but its scope—there were a number of decisions that we had to make, some difficult decisions and some that were more self-evident, in order to make budget cuts and make our contribution to arriving at a balanced budget.
We decided to protect all of our funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. I think as all members of this committee know, when you talk to artists across the country, that's one of the most revered and important crown corporations that exist when it comes to supporting culture.
We did make a decision, for example, to cut funding for the CBC.
We also made a decision not to cut funding for any one of our national museums. There were multiple reasons for that. One, we're still in the process of building the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. They've had some struggles, but financially they're on track. It's a $351-million build, with a $21-million-per-year operating budget thereafter. That museum is still being established, so the idea of cutting their budget before they're built, while their build is dependent on some of those funds, is something that would seem to me to be a crazy idea.
Equally, we're creating of course the Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 in Halifax. That museum is just getting off the ground and moving forward, and they're looking to expand, so no reductions there either.
There's also the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which we had the idea to turn into a Canadian museum of history. We didn't want to cut that budget as well, because we wanted to make sure this project is launched and moving forward.
The opposition parties I'm sure have a number of reasons why they may or may not support the government's budget and the budget items. But specifically on the issue of museums, we went out of our way to protect our museums—and by the way, as a consequence, maybe have had to make spending reductions in other areas that were more consequential to those institutions.
But I think we have some of the best museums in this country, some of the largest museums in this country. When the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is just being born, we want to make sure that it has a great launch and is a great institution, not just for Winnipeg, Manitoba, but for all of Canada.
We want to make sure that the Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 isn't just about the story of Pier 21 but has a national perspective, not just a Halifax perspective.
Equally, we want to make sure that the history museum is launched with sound funding so that it can be a success for all Canadians.
:
Yes, it's an important point. This is one thing we envision as well, that not just will local museums be able to draw down items from the national museum and host them locally; local museums can also take some of their collections and move them to other parts of the country, or to the national museum as well.
So the idea of a partnership isn't just stuff moving from the national museum to locally, but stuff locally moving up nationally, or moving to other parts of the country.
I've had the privilege—it's been an incredible privilege, I can tell you—to visit all kinds of museums across this country. We have thousands of museums across the country, I can tell you. I've gone through them in painstaking detail—sometimes with lots of boredom on the face of my wife as I go through some of these things—and aggravating some of the people who are with me by how much time I like to spend in museums. But the truth is that when you go to museums around the country, you realize there are some incredible gems out there. There are some incredible things and stories that should be told.
I think I told this committee this story about one of the catalysts that drew me to this idea of networking all of our museums together. It was when I visited the museum in Midway, British Columbia.
If you haven't been to Midway, it's a very small town. And it is where it sounds like: midway across the border between Alberta and the Pacific Ocean, on the southern border of British Columbia. It's a small little town, with a population of I think 2,500 persons. They have a small little museum there, and I went in. Against the back wall they had this display by the Japanese Canadians of Midway, British Columbia. It's a small association. This was a display of people of Japanese descent who still live in the south Okanagan, who decided, after having been displaced and put in internment camps in the Second World War, to stay in the south Okanagan and make lives for themselves.
There are all kinds of items there that talk about the hardships they faced, the racism they went through, the difficulties in establishing themselves, the pride they now feel in having gone through all that, and the successful lives they've made for themselves and their families.
It's not a big display, but it's very impactful. I looked at it and I thought, “This is really quite something.” I left the museum, and when I signed the guest book I was saddened to see that I was about the sixtieth person to visit that museum in the last two months. I thought, “What a waste. This is a great story to tell.” As I went on with the rest of my road trip, I thought to myself that there had to be some way....
I know that the Canadian Museums Association advocates for local museums, but they don't really have the capacity to do these things. I thought about it: what can we do so that people in other parts of the country can see this display and understand its impact, and maybe host something in an exchange? Maybe a national museum should see this display. Japanese internment is spoken about in the Canadian War Museum, but it's not talked about in that kind of personal way, with individual stories of people who talk about what they went through, how they came out the other end, and how they ended up being very successful and proud Canadians in spite of the suffering they went through. It's a great story.
So I started thinking about it, and where we arrived at is where we are today. I'm very proud of that. From those early moments of thinking about how we can tie these institutions together, here we are. We're now at—hopefully soon—report stage of Bill to create the Canadian Museum of History.
That little museum in Midway, British Columbia, can be a partner now. That little collection I saw those couple of years ago can now be hosted at the national museum, and those Japanese Canadians who are telling their story in the south Okanagan might now have the opportunity to share that story with other Canadians.
That's what we're doing.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Bill and the proposed establishment of the Canadian Museum of History.
[Translation]
I believe the proposed changes will strengthen our institution and greatly enhance its contribution to the public life of this country in some very significant and constructive ways.
At the outset, however, I would like to talk about some of the things that won't change, and that have been the subject of some debate and discussion in the media and elsewhere.
[English]
First, the proposed Canadian Museum of History would continue to present outstanding temporary exhibitions that illuminate world history and cultures. They will remain part of our mandate and an important part of our programming.
In fact, we are currently working with our colleagues in Greece on the production of a major exhibition about that country's ancient history. This exhibition, “From Agamemnon to Alexander the Great”, will feature over 500 exceptional artifacts and will be launched at the Royal Ontario Museum, our partner next year, and will travel to Ottawa, Chicago, and then Washington.
Second, we will maintain the ever popular Canadian Children's Museum.
Third, our First Peoples Hall and Grand Hall will continue to explore the historical achievements and contemporary contributions of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are the finest exhibitions of their kind in Canada and so they shall remain as integral parts of the new museum should the legislation be passed into law.
Finally, we will continue building our national collection, and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years.
[Translation]
I would like to turn now to the engagement process we used to solicit public input.
It began last October. We engaged with Canadians across the country and invited them to think about their history and how it should be told in their Canadian Museum of History.
We set up an interactive website and designed an online survey. We organized roundtable discussions in nine cities from St. John's to Vancouver. We set up an interactive kiosk in public places across the country. We held meetings with school students and other groups. And we had questions placed on an independent opinion survey. Over 24,000 people became directly engaged in the project, either in person or online.
[English]
The results are detailed in a report that will be released shortly, but I am very happy to share with you, the members of this committee, some of what we have heard from Canadians.
Canadians told us that visiting museums and historic sites, and encountering real artifacts are by far their favourite ways of connecting with history. Many stress the unique role that museums play in educating children and youth, and in providing shared learning opportunities for family and friends.
Canadians have said that they trust museums more than any other source of historical information and that they value museums for the way they allow them to interact with each other and their common history.
Yet, Mr. Chair, we've never had a museum that tells the pan-Canadian story from earliest time to present day. The Museum of Civilization has indeed been trying to fill that void and has been doing so despite a very different legislative mandate. Its central purpose, as described in the Museums Act, is to enhance understanding of cultural achievements and human behaviour—not Canadian history and identity.
Nevertheless, since at least 2005 and on the heels of the overwhelming success of our sister institution, the Canadian War Museum, the museum has been working to broaden and deepen its focus on Canadian history. It has been trying to do a better job of telling the story of this country and its people from the pan-Canadian perspective. It has been working to share that story with as many Canadians as possible.
Currently, the museum is a key centre for historical research and scholarship through its artifacts, exhibitions, and its other programming. The museum explores many aspects of our country's past and disseminates the results of that research in many forms across the country, such as print publications and other forms of research. All of this will continue under the new mandate.
[Translation]
The museum’s work and achievements are impressive. But it has serious shortcomings, which are most evident in our largest permanent gallery, the Canada Hall.
[English]
The Canada Hall was not designed to be a narrative history exhibition. Inspired to some extent by the success of the streetscape of the Epcot Center in Florida, the museum staff designed the hall to offer a vision of Canada's social and economic history that moved temporally and geographically from 1000 A.D. in the Atlantic provinces to the present day in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.
While that approach makes for an interesting and informative visit, it can't help but produce a disjointed and narrow picture of our country's dynamic past. In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely independently. Whole categories of endeavour—politics, sport, culture, our contributions to the world—are poorly covered or not covered at all. Women's history is at best peripheral. The journey through time ends in the 1970s, so almost half a century of our history is left unexplored.
As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you'll find no mention of the Quiet Revolution or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how, or when the colony joined Confederation. You'll see re-creations of grain elevators and oil rigs, but you won't learn about the phenomenon called western alienation.
Although modules on the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada have been added very recently, Confederation itself is reduced to a multimedia timeline. You'll find no mention in Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the conscription crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall is its starting point. If you've been there, you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall.
[Translation]
This is something we intend to correct. Canadians made it very clear to us during the public engagement process that the voices and the experiences of First Peoples must have a place in any narrative of Canadian history. We want to focus more of our attention on the telling of Canada's story in all its richness and complexity. And we believe the task is best accomplished under a new mandate and a new name—a name that better reflects what we aspire to become.
[English]
Here is the vision we have for the new Canadian Museum of History.
It will feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. The new permanent gallery will replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall. It will be a place where Canadians can go to retrace their national journey and encounter their national treasures. It's where they can go to learn about the people, events, and themes that shaped our country's development and defined the Canadian experience. It will underpin our national identity. It will include seminal events and episodes from our past, and some of the greatest Canadian stories never told.
We are also establishing a network of history museums across the country. Members of this network will have a permanent gallery devoted to the presentation of their exhibitions. Those exhibitions will complement and enhance our national narrative by adding regional content and perspectives. The new gallery will also broaden the reach and the profile of the contributing institutions, and members of this network will have better access to the national collection to enhance their own work.
During the public engagement process, Canadians told us what they expect of those exhibitions and the museum in general, especially the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights.
Canadians want us to be comprehensive, frank, and fair in our presentation of their history. They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past. We were urged to foster a sense of national pride without ignoring our failings, mistakes, and controversies. Canadians want us to present various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways when seen through different eyes. They want us to connect with them on a personal level. They want to see themselves and their neighbours reflected in the museum—whatever their heritage, whenever they joined the Canadian family, and wherever in this country they live. They have told us quite clearly not to ignore the world beyond our borders.
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, led by Dr. David Morrison. 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.
Creating a new gallery is going to be a major challenge. Our experts will first have to develop a comprehensive and cohesive storyline, which they have begun to do. They will have to identify the themes, events, and artifacts that merit inclusion in the gallery. They'll have to make some difficult choices and grapple with some very contentious issues, and they'll have to do it all in full knowledge that their every decision will be scrutinized by scholars, lay people, advocacy groups, the media, and politicians from coast to coast to coast. But our professional staff are the best in the country at what they do, and they're certainly up to the challenge.
Mr. Chair, the call for a national history museum is hardly recent. Over 60 years ago, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences stated in its final report, “On the necessity for an historical museum, we can hardly speak too strongly.” In 2003, the Government of Canada announced a $50-million plan to convert the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa into the Canadian History Centre.
Mr. Chair, should Bill be passed into law, the corporation will create a museum worthy of Canadians' support and deserving of their pride.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
I would be happy to answer them.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill today.
[English]
Many countries have national museums devoted to their history and heritage. There are numerous examples we could cite today. I will mention a couple of them. There is the fascinating Te Papa museum in Wellington, New Zealand, which features first nations history and culture, as well as the heritage of that country. There is the Smithsonian in Washington, another well-known example, which embraces a broad approach to presenting United States history, from grand achievements all the way through to everyday Americans.
We're confident at the Canadian Museums Association that the new Canadian Museum of History will paint a similarly broad picture of this diverse and complex country.
Canadian history is many things. It's major events, it's sometimes war, and it's sometimes major and significant historical figures, such as prime ministers and monarchs, but it is also about those things that relate to the everyday, the small-h history that we all know and live ourselves.
In this history of the everyday and the extraordinary, the new Canadian Museum of History will really a place where Canadians could explore all of these diverse aspects of who we are and what we want to become, starting initially by exploring first nations issues, from both contemporary and historical perspectives, and indeed, contemporary events that relate to historical circumstances. Sometimes these events are important but challenging, such as, for example, an internment camp in Minto, New Brunswick, the FLQ crisis, or the Winnipeg riots.
These are all aspects of who we are and where we've come from, and knowing history contributes to the quality of life in this country and supports the rich creative and scientific achievements of our nation. Our history is therefore multi-dimensional, whether expressed and preserved through artifacts, art, documents, or science, and it's vital that this rich heritage be properly presented in this museum. It's a place where we will all connect with each other through these stories.
We note clause 9 in particular, which gives clarity to the powers and capacity of the new Canadian Museum of History and details its mandate in terms of collections, research, and preservation. We note paragraph 9(1)(i), which outlines the creation of opportunities to work with other partner museums across Canada.
Again, as someone who has lived in three Canadian provinces in this country and has worked in all three, I certainly think that the national museum will really be an encouraging partner with all of these regions to again further historical research across the country. These regional stories that can become a part of this network will certainly contribute to talking about who we are and where we want to go.
Over and above the legislation, we're very pleased with the proposals within this section and the intentions of the new museum to move forward. The creation of a network between museums across the country is indeed timely and was outlined by the president and CEO of the museum just last week before 250 museum colleagues from across the country at our annual meeting of the CMA in Whitehorse, Yukon.
In a time of budget restraints, sharing resources is more important than ever. This is a terrific opportunity to more easily exhibit our country's history, not only in museums across Canada through partnerships, which will be extremely beneficial to the entire country, but also here in Ottawa as a national showpiece. It will provide a platform to easily distribute the large amounts of often unseen artifacts of importance that are currently in storage.
In addition, the partnership role to be assumed by the Canadian Museum of History will provide positive guidance to other institutions across Canada.
Finally, the plans call for a special gallery to be created at the new museum, where other museums can provide exhibits from their local communities representing where history really happened, providing a national platform for telling our regional stories. Over 2,800 museums across Canada tell our country's collective story. Connecting them through a major national institution will greatly benefit museums and the Canadians who they serve and who visit them. This may well be a role model for other national museums, which cannot work in isolation from other aspects of the cultural fabric of our country.
We wish to thank the members of the committee for their time and consideration on this matter.
Merci beaucoup.
I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 68,000 academic staff at 124 universities and colleges across the country.
We're deeply troubled by Bill . The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a great museum, the most popular in the country and arguably the best. It's certainly one I'm proud to take every visitor who comes to Ottawa to see. The proposed Canadian Museum of History will be something less. Not only does Bill C-49 ensure a lesser institution, the process of consultation has been disappointing at best.
The CAUT, our organization, raised some concerns initially and was very pleased that the CEO, Mark O'Neill; the vice-president of research and exhibitions, Jean-Marc Blais; and the director of archeology and research, Dr. David Morrison, willingly agreed to meet with us. They did spend more than an hour talking with us and indicated that there would be an opportunity for consultation; this was back in October. In February Monsieur Blais was in touch again to say that there would be a process of consultation involving us, and we've never heard a thing since.
The Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Archaeological Association, and the Canadian Anthropology Society wrote a letter on the same matter to Mr. O'Neill on May 6, 2013, and I'd be happy to give the clerk a copy:
On behalf of our respective associations, we write to express our serious concern regarding the lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History. Unless redressed through significant and meaningful consultation with the professional heritage community, we fear this lack of engagement will critically compromise both the quality and credibility of the new museum.
I mention the concern about consultation because there are serious flaws in the bill, and I'd like to just address a few of those. I'd be happy to expand in the question period that follows.
The first is the change in the purpose of the museum. The current mandate, since 1990, of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is quite clear and quite impressive. I'll just quote a relevant section:
to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.
That has been replaced by a much shorter mandate that may superficially sound similar but is fundamentally different. The relevant section of the proposed mandate in Bill says:
to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.
Unlike the proposed change, the CMC mandate makes clear that it is a knowledge-generating organization, like all great museums. The proposed mandate for the Canadian museum of history eliminates all reference, for example, to maintaining a collection for research and posterity.
It removes paragraph 9(1)(f) from the act that established the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is particularly troubling. The part that has been removed reads:
undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.
To our mind, these changes clearly indicate that the research and knowledge advancement function of the museum is under threat. The removal of “critical understanding” and replacing it with “understanding” is one concern. Promoting critical understanding of history is an essential goal of any great museum. Providing visitors with critical understanding of history means offering them an opportunity to consider different points of view, the opportunity to critically analyze the past, and to re-examine traditional viewpoints, rather than simply venerating national heroes.
Another indication that the research and knowledge-generating role of the museum is being replaced with it becoming a display site is the elimination of the position of vice-president of research and it being combined into the job of vice-president, exhibitions.
A second concern of ours is the limited perspective of history. The new act will replace the museum's emphasis on human cultural achievements and human behaviour with “...events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity...”.
It's a troubling emphasis on dates, heroes, and objects, an approach that historians have moved well beyond. The great man/great woman version of history risks leaving out the experience of the vast majority of Canadians. The stories and experiences of ordinary people and events that don't fit into the political biography model will be marginalized, just as they currently have been celebrated in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Other concerns are the elimination or marginalization of the history and culture of first nations people, and of issues of colonization, industrialization, gender relations, migration, environmental transformation, and so forth.
This refocusing and rebranding will involve the gutting of the Canada Hall, a remarkable permanent exhibition of Canadian social history. What's curious is that the Canada Hall cost over $50 million to create, and yet the total budget for the transformation of the new museum is only $25 million. So how they are going to recreate the vast social history that's currently reflected in the museum, as well as doing other things, is totally beyond us, especially when that $25 million is not just for that, but lots of other things as well.
Minister Moore, for example, recently indicated that the $25 million was also going to include the cost of agreements to establish a nationwide museum artifact lending network, which he described as having more than three million items in its collection, 90% of which are in vaults. I'm quoting: “We need to get these items out of storage.... We need to get them moving around the country.” But this betrays a fundamental ignorance of the museum materials. The vast majority of these artifacts are things like bone fragments and are not exhibit-worthy; they are research materials. Collectively, they are extremely important to our understanding of Canada's past, but not for their value as exhibition pieces.
Our third concern, and the final one I'll mention in my opening remarks, is about whether this is going to result in a partisan representation of history. All of what's happening in regard to the transformation of the Museum of Civilization into a Canadian museum of history is in the context of the broader undercutting of the role of Canadian heritage institutions. Here I speak of Library and Archives Canada, which we've spoken about on many occasions, which has a national campaign called Canada's Past Matters; the cuts to archeology and heritage sites as a result of the cuts to Parks Canada; the closure of federal departmental libraries; the reduction of public access to libraries; the elimination of the inter-library loan system at our National Library; and the elimination of granting programs for local and regional archives. All of these are part of a context that gives us concern about what's happening
The decision to transform the Canadian Museum of Civilization seems part of a pattern that suggests the government's interest in using history to serve its own political agenda. In our view, we'd speak out as strongly to any government appearing to do this.
The celebration of the War of 1812 was the transformation of a rather tawdry series of skirmishes into some defining characteristic of Canada's history. The rewriting of the study guide for people who want to become new citizens, which was done by this government a few years ago—this is what it looks like now—is a celebration of heroes, warriors, with pictures of warrior events, and there is even a picture, on the aboriginal page, of a former Governor General of Canada who portrayed himself as an Indian. It's the sudden interest in the Franklin exhibition, and the diversion of resources to an already decimated Parks Canada archeology budget to focus on finding this wreckage. It's the glorification of the monarchy and the War of....
The context for all of this gives us grave concern.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization has been a remarkable contribution to the history and people of this country, and internationally as well, and for it to be transformed into something that will not retain its fundamental research and knowledge-generating function and that will not have the resources to maintain the broader social history of our country is something we lament.
We urge you to revise the mandate for this institution, as reflected in Bill , into something that continues the tradition of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here today.
By way of personal introduction, I was the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization from 2000 to 2011. During my tenure, the Canadian War Museum was built and the CMC vastly expanded its collections and presentations on Canadian history and on international themes. Prior to this I had been an assistant deputy minister, in the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments. I've always had great pleasure in having the authority from my minister to speak to members of the opposition or any MP, and at that time at least, as a public servant, to take information and report information fairly back to ministers.
Currently I'm not here representing any organization. I am an adjunct professor of cultural policy at Queen's University. I'm also the volunteer chair of Opera Lyra, Ottawa's professional opera company. I publish considerably in various Canadian and international publications. All of that is by way of background to say that I bring a certain amount of knowledge to the table, which I hope is helpful to the members of the committee.
As you know, Bill is part of an initiative that was announced by Minister Moore. An important part of that initiative has been alluded to by the other presentations so far, and includes funding to enable the Museum of Civilization to develop networks for purposes of better historical exchange. That type of announcement is really part of a much longer debate that has gone on for years regarding the proper role of “the nationals”—the national museums. The general view, certainly amongst museum people, is that the nationals are uniquely positioned to promote linkages and networks, to share materials, to share research and information. And in this respect the announcement by the minister certainly fits beautifully into what could be an important development for the Canadian museum world. The type of initiative that the minister announced could always be administered through the Department of Heritage, it could be administered by individual museums. In any event, I would certainly hope that it's not the last of such announcements.
Allow me to turn now to the substance of the discussion this evening, which is Bill . I confess to finding the substance of Bill to be deeply confusing. It proposes in clause 2 to abandon the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector. It's a brand that is known and respected throughout the professional world. The Museum of Civilization is a pathfinder in what is now called internationally “museums of society”. One example of its eminence is that a conference was recently convened at the University of Barcelona to feature the experiences of the CMC as a model for the work that the university was doing on behalf of the Catalonian region of Spain. And several other museums of society, notably Quebec City's Musée de la civilisation and Amsterdam's Tropenmuseum, joined with the CMC to present information on how museums can present people, society, and development in a way that is an example of what can be popular, credible, and informative, and contribute to national understanding.
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 Vert Michelin; Parliament Hill receives only two stars. Clearly, the people from Guide Vert Michelin weren't here an hour ago; they would change their mind. The same applies to Frommer's guides, Lonely Planet...and on it goes. They are just three examples.
Visitor recognition of the name and style and content of the CMC is enviable. It's one of this 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 visiting dignitaries.
If the Museum of Civilization stands out as such a great product, why would anyone want to change its brand? Think like a business person. General Motors, even in its worst days, did not abandon the brand of Cadillac and Chevrolet.
The challenge from a marketing standpoint is to extend a brand. New products can be added, an old brand can be relied upon to win attention and trust. If the government believes that the area of history should be given more attention in titling, then why not simply retitle the museum as the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.
CMHC, it has a ring—
Voices: Oh, oh!
Dr. Victor Rabinovitch: —especially if you're a young homeowner.
The simplicity of the change is almost breathtaking. It simply links together history and civilization.
Beyond the proposed change in name, however, lies another shift that's deeply worrying. The core of that—I believe that Mr. Turk was talking about this momentarily when he spoke about the revision of the purpose of the museum—is the new mandate, which I would term narrow and parochial.
The current mandate of the Museum of Civilization is set out in section 7 of the 1990 Museums Act. It's not drafted elegantly, but its intention is perfectly clear. Its first focus is on Canada, and it empowers the museum staff to create knowledge, to expand collections that will inform future generations, and to share knowledge through public activities. The museum is also empowered in a secondary focus, which is to conduct external research, make collections, and share knowledge publicly.
The Museums Act of 1990 refers to a full range of human activity. It calls on the museum to increase knowledge and critical understanding for human cultural achievements and human behaviour. This range of knowledge is not limited to history.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have a Ph.D. in history, and I speak to you with great modesty about my area of training and professional knowledge.
Other fields of expertise are essential to understanding society and essential to operating good museums. The CMC staff in areas such as archeology, aboriginal studies, music and popular cultures, design and craft have made huge contributions to understanding this country in its fullest sense. History has been part of the work; history is not everything.
The success of the Museum of Civilization has rested on its balance. The balance on Canadian priority has been balanced by presentations on international themes. The priority for domestic activities has been balanced by Canadian exhibitions and venues abroad. Research from the past has been balanced by research on the ancient past. History has been balanced by contemporary studies on aboriginal arts, nursing, communities, winter sports, and childhood experiences. It's all part of a balance and the knowledge from this balance has been shared.
I won't go into detail talking about the success of the Museum of Civilization. It is by far the most visited museum in the country. In a typical year, its attendance is double the attendance of a full season NHL team. That's a lot of people.
What's the meaning of the proposed new mandate? In essence, it aims to restrict and reduce the activities of a renamed museum of history. The wording is subtle, but the meaning, it seems to me, is clear. Number one, the scope of interest will now be on events and experiences “that have shaped Canada's history and identity”. It's a backward-looking focus, purely on the past. Contemporary issues, contemporary activities, community issues, and cultural expressions have no place in this except peripherally as outcomes of the past.
Secondly, the role of research is very reduced. Mr. Turk has spoken about this. Perhaps research will be intended as something ancillary to enhance Canadian knowledge. Perhaps research will simply be a form of enhanced journalism that's aimed at popularization.
Thirdly, while there is mention of “world history and culture” the focus is only on what can be shown here in Canada. The museum of history is not intended to be mandated to take part in research activity abroad, nor to be part of exchanges that would send Canadian museum knowledge to international venues
These proposed changes to the mandate will have the overall effect of reducing the museum's scope of activity and creating an inward focus that turns away from the world and eliminates concern with the here and the now.
Today, as a standing committee, you have the mandate to look at the changes with long-term implications. The changes will be cumulative. The decisions that will be made by the museum will have great impact on the hiring of staff, on eliminating people who are not historians, on selecting topics for future projects, and on downgrading hard tasks of creating substance. The celebrations of 2017 will be long past when the impacts of the reduced mandate will be felt.
Mr. Chairman, with all of this in mind I have prepared two recommendations that I hope the members of the committee will wish to consider, and I will provide you with some copies of the paper I have written.
The first recommendation I would make is that you consider changing the name of the proposed Canadian Museum of History to the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization.
The second recommendation I would make is that the purpose of the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization be written so as to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, knowledge, critical understanding and appreciation of cultures, events, experiences and peoples that have shaped history, identity, and contemporary society with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada, and to do this by expanding, studying, and preserving for posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural significance, with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, I have some copies of what I have presented to you. I sincerely hope that despite my drafting, this is a basis for good, impartial discussion amongst the members of the standing committee and that a bill of importance can be made better through your work.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Anthropology Society, an organization that represents professional and academic anthropologists throughout Canada.
I do have prepared remarks, but on the walk over here today I was thinking about the bill and an image popped into my mind, a picture of my uncle back in the thirties on the farm in Saskatchewan with a sedan he had converted into a pickup truck so that we could haul boulders out of the fields. I thought that is what Bill is. Unfortunately, it's more than that. You're taking a Rolls-Royce and you're chopping the roof and tearing out the back seats so that you can turn it into a pickup truck. Canadians deserve an excellent Canadian history museum, and the Canadian Anthropology Society supports the creation of a museum of Canadian history, but we do not support the gutting of, as has already been said, the crown jewel in our collection of museums. It would be a terrible mistake with long-term consequences.
I'd like to start my remarks by noting that we are also concerned about the consultation process as it has gone forward to this point. We feel there was a lack of extensive or systematic engagement of the professional community of historians, anthropologists, and archeologists in the CMC's planning for the proposed Canadian Museum of History.
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. The museum's representatives did not undertake to provide participants with a synthesis of comments, a formal response to their concerns, or any specific indication as to how the museum would seek to integrate the received feedback in the research or implementation of the new exhibits. Only a minority of professional practitioners of the historical disciplines was invited to participate in these meetings.
I'm pretty confident that everyone in this room has had the privilege of appreciating the Canadian Museum of Civilization, this national monument to the cultural heritage and living present of all who have peopled these lands, most notably the first nations, Inuit, and Métis, as curated, researched, and shared publicly by a cadre of expert and dedicated scholars for more than a century. This history can be traced to the founding of the anthropology division of the Geological Survey of Canada in 1910. In those early years, and later as the National Museum of Canada and then the National Museum of Man, the focus and collections remained predominantly focused on Canadian aboriginal peoples. As established in 1990, and still in effect today, the vision of the then-renamed Canadian Museum of Civilization was expressed in the mandate of the Museums Act:
to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada.
In this process, the museum was empowered to undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.
On this basis the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dedicated to publicly supported scholarship on core issues in the Canadian and the human experience, and is internationally renowned for its work. Upon a substantive research basis, public exhibitions, both permanent and temporary, have been rigorously created to be offered, critiqued, and constantly renewed as a trust to the Canadian people. This work has been largely, but not exclusively, anthropological in character and has depended on the sustained and sometimes lifelong work of specialist curators in ethnology, cultural studies, archeology, and history.
However, in May 2012 the Canadian Museum of Civilization's administrative structure was readjusted to no longer include a vice-president for Research and Collections. Research and Collections is now placed under the former vice-president, who is now a director general of Exhibitions and Programs. Furthermore, the current executive of the museum includes no member with research or collections expertise. It is unclear what the future of research will be at the museum, despite the substantive need for research both in itself and as the basis for exhibitions and programs of quality.
Bill provides a new and significantly reduced purpose: “to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures”. It also has a narrower empowerment to “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology”. This language renders even research within the reduced mandate optional. It would be possible under this language for there to be no research undertaken within the museum itself, and it appears planned that research may become an adjunct to exhibitions, once they are decided upon, rather than the informed and critical basis from which they arise.
Some of the consequences are immediately clear. The First Peoples Hall, a signature creation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, is 10 years old. It cannot maintain or renew itself, and it requires continuing research and collaboration to ensure that it is current with contemporary aboriginal life and engages with emerging issues regarding the past and present of Canada's first peoples.
This anticipated new Museum of Canadian History will, according to Dr. Mark O'Neill, include “aspects of the aboriginal experience” but shift toward other still-unspecified Canadian historical themes. Here a very considerable amount of research and enhancements of collections will be required, as this has not been hitherto a focus of the museum. The museum's collections are currently, depending on definition, 70% to 80% aboriginal, as has been the established curatorial expertise of the museum. Elements of material culture cannot simply be borrowed from other collections and placed on display. There are major issues of cost, access, time, research, and vision.
Apparently, there will be a one-time-only provision of $25 million for the transformation of the museum, but this will not be new money. These funds are designated for a renovation of half of the museum's 100,000 square feet and other costs. Given current costs to meet curatorial standards at this level of roughly $1,000 per square foot, this generates an underfunding of at least 50%.
The plan for the museum is due to culminate at the time of the 150th anniversary of Confederation and presents a view of Canadian history as “settler history”. In the words of Mark O'Neill, “Canada's history from the fur trade to the Northwest Rebellion to Confederation, through two world wars and the quiet revolution to Canada in the world will come to life”.
So Canada's history started with the fur trade. The frame has clearly and decisively shifted. The frame now is the imported imaginings of the modern European nation state and its transplantation to a new territory. This history enshrines a much-diminished vision, compared with the collaborative one that recognizes our shared occupancy of these lands and the fundamental character of all Canadians as treaty people.
Canada's history truly began long before there was any thought of Canada, and we all benefit from the living legacy of the first nations, Inuit, and Métis fashioning vibrant societies and cultures, and maintaining relationships with their neighbours. Those who arrived later, the French and British as well as successive waves of newer arrivals from all corners of the world, have brought with them an abundance of linkages with larger and new global realities. Canadians are outward-looking and cosmopolitan by their very definition. Canadians deserve a museum that reflects that. The Canadian experience has never been limited in time and space and is intrinsically part of the larger human experience.
We are concerned that the government's decision to transform the CMC into the CMH fits into a pattern of a politically charged heritage policy that has been emerging in the past few years. Alongside the substantial public funds that were directed into the celebration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, this initiative appears to reflect a new use of history to support the government's political agenda, that is, the highlighting of particular features of our past favoured by leading ministers of the current government.
If so, this would be a highly inappropriate use of our national cultural institutions, which should stand apart from any particular government agenda and should instead be run according to sound professional standards and principles of non-partisanship.
Once again, I applaud the government's initiative to establish a Canadian museum of history. I deplore the government's decision to convert the Canadian Museum of Civilization into a pickup truck.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I want to thank you for this invitation to appear before you today.
The Historica-Dominion Institute is Canada's largest organization dedicated to making history and citizenship issues more well known.
[English]
Our board of directors includes some of the country's most respected representatives of the business, philanthropic, and arts communities, and a number of them are members of the Order of Canada.
Our programs range from our well-known Heritage Minutes to the Memory Project, which arranges visits by veterans to schools and videotapes the recollections of their war experiences. Passages to Canada brings Canadians from other countries and of different ethnicities and cultures to our schools and other public institutions to speak about their experiences. The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is in the process of being enhanced, is a definitive digital record of things Canadian, and Encounters with Canada each year for over 30 weeks hosts more than one thousand students from coast to coast to coast for a week of learning here in Ottawa.
We are non-partisan. With that in mind, we very much support this legislation.
Canadians can be divided into a variety of categories, but let's take two: those born here and those who come from elsewhere. Those Canadians born here are automatically citizens and are actually not required to know much about our country. Paradoxically, those who come here often know more about their chosen country because they have chosen it and because they have to in order to pass their citizenship test.
But they need and want more, and too often our schools are not the answer. As we know, only four of the thirteen provinces and territories make it mandatory to pass history in order to get out of high school.
[Translation]
History teaches us about what we have achieved as a nation and how, thus providing us with a road map for the future. We do not always agree on history's lessons, and that is not only acceptable, but even desirable. A good debate creates more clarity, introduces us to different points of view, prompts deeper reflection and thereby produces better results.
[English]
A national museum of history helps to kick-start that process. Of course, $25 million is a lot of money, and yet in some ways it's not. It's somewhere around 70¢ per Canadian to create a better debate and to discuss our national narrative. No institution is a more appropriate place to do so than one belonging to the federal government, as decided upon by the House of Commons, through which every Canadian has a voice.
At our institute we're proud of the work we do, but we don't presume or pretend to cover the sweep and scope of history. Our Heritage Minutes, more than 60 of them, offer snapshots of key moments in history. I'll make the point that this includes events involving so-called ordinary Canadians as well as bad news and sad and unfortunate chapters in our history. We presume those minutes educate and also engage the people who watch them—and those have been in the millions, of course, for more than 20 years now. We hope they create an appetite to learn more, and if they do, then Canadians need a place to satisfy that appetite.
History belongs to everyone.
[Translation]
Our national narrative should allow everyone to claim their right to see their own reflection in it. We know that a number of elements of the Canadian society do not seem to be sufficiently represented in our history books.
[English]
We expect those voices to be heard in this process and to be reflected back within a history museum.
My own background is largely in journalism, not history, and many of you might think journalism is the less well-behaved sibling of history. Journalism is sometimes described as the first, rough draft of history.
These days, with the great democratization of the information process created by the digital world, we hear many voices interpreting events in many different ways. Smart people understand that it's a good idea to read many different interpretations in order to get a better sense of an event's context and its ramifications, including the building and continuing development and evolution of the nation.
To get that process going, there has to be a leader, a gathering place, a trigger, to get the discussion under way.
Perfection, we often say, is the enemy of the good. Sometimes the reverse can be true: good can be an obstacle to perfection. Good can get to be very good; very good aims at perfection. So we shouldn't stop, saying that because something is very good right now, it can't possibly get better. In 2017, as we mark 150 years of being together in recognized form as Canadians, a federally run Canadian museum of history would serve our country appropriately and superbly.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.