EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage NUMBER 067 1st SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Le mercredi 5 juin 2013 Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE June 5, 2013 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 067 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 067 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 067 (Version officielle) 67 05 06 2013 2013/06/05 15:40:00 House of Commons Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage CHPC Chair The Honourable Rob Moore 41 1

(1545) [ English ] The Chair (Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)) : Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 29, we are studying Bill C-49,

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History. I'm very pleased to have as our first witness the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. Welcome, Minister. As well, we have representatives from the Department of Heritage, whom I'll have you introduce, if you like. Without further ado, I'll turn the floor over to you, Minister, for your opening remarks. [ Translation ] Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank my colleagues.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you Bill C-49 , 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 C-49 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 150 th 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.

(1550) 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.

(1555) The Chair : Thank you, Minister Moore. Now we'll move to our rounds of questions and answers. First up is Mr. Young, for seven minutes. Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Thank you, Chair. Minister, in debate in the House, the opposition has falsely claimed that our government is interfering with the independence of the museum. Before I go to specific questions, I'd like to give you the opportunity to address this incorrect assertion. Hon. James Moore : It is flatly false.

I can tell you that there's no head of any museum in this country, certainly our national museums, who will tell you that I've ever interfered with anything that any of our national museums have ever displayed. From time to time, whenever there's a controversial item that's on display in a museum, or seen to be controversial by some in this country, I'm often asked, “What do you think of this display, what do you think of that exhibit, what do you think of this item?”, and from time to time I choose to offer my opinion.

But at no time can I ever, or would I, as a minister ever tell a museum what they can or cannot display; nor the narrative that they can tell about Canada's history; nor the narrative that they can tell about Canadian science; nor the narrative that they can tell in the National Gallery. These are independent institutions—protected by law, by the way. You don't have to take my view on this, that, you know, “Trust me, I'm James Moore, the heritage minister, and I won't get involved”. It's the law.

The law prevents me or any minister or any member of Parliament or any government from interfering with any of our institutions in the way in which they decide to display their items and their collections. It's just the law. So as a critique, I have to say it's a pretty weak one, because the evidence is pretty obvious about the fact of how our institutions are established in this country. Mr. Terence Young : Thank you. Minister, in past budgets, our budgets, the opposition has voted against important increases to the arts and culture industry.

Can you provide the committee with some insight as to why the opposition refuses to support our national museums or the arts and culture industry as a whole? Hon. James Moore : 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. Mr. Terence Young : As you know, Minister, since 2006 we have invested an additional $142 million in our national museums.

Could you please summarize why the opposition should support our efforts to promote and maintain our national museums, including the proposed Canadian Museum of History? Hon. James Moore : I think the answers are self-evident. We have great museums and they deserve our support. But there was another item in the budget, which I didn't spell out—it wasn't in my speech—but is really important because the question has been raised. I think it's Scott who most persistently asks this important question. As the Government of Canada, we have the indemnification fund.

The indemnification fund is what it sounds like: the Government of Canada indemnifies collections and items that can move within the country and come in from abroad to our national museums and galleries. The annual amount that the Government of Canada can indemnify in a calender year is $1.5 billion. The problem in years past is that the $1.5 billion in exposure that the Government of Canada can assume per calendar year is very often consumed by March and April. It's usually the largest institutions in the country that take up that capacity: the ROM in Toronto, Glenbow, and other institutions like that.

In Budget 2012, the budget with the reductions but one that also protected all of our museums, we doubled the indemnification fund from $1.5 billion to $3 billion per year. There's $3 billion per year now of exposure assumed by the Government of Canada for collections, so it's been a doubling.

Therefore, all these museums across the country that will have the capacity to become official partners with the Canadian museum of history will now be able to host collections locally that are housed in the national museum and can be eligible for protection and indemnification through the indemnification fund that we've doubled.

As a consequence, all of these museums will now have access to collections that they would never otherwise have had: first, because of the creation of the museum and then the signing of those partnerships; and, second, because we've doubled the indemnification found so they have access to those collections. These are two key measures that will benefit museums all across the country. That is why, for example, the Canadian Museums Association is supporting this legislation and these efforts. It will benefit everybody. It's not just about an institution here in the national capital; it's about the entire country.

These reforms working hand in hand will benefit all of our museums.

(1600) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Young. Mr. Nantel, for seven minutes. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank Mr. Moore and the members of his staff for being here with us today. I would first like to tell you that, in light of the many debates we have had in the House, we were able to see that a lot of people were enthusiastic about the idea of being able to share artifacts and various elements from the displays in the Canadian Museum of Civilization across Canada. We have to admit that, for everyone, this fine project is a great idea.

However, what is a bit confusing in it all is that all those points are already part of the museum act. Your review refers to the same point, which has received a lot of attention. The current display at the Canadian Museum of Civilization could very well have been circulated in the same way. What don't you like about the current exhibition and theme at the Canadian Museum of Civilization? Hon. James Moore : In my view, it is a great museum. The whole team that works there has certainly accomplished a lot of great things.

However, as I said in my speech, no changes have been made to the Canada Hall in more than 20 years. That is a problem. If we are thinking about Canada's 150 th anniversary, we must improve things. We must change things to show that Canada has changed a lot since 1980. We must also look at how some spaces are used. As a result, the Canadian Postal Museum is also part of this, but it rarely received a lot of visitors. It takes up a lot of space and we can include those things in a larger exhibition on Canadian history. Yes, changes have been made. I think the number of visitors has been a success.

However, we can increase the museum's capacity, broaden the programming and increase the number of visitors. We can establish partnerships across Canada, which will be very beneficial. I think those changes are needed. Mr. Pierre Nantel : You must know that there are a lot of people here who are museum experts. I have permission to cite Dr. George MacDonald, who is here with us and who reacted to your comments when you said that the First Nations were not included.

Let me tell you what he said: (1605) [ English ] I just watched James Moore on his new web site in the clip on the 2nd reading of Bill C-49 and was shocked to hear him claim that the Aboriginal Peoples are excluded from the displays in the Canada Hall. It is clear from that he did not understand the meaning nor the mutual obligations of that display to the Aboriginal fishing communities of the West Coast. His pressure to remove that exhibit flies directly in the face of what he claims the new legislation will achieve. [ Translation ] What is your reaction to that type of comment? [ English ] Hon.

James Moore : That's bizarre. I've never pressured a museum to change an exhibit, so I don't know what that's referring to. It's true that, as you go through the Canada Hall, you get to the end of it and realize that apart from the fashions and the architecture it ends in 1980. It doesn't continue through the nineties and into the modern era. This is a request for funding to upgrade the museum that I know existed before the current management was present at the Museum of Civilization. I know the NDP is not opposed to our investing this money in the museum—you just don't like to change the mandate.

You yourself have acknowledged that this museum could use some updating. The Canada Hall is proof of that. It's not just that one angle. There's also another one. Over time, inadequacies in the Canada Hall were pointed out to me when I did a tour there not long ago. Acadian Canadians have a plaque on a wall, and that's it. It's just a plaque. The story of the Acadians, the trauma they went through, which is all part of Canada's history, is not treated with real seriousness or any kind of due care. There are all kinds of examples.

I've spoken to members of the board of the museum, and I can tell you that very often people put stuff in the suggestion boxes saying that this story isn't adequately told. Having a refresh is something that is habitual, by the way, in every other museum in the country. They do this stuff all the time to make sure they're up to date, and they understand the nuances of teaching and disseminating information about history. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : You talked about consultations and suggestion boxes.

I would like to remind you that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has conducted an in-depth study of the potential festivities and the organization of the 150 th anniversary of Canada. To our great surprise, you have told us since May 2011, when you were elected, that you already had an idea of how to make those changes. Basically, we have learned that historians' associations, archeologists and anthropologists were only consulted in the spring of 2013. Who have you consulted in almost two years? I remember that my team and I went to a consultation in January.

I have here one of the consultation methods used by the representatives of the museum. That consultation was held in the basement of a shopping centre in west Montreal. They wanted to know what Canadians were expecting to see in their museum. We had to put little stickers in boxes to indicate whether our first choice was Maurice Richard's hockey sweater, for example. What types of consultations have you conducted in those two years? Hon. James Moore : That consultation was organized by the museums. Listen, on the one hand, you are saying that I should not get involved in museums... Mr.

Pierre Nantel : Are you happy with the consultations held by the museums? Hon. James Moore : That is for them to say. I know that Mr. O'Neill could tell you how they hold their consultations. You must also understand that we are constantly holding consultations to understand the wishes and needs of taxpayers. We want to know what they want to see in every museum and gallery. I have talked to my provincial colleagues and other people. I fully understand the situation. In my response, I thanked your committee for its work on our country's 150 th birthday and on what it wanted to include in the celebrations.

I agree with most of what you said, but my mandate does not come from your committee. My mandate comes from Canadians and my obligations are to find and work with you on a number of ideas for the 150 th anniversary. That is why, before I introduced the bill in the House of Commons, I presented it to each of you and to each of the parties of the House of Commons. I told you about this bill in person. Mr. Pierre Nantel : That is because I want us to talk about it. Hon. James Moore : You have never told me not to go ahead with it. You told me to submit the bill to study its content and see how it was drafted.

We are here today to talk about it. Mr. Pierre Nantel : Exactly, and that is why I wanted to ask you... Hon. James Moore : If you have ideas, I would be very happy to hear about them. Mr. Pierre Nantel : Let's talk about them then. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Nantel, and thank you, Minister. Next we have Mr. Simms. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Thank you, Chair. Minister, just quickly off the top, who brands a museum? Is that you, or a curator with total independence? Hon. James Moore : Who brands? The naming of the museum is found in the Museums Act.

Branding of specific exhibits is up to the museum. Mr. Scott Simms : But in this particular case, certainly there's a great deal of scepticism even in some of the language that's out here. It's a lot smaller than it used to be. In the new language there is “knowledge and understanding” as opposed to what was there before, which was “knowledge and critical understanding”. Some people may look at that as just a small item, but these are words that carry a lot of weight. A critical understanding in and of itself carries a certain degree of independence.

I would like to see a three-year review about our museums, about the independence, and about whether this independence is maintained. I'm sorry if I sound alarmist, but, number one, the committee in a report recommended—all of us recommended—that for the celebrations of 2017 we would set up an arm's-length organization to do this. Already we are now into this exercise, which is also branded as a celebration of 2017, to rename the museum and to produce the artifacts across the country or share them, which I'm fine with. But the branding that you're doing is.....

Your department has done it before to an excessive degree. We did an order paper question just a short time ago, and you rebranded what was always the “Government of Canada” so that now most of the releases contain the words “Harper Government” as a rebranding exercise. From June 28, 2011 to March 2, 2013 government departments put out a total of 2,600 releases containing the term “Harper Government”. The number one department was yours by far, by 600 releases. That's a quarter of the total. So, that's your branding exercise.

I hope this is not what we're seeing here, which would actually infringe upon the curatorial independence of this organization.

(1610) Hon. James Moore : That's quite a stretch, Scott. You're comparing apples.... Mr. Scott Simms : Fine, but illustrate the stretch. Hon. James Moore : You're talking about the Department of Canadian Heritage versus a museum. I don't run the museum, and I don't send out any press releases from the museum. The museum sends out all of its own press releases. You understand the difference, right? The museum is not a part of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The museum is its own independent entity created by the Museums Act and protected by the Museums Act from me or you or anybody telling them what they can or can't say. Tell me you understand the difference between the museum sending out a press release and me sending out a press release. Mr. Scott Simms : But you have the appointees on the board itself. You now decide on the board. You've laid out here, in the terms you have, how you want to see this museum.

You are changing the name, yes, but in effect you're also changing the function of this, which really can be dictated by you if you look at the language of this. Hon. James Moore : The only change is the mandate that is spelled out in Bill C-49, and if you want to change one of the words in there because it will provide you greater comfort, then I'm prepared to see that. But you haven't told me. You've talked, but you've never said anything about a specific amendment. If you want to put pen to paper, I'll be glad to look at it, Scott. As I said to you, we want to work together on this. Mr.

Scott Simms : Well, I'll have to wait until we get to that. Hon. James Moore : That's fine. That's great, and we'll take a look at that. If that will provide you greater comfort, that's fine. On the first thing that you said here about a three-year review of the independence, it's the law. The law is pretty clear. Do you not think the Museums Act is clear about the independence of our museums? Mr. Scott Simms : So what is there to be afraid of? Hon. James Moore : I'm not afraid of anything. Mr. Scott Simms : You did it for the Copyright Act. Why did you do it for Bill C-11 , the Copyright Act?

You have a review built in.... Hon. James Moore : We have a five-year review of the Copyright Act for very different reasons, because technological changes over years and international obligations by the Government of Canada shouldn't stop us from reforming our copyright legislation—so it's about technology and international obligations. There's nothing technologically that changes about the Government of Canada having a wall of independence motivating the museums— Mr. Scott Simms : Well, of course there is. We share the artifacts across the country.

You even said yourself earlier that because of technological changes, some of the changes have to be made no matter what. That's certainly true in this particular case and when it comes to the museum. Hon. James Moore : I'm not following you on the technology.... Mr. Scott Simms : The fundamental reason for you to have a review is to make sure that your legislation is working. Correct? So, why not do a three-year review of this? Hon. James Moore : You mean on this particular museum or on all museums? Mr. Scott Simms : Sure.

If Canadians have a fundamental concern about the independence of this museum and perhaps even about other museums, wouldn't a three-year review alleviate that problem? Hon. James Moore : If you want, but this is a new policy. Let's be very clear. This is the first time that any member of this Parliament has ever raised this issue. But let's look specifically at the law.

Section 27 of the Museums Act says: 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. It's pretty clear. Mr. Scott Simms : So why would you be against a review?

(1615) Hon. James Moore : Because it doesn't change, Scott. It's the law. Words don't jump off the page and jump over each other. It's the law. Mr. Scott Simms : But in other cases, you have put a review board in, such as for Bill C-11 . Hon. James Moore : Propose it, fine. Mr. Scott Simms : Okay, but it sounds to me like you don't want to do this. Hon. James Moore : I don't care. If you want to do it, do it, but it's the law. It doesn't change. Mr. Scott Simms: I'm sure you care Hon. James Moore: But it's the law; it doesn't change. Mr.

Scott Simms : Let's go back to the first point then, the one I mentioned about the 150th celebration. Do you think there should be an independent agency to look after the celebrations of 150 years, for the sesquicentennial. Hon. James Moore : It's one of the things we're considering. We haven't decided on it because, to be honest, we had differing experiences, for example, when I was minister responsible for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.

We had VANOC, which was an independent organization, and very often when we have independent organizations, what they will often do—and your government will remember this well—is to have all kinds of hype and to dream up all kinds of great big things and stir up all kinds of excitement about something, and then all they do is then to turn to the government and say, “Now fund it”. I think that's not necessarily the best model to follow.

The idea of having, certainly, independence in making sure that our celebrations are seen to be pan-Canadian and obviously non-partisan, thoughtful, and inclusive of all parts of the country, respectful of our official languages, and all of our diversity in the country, of course, is self-evident. That would only benefit the program, but the way in which it's structured matters very much because, as I personally experienced in the past, there have been organizations that have been independent, have dialed up expectations, and then turned to the government and said, “Now pay for it”, without any input whatsoever.

There's a way to do it that matters, and that was one of the recommendations of the committee that was looking at it, and we're taking that into account. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Simms. Mr. Hillyer, for seven minutes. Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister, for coming to visit us on this subject. There's a lot of talk about how this name and mandate change has been politically motivated. I have trouble seeing it; I don't understand how it's politically motivated.

I wonder if changing the name to the Canadian Museum of History, which also includes not just Canadian history but our place in the world and therefore world history as well, is politically motivated. Would that suggest perhaps that the lack of a Canadian of museum of history up to this point was also politically motivated, perhaps owing to a doctrine that Canadians have to be self-effacing and that it's somehow un-Canadian to be pro-Canadian? I guess I can't ask you why people think it's politically motivated because you can't think for other people, but what are your thoughts on that notion? Hon.

James Moore : If this were in any way partisan or politically motivated, I wouldn't have shared the language of the legislation with the NDP and the Liberals, and the Green Party before we tabled it. If this were partisan, we wouldn't have the broad-based support that we have for it. If this were partisan, former NDP MP and now independent MP Bruce Hyer wouldn't have voted for it. If this were partisan, Elizabeth May wouldn't have voted for it. If this were partisan we wouldn't have the support of former Liberal MP John English. When I spoke to Jean Chrétien about this, he liked the idea.

He thought it was a good idea and proposed that we go forward with it. When I say this is non-partisan, I genuinely mean that, and if colleagues want to see devils where there aren't any, then they'll see them, and that's just the way it is. As I said, maybe this will be a circumstance of believing me later when the results are fully shown, but this is going to be a great project. It's going to be great. It is. There are institutions lining up to be signatories to the MOUs across the country. I can tell you that the Royal British Columbia Museum; the Manitoba Museum; and The Rooms in St.

John's, Newfoundland, all want to sign-on. They're going to be partners in this. We have museums all across the country, large and small, that are thumbs-up enthusiastic. They understand the value of this, the importance of this. Every single member of the current board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, every single one of them, supports this museum. Past board chairs are supporting this. This has broad-based support across the country because this is a classical example of Occam's razor.

This is exactly what it appears to be, the creation of a national institution that will be of value to every part of the country. It will teach Canada's history as Canadians want to teach it, one to another, in the institutions where they live. That's what this is. Anybody who tries to spin this or torque this into something that it's not is really playing a fool's game. Mr. Jim Hillyer : You wouldn't say there was political motivation to avoid it up to this point? Hon. James Moore : The Canadian Museum of Civilization, I think, has a great track record. They've had great successes.

Certainly the staff at the museum is great. Keep in mind, by the way, about one-third of the Museum of Civilization's budget right now goes to research. That will continue to be the case because there is great research that is done there, and it will continue to move forward. They've built a great legacy there that we're building upon. If we were in any way disrespecting the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Douglas Cardinal would not be supporting this. He was one of the great visionaries who helped build this institution.

If we were in any way diminishing the value of this institution, the mayors of Gatineau and Ottawa wouldn't be supporting this project, but they are, because they see this as an important step forward in enlarging the value of this museum and what it means for the national capital and the country. I don't know what to say to the opponents of this. There are not many of them and, frankly, those who are have very, very weak arguments. I'd have to be blunt. (1620) [ Translation ] Mr. Jim Hillyer : Where I come from, all the cities are young. The province of Alberta itself was created in 1905.

We think that Canada started in 1867. I personally had never heard of Saint Jean de Brébeuf before I took French literature courses in university. Could you tell us about the importance of understanding history, even before 1867? Hon. James Moore : Yes, that is something very important. In the House of Commons, I did not have the chance to say enough about that. So let me make it clear. [ English ] You notice the name of this museum. Again, I mentioned how we reached out to opposition parties and showed them the language of the bill before we tabled it. We spoke to people before we did this.

It is a demonstration, by the way, of the effort that we've made to try to be as inclusive as possible with this museum. Some people have asked why it will be called the Canadian Museum of History. The reason is that we don't want to limit it singularly and only to Canada's history. And equally, it's the Canadian Museum of History because not all Canadians trace back their lineage back to 1867. Of course, aboriginal Canadians have a different view of when their history and their lineage began on this continent and what that means to them.

I think my deputy minister will agree with me that we had very painstaking conversations and e-mails back and forth, working things around and making the name work in both official languages in a way that was inclusive for Canadians themselves and institutions across the country, so that they will be able to talk about history and Canadian history in a context that makes the most sense to them.

So we came up with the title, the most appropriate one, the one that works best—the Canadian Museum of History—to be inclusive of Canada's first people and to be inclusive of all the different stories and narratives that have led us to where we are today. Mr. Jim Hillyer : One of the things that excites me about this notion is the pan-Canadian network that you talked about. You said in your comments at the beginning that “It's time for this country to think big”. Now, to be fair, and I'm sure you aren't insinuating this, this is not the first time this country has ever thought big.

We have a nature of thinking big. There's the notion in the past that we could only think big or do big if it were being propped up by the federal government. You've talked about how the regional museums can profit from this central museum. But what about the other way around? How can the central museum or one region benefit from another region by their being able to share their local histories with the rest of Canada? Hon. James Moore : 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 C-49 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.

(1625) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Hillyer. Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Thank you. Thank you, Minister, for being here. I'm going to have to be fairly quick here. First of all, has the Mayor of Gatineau made a public statement of support for this museum? Hon. James Moore : I believe as a public statement.... He said it to me in private, and he said— Mr. Andrew Cash : Well, has he signed a declaration? Has he made a public statement that he is in support of this? Hon. James Moore : I asked him personally and he said, yes, absolutely, and if you want me to send something— Mr.

Andrew Cash : This is part of the problem we have. So much of the issue here with this museum is that it's a personal endeavour between you and other personal relationships that you have. I mean, you're announcing here that the Mayor of Gatineau supports the changes when the people of Gatineau haven't heard that officially from the mayor himself. Is this the official announcement of his support? Hon. James Moore : I've said so from the.... I spoke to him in my office. I talked to him before we tabled the legislation. I talked to Mr. Bureau and as well as Jim Watson. I told them what we were— Mr.

Andrew Cash : You say that the government doesn't interfere, and that agencies are very independent, but we know that Bill C-60 will give powers to cabinet— Hon. James Moore : Hold on. With respect, Andrew, to just roll through this— Mr. Andrew Cash : Excuse me. Can I just ask the question first? Hon. James Moore : Yes, but just to call Mr. Bureau a liar.... Like, come on. Mr. Andrew Cash: Pardon me? Hon. James Moore: Let's not call people liars. I mean, Mr. Bureau told me directly, and my office— Mr. Andrew Cash : I didn't call.... I asked if there was a public statement of support from the mayor.

I didn't call you anything, Minister, with the greatest respect. I asked a simple question: was there a public statement? That's all. Hon. James Moore : Ask his office about that. He told me. Mr. Andrew Cash : We already know that Bill C-60 will give powers to cabinet to set terms of employment for all staff at the museum— The Chair : Mr. Cash, we're on Bill C-49 . Mr. Andrew Cash: I know. I'm going to get to it. The Chair: You have the last question, and you have a few minutes, so bring it on to— Mr. Andrew Cash : It's because this is related to independence.

We know that many experts are saying that the independence of crown corporations will be compromised by this. So when you said “we” had the idea to make changes to the museum, who is “we”, first of all? Hon. James Moore : Well, I did. I talked to a bunch of colleagues. I talked to the president of the museum at the time, to members of the board, to historians. I talked to one of my old history professors from back in university; I said, what do you think of this idea? I talk to people in museums across the country all the time, and I say, what do you think of this idea? Mr.

Andrew Cash : How often do you speak to Mr. O'Neill? Hon. James Moore : I don't know. Where is Mark? I talked to him just before this meeting. Voices: Oh, oh!

(1630) Mr. Andrew Cash : Do you and he frequently converse? Hon. James Moore : Through the course of this legislation, not any more often than I've spoken with presidents of other museums. Mr. Andrew Cash : And how about e-mails and visits and meetings? Hon. James Moore : I don't have his e-mail address. Mr. Andrew Cash : So what sort of things do you speak about with him? Hon. James Moore : His favourite colour, what he likes in his hot dog. Important things like that.... Voices: Oh, oh! Hon. James Moore: Come on. We talk about public.... Mr. Andrew Cash : Well, this is just it.

Are there notes and records of these meetings? An hon. member: You're not a prosecutor. Hon. James Moore: Come on. He's a conspiracy theorist. Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have the minister for a short period of time. We're talking about Bill C-49 , not Mr. O'Neill's e-mail address. Mr. Andrew Cash : I wasn't asking for Mr. O'Neill's e-mail address— Voices: Oh, oh! Mr. Paul Calandra : Could we bring it back to reality? Mr. Andrew Cash: Come on, you're going to run out the clock. This is a classic tactic. Mr. Paul Calandra: Maybe offline they can ask Mr.

O'Neill and Mr. Moore what movies they like and what they like on their hot dogs. But if we could talk about Bill C-49, that would be a real change. The Chair : Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : The issue here is that there's no transparency in this decision. You've made an announcement assuming that there was some public announcement of the support of the mayor of Gatineau. Your decision about this museum was made, it seems, arbitrarily, or with some friends in private. We had a long study of Canada's 150th birthday. This was never brought up once. The decision was made after the fact.

The announcement of the money to spend was made, and then a consultation began for which essentially the decision had already been made. So it's valid to ask you how often and for how long have you been working on this in secret without the public's knowledge of this, and what's the connection? I mean, you seem to be very close to Mr. O'Neill. How often do you meet? We've been trying to ask this question for many months in various forms. So I have you here, and I think it's germane to the conversation. Hon. James Moore : I probably speak to any of our museum presidents, including Mr. O'Neill, every month.

Maybe once a month. There's no difference between Mr. O'Neill and the heads of any other of our organizations. Second, on this issue of secrecy, this is such a secret plan that I shared it with my heritage critic from the NDP. This is such a secret plan that I shared it with the leader of the Green Party. It's such a secret plan that I told Scott. It's such a secret plan, I told Jean Chrétien. My God, it's such a secret plan, I shared it with the former board chairs. It's such a secret plan, I was very proud of it and talked about it across this country over the past nine months since we announced this plan.

With regard to Mr. Bureau, I had the same conversation— Mr. Andrew Cash: Are there records— Hon. James Moore: Let me finish. I had the same conversation— Mr. Andrew Cash : Are there records of your meetings with Mr. O'Neill? Is there a log of the appointments, how often you two have discussed this? When did you start discussing this, and for how long? And what was the nature of those discussions? It's just a simple question. Is there a log of that stuff? Hon. James Moore : I don't think so. I mean, he's not a lobbyist; he's the president of a museum. Mr. Andrew Cash: Sure.

And you decided to spend $26 million of taxpayers' money on a museum, which—you've already described the Canadian Museum of Civilization aptly and perfectly today as a great museum. You've already described.... The Chair: The minister is— Hon. James Moore: Yes, but it could be made better and improved upon. And look, the fact— Mr. Andrew Cash : There was no consultation with the public on this. The Chair: Okay, Mr. Cash— Hon. James Moore : Andrew, I didn't interrupt you at any point. Just let me answer— The Chair: —allow the minister to give a quick response to this. Hon. James Moore: —some of the nonsense here.

Look, I met with Mr. Watson in my office, and I asked him if he supported this idea, and he said yes. He said he thinks it's great. I believe he issued a public statement. And I asked him, “Can I publicly say that you support the museum?” He said, “Yes. Absolutely”. I had the exact same conversation with Mr. Bureau. I said, “Here's what we plan to do. Can I say publicly that you support this institution?” He said, “Yes. I think it's a great idea”. So I've said so. And you're right— Mr. Andrew Cash : Did he say that it was a great idea? Or did he say you could say publicly that he supports it? Hon.

James Moore : Yes. Both. Mr. Andrew Cash: Which? Hon. James Moore: Both. Look, even just— The Chair : We're out of time, as interesting as this is. Minister, thank you for your time with us. We're going to suspend for one minute, and let our next panel of witnesses come to the table. (1630)

(1635) The Chair : We'll get started again. From now until 5:30, we will have with us Mr. Mark O'Neill, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as well as David Morrison, director of research and content, special project 2017, exhibitions and programs. Welcome, gentlemen. I believe the clerk has told you that you have some time for opening remarks before we move into questions and answers. With that, Mr. O'Neill, the floor is yours.

(1640) Mr. Mark O'Neill (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, committee members. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Bill C-49 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.

(1645) 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.

(1650) 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 C-49 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. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. We'll move now to our questions and answers, beginning with Mr. Richards for seven minutes. Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Thank you very much for being here. Mr. O'Neill, there seem to be some misconceptions about this bill, certainly on the other side of the table at least.

I want to take a moment to clarify a few points with you. Certainly, when we had the Minister here earlier, he was very clear that many of the decisions about the museum and its contents and its curatorial decisions would obviously remain in your hands at the museum. But the opposition seems to be inferring that there will be some interference with the independence of the museum. That's certainly what their inference is.

I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about Bill C-49 and if it will still allow the Canadian Museum of History, as it will be called, to maintain its curatorial independence, and if you could indicate if that would be the same independence currently enjoyed by the Canadian Museum of Civilization, as it's currently called. Also, perhaps you could even point to the sections or parts of the bill that explain that particular point. Mr. Mark O'Neill : Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the question.

I'd like to begin my answer by saying that I fully understand the concerns of Canadians when changes are made to their memory institutions. I've been around a long time, having worked in cultural and social policy for the Government of Canada since 1986. I've been in this museum corporation for 12 years. I was in the corporation when another government created a museum, when a government built the Canadian War Museum, and I saw that project from the ground up. Many of the same concerns and discussions were certainly central to that whole period as well. I think those concerns are understandable.

What works, and as the Minister of Canadian Heritage explained, simply by its statutory nature the museum is a crown corporation existing at arm's length from the Government of Canada. Ministers and governments make their views known in very broad ways, as the former government did about the need for a military history museum, as this government has about its desire to introduce a bill to Parliament, and here you are at second reading.

The arm's length and the protection flows from the governance structure of the corporation, and that is the role of the board of trustees in setting the strategic direction and, as I think many of the members of this committee know, that is a cornerstone of crown corporation governance. It appears in our corporate plan each year. It is my task as the CEO of the corporation to respond to that strategic direction and demonstrate to the board, operating on behalf of the minister of the government, that we are indeed implementing it.

My experience in the corporation is that the members of this committee as well as Canadians can be encouraged and assured that the museum will operate independently from the Government of Canada, and that the content of this new museum will be created by the content experts who work for us: the museologists, curators, researchers, and historians.

(1655) Mr. Blake Richards : That's obviously a pretty clear statement you have made. There've also been some concerns expressed about the new mandate and how it might not allow the museum to conduct research or participate in international knowledge sharing. Can you tell us if that's the case? Mr. Mark O'Neill : The members of the committee studying this bill know—and I don't think I need to direct you—that clause 9, I believe it is, immediately following the mandate statement, discusses research and collecting, and the powers and authority of the museum at length.

I understand there is some concern that the words “research” and “collecting” aren't in the mandate statement. That's certainly beyond my purview, in terms of your work. However, I can tell you that the museum is engaged in collection and research as we speak. I mentioned in my remarks that we have a national collection fund of $9 million. At the end of the last month, we literally finalized a research strategy that will garner activities. I see absolutely nothing in this bill, if that's your question, that would in any way prevent the museum from undertaking the research and collecting that it currently does.

In fact, it's explicitly set out in clause 9. Mr. Blake Richards : Excellent. What about the ability to host international exhibitions? There's been some concern expressed there as well that under the new mandate this could not be undertaken . Is that true? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Again, world cultures in history are specifically mentioned, I believe, in the mandate statement proposed in the act. This has dogged us a little bit since day one. There was an earlier media report that said the museum would no longer undertake international exhibitions and partnerships.

At the actual press conference in which the government made the announcement, we talked about the fact that we had begun discussing the Greek exhibition that I just highlighted for you, and the museum will continue to host international exhibitions and develop international partnerships. They're critically important, and I believe that was explicitly referenced in the proposed mandate statement, which I think is in proposed

section 8 of the act. Mr. Blake Richards : While we're on the topic of international exhibitions, in Budget 2012 the government actually increased the travelling exhibitions indemnification program to help attract new exhibitions to Canada. I wonder if you could just tell the committee a little bit about how that will help the museum to bring in those international exhibitions. Mr. Mark O'Neill : I can also talk, Mr. Chair, as someone who used to manage that program. I worked in the Department of Canadian Heritage in that area for some five or six years and managed that along with several other programs.

The indemnification program was, is, and as long as it is there will be, critically important to museums across the country, particularly those that wish to partner to host large international exhibitions. That's really the fundamental purpose of the indemnification program, and it's an extremely important program. For example, we would apply for indemnification along with the ROM in Toronto for the Greek exhibition that I mentioned. The indemnification program is absolutely critical to successful partnerships, particularly in hosting and attracting large-scale international exhibitions. Mr.

Blake Richards : There also seems to be some confusion in some of the members of the opposite side who seem to be making the claim that Canadians were not consulted on this new museum. I know you mentioned briefly in your opening remarks some of the consultations that the museum undertook in the consultation phase. I wonder if you could elaborate and expand on that a bit, and tell us a bit more about some of the consultations that the museum undertook regarding the creation of the new Canadian museum of history. Mr. Mark O'Neill : Yes, I'd be happy to do that.

I certainly can tell you that the museum went across the country for a period of about four months, from St. John's to Vancouver, in nine centres, and met with groups of Canadians in those centres. We mounted kiosks in urban centres. We had an online survey, and as I mentioned in my speech, we also had an independent question and opinion survey. Altogether we've had about 24,000 Canadians participate in various ways in that consultation. We took the consultation very seriously.

The consultation that I referred to earlier, the meeting earlier in Montreal, was in fact one of the most dynamic consultations with a very good panel discussion, a very diverse panel discussion of young Quebeckers, anglophones and francophones, talking about the history museum. It was very helpful to us. The information has already been given to Dr. Morrison and his team, and they're working that into the interpretive scenario, as we call it, or the storyline that we've begun to develop for the new museum, and we've taken the content and themes very seriously.

I would simply add that in a parallel way we also consulted with academics and scholars—we felt that was critically important—right across the country, and they have helped us develop this new research strategy, which will also help inform the new exhibition hall. I would finally mention that I'm pleased to tell you that as of recently, we have members of the Canadian Historical Association—and we're very pleased about this—who have accepted an invitation to work with us on our advisory committees in developing the content for the new Canadian history hall.

(1700) The Chair : Thank you very much. Next, we have Madam Boutin-Sweet, for seven minutes. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. O'Neill, as you know, I am an archeologist and this bill worries me a great deal. We heard a lot about consultations, but my understanding is that they were all held once the decision was made to change the museum and its mission. Have Canadians and museum experts, including archeologists, been consulted to see what they think about changing the museum's mission? [ English ] Mr. Mark O'Neill : Thank you very much for the question. Mr.

Chair, we did not ask Canadians if they thought that the mandate should be changed. Our view was that the government had introduced a bill in the House, that there is the likelihood of the bill becoming the law of the land. We felt that it was important to talk to Canadians about the kinds of things that they would like to see in their new history museum. We wanted to learn more about how Canadians might engage in the museum, and the kinds of things that they thought might be important. In the public consultations there were a number of Canadians who participated.

There certainly were museologists and content experts. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : That is not what I was asking. I am well aware of who you consulted with afterwards. My understanding is that the decision came from the minister. Once the decision was made, no one else could say that it was not a good idea to change the museum's mission. The public was consulted on what will be displayed in the new museum. I would like you to quickly answer my question by yes or no. Does the museum have a code of ethics for the acquisition of collections? [ English ] Mr.

Mark O'Neill : You're asking about a code of ethics for the acquisition of material. I would say our collecting is guided by a number of policies that are common to museums across Canada and around the world. That would be an accurate answer, but as for a specific code of ethics, the answer would be no. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : In the fall of 2012, the museum agreed to buy artifacts from the Empress of Ireland . The archeologists of the museum were strongly against that purchase because it was the result of pillage. First, did you take the advice of the archeologists from the museum?

Second, were there any disciplinary notices after that? Third, how much did the collection cost? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he's here to speak about the bill that's before us. I don't think he was advised to do his research and homework on other topics. He's here specifically on Bill C-49 — [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : It is directly related to interference. Other members asked questions about interference. [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra : —so I'm wondering if you might make sure that if— The Chair : Mr. Calandra has the floor. Mr.

Paul Calandra : I wonder if you could get the member opposite under control. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we could try to be specific on Bill C-49 that would be helpful. I know the last time the president was here members had an opportunity to talk about all kinds of different things, but the opposition decided to use up his time by trying to pass motions. Right now we have an opportunity on Bill C-49 . Let's do that. If we want to have the president back on other things later, we can do that as well. The Chair : Mr. Calandra has made a point of order.

When we invite witnesses we generally do want to focus on the subject matter on which we invited them. We allow a bit of latitude, but if you could bring it back to Bill C-49 — [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Absolutely. [ English ] The Chair : —the point of order doesn't come out of your time. So you're all set. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : It is directly related to interference. I would like to know if there was any interference. Who made the decision? Did archeologists have a say in it? That is a direct link. [ English ] Mr. Mark O'Neill : Mr.

Chair, the first part of the member's question concerned the acquisition of the Empress of Ireland itself. First, I would suggest that Mr. Philippe Beaudry, the diver, is considered to be the legal owner of the objects from the wreck according to the Receiver of Wreck in Canada. As I think you know, the site of the Empress of Ireland was not designated by the Quebec Cultural Property Act until 1999, long after Mr. Beaudry finished collecting his objects.

The Government of Canada, through the Cultural Property Export Review Board decided in 2001 that the objects were too important to the national cultural heritage of the country to be exported from Canada. The problem was that they would either be sold into private collections in Canada, or some institution that had a mandate or a capacity to acquire the collection and preserve it would have to do so. Incidentally, after many years of negotiation involving and beginning with my predecessor, we were able to successfully acquire the objects for future generations.

I would also add that although it is true that the acquisition of these kinds of artifacts can be controversial, as you well know, many Canadians are extremely pleased that we've acquired this collection, including a group of Canadians in western Canada who formed the Empress of Ireland artifacts committee. (1705) [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : If I understood correctly, the artifacts were bought against the advice of the archeologists working at the museum. I think disciplinary measures were taken and there was a high price to pay. On that note, I will share the rest of my time with Mr.

Cash. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Cash : Okay, thank you. The Chair : Mr. Cash, you have 30 seconds. Mr. Andrew Cash : Thirty seconds. How frequently and how often have you met with the minister over the last few years? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I was thinking about that when you were talking to the minister. With respect to this particular project, I've met with the minister twice. Mr. Andrew Cash : I'm just saying in general how often. Thanks. Mr. Mark O'Neill : I don't meet with the minister. I've met with the minister twice on this. I see the minister at events; I see him at exhibition openings. Mr.

Andrew Cash : He said he meets you once a month. Mr. Mark O'Neill : I don't think he said he met me once a month— Mr. Paul Calandra: A point of order. Mr. Mark O'Neill: —I think he said he talks to me once a month, which is probably true. The Chair : Mr. Calandra has a point of order. Mr. Mark O'Neill: I'm sorry. Mr. Paul Calandra : I'm sorry, Mr. O'Neill. We didn't ask him to bring his datebook with him. The line of questioning is almost ridiculous. Obviously we are here on Bill C-49 , and if they want to bring him back to talk to about his datebook, they can do that at a different time.

Our time is limited, so let's ask him about Bill C-49, Mr. Chair. It's truly unfair to ask him what his datebook has included over the last five years that Minister Moore has been the minister. The Chair : Mr. Cash, as I said before we do want to try to stay on Bill C-49 . You have actually two minutes left. Mr. Andrew Cash : Okay. I'm trying to understand the sequence of events that led to the decision being made. I think it's appropriate to understand how often the minister is in touch with you. How often is he in touch with you on the phone, in person, or otherwise, through e-mail?

How often do you two converse? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Mr. Chair, I see the minister at events in town, usually at exhibition openings or citizenship court hearings at the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum. I think the last time I saw the minister would have been at the opening of the Star Wars Identities exhibition at the Aviation Museum. I go to all of these events. I do not have regular meetings with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I met with him twice on this particular project. I do not regularly speak to the minister or meet with the minister.

I certainly see him a lot because, as you know, he's a very active minister: he has his films and other nights here in Ottawa. I see him around town frequently and he's often at the national museums and other cultural institutions in Ottawa. Mr. Andrew Cash : I am a little confused then. When he said about once a month, what was he referring to? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Mr. Chair, you would have to recheck with the minister. I thought I heard him say, and perhaps I'm mistaken, Mr. Cash, that he thinks he speaks to me about once a month. I certainly don't meet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage once a month. Mr.

Andrew Cash : I'm talking about speaking. I said speaking on the phone, e-mail, or face-to-face. The Chair : Mr. Cash, you've got to bring it back to Bill C-49 . Mr. Paul Calandra : I have a point of order. Mr. Andrew Cash : I would bring it on to Bill C-49 — Mr. Paul Calandra : On a point of order, Mr. O'Neill was quite clear that he sees the minister at events that we're all at. Go figure: they might actually talk to each other at an event where they come across each other. Mr. O'Neill is not here to discuss his datebook. Could we bring it back to Bill C-49 just for 30 seconds.

If they have no more question for Mr. O'Neill with respect to Bill C-49 then let's move on. We have a lot of questions for the president and we could get some value out of this. The Chair : Mr. Cash, you have 33 seconds. Mr. Andrew Cash : This is about how the decisions were made. It's about transparency. It's about the independence of the museum. I think they are appropriate questions to ask. I'm still unclear about what the answer is. You speak with him on the phone. You exchange e-mails sometimes. Sometimes you meet formally. In aggregate, how often is that? Mr.

Mark O'Neill : I would not be able to tell you that, Mr. Cash. The most I see the minister is socially at exhibition openings and cultural events.

(1710) Mr. Andrew Cash : I heard you say that already. But you do speak on the phone with him often? The Chair : Mr. Cash— Mr. Mark O'Neill : No, I don't speak on the phone often to Minister Moore. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Cash. Next we have Mr. Simms for seven minutes. Mr. Scott Simms : Thank you, Chair. There's quite a list of events here that you'd like to illustrate as part of the Canadian story. It seems like we are brimming over with all kinds of events that we could put out there. I'm not saying you are being nefarious in any way, shape, or form; I'm just saying it's quite a bit.

When you and the minister spoke were these some of the ideas that you fleshed out of what you wanted to display, or was there something else? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I've never had any discussion with the minister about the content of the exhibition. What we've talked to the minister about are some of the broad themes that are not present in the Canada Hall, as I've discussed in front of the committee today, and the sorts of themes we think should be there in a broad Canadian historical exhibition. We've yet to develop the storyline for that exhibit. That's up to Dr. Morrison and his staff.

I've never had any discussion about any of the specific content that would be in the new Canadian history hall. We've certainly talked about some of the broad kinds of historical themes that are missing, the kinds of things I laid out for you today, yes. Mr. Scott Simms : One of the things the minister spoke about was the need to update current exhibitions. Would you feel that the exhibition regarding first nations needs updating? Does that involve expanding its presence within the museum? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Thank you very much for the question. Mr.

Chair, I would say, just to be clear, that there are two permanent exhibitions dealing with first nations. The first is the Grand Hall, the large room with the totem poles. The second is the First Peoples Hall behind it. And in fact there is a third: there are small houses behind the Grand Hall. We have just finished completing the upgrading of the houses behind the Grand Hall as part of standard museum work that is in no way related to this project.

At some point in the future, we would like to be able to update and bring in additional aspects of first nations history into the First Peoples Hall as part of regular museology/museum updates that we would like to do over the next several years. But these are not related to this project. This would be part of the regular maintenance, and research, and exhibitry updates that the museum would be expected to do. Mr. Scott Simms : You lay out a lot of examples here, and I want to deal first with the legislation. Something has been omitted here—a word.

I know the minister said it's just a word, but for some reason I'm stuck on it, because it is different. In the original wording of the Museums Act, it says “interest in, knowledge and critical understanding”. In the new version, it says “to enhance Canadians' knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of events”. The word “critical” is not in there. Is there a difference? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I don't know why the word “critical” is not there. I'm not sure why that word is not in the mandate statement. Mr. Scott Simms : That means something, right? If you have a critical understanding, it's a part of the critique.

It's like an academic function. Is that correct to say? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I'm not sure. I think that would be up to

interpretation. If you're asking whether the jettisoning of the word “critical” somehow dilutes the importance of “understanding” and “knowledge”, I'm not sure that it does. I can tell you that in my opinion the impact of this bill on the museum would not in any way change the nature of the scholarly research and the dissemination of knowledge that the museum undertakes. I don't see that at all in this bill. Mr. Scott Simms : It can work outside the legislation itself, this sharing of the artifacts with the rest of the country. Now, I like that idea; I think it's fantastic.

The minister mentioned The Rooms in Newfoundland and Labrador. Great. He also mentioned museums on the west coast. But this seems brand new. How is it going to function? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I want to applaud and pay tribute to one of our sister institutions, the Canadian Museum of Nature. The Museum of Nature perfected an alliance of natural history museums. They've done it very well. It has existed for about a decade or a decade and a half. We've looked at that. In our situation, most of our partnerships have been one-offs. It will be a travelling exhibition, artifact loans, those kinds of things.

We're very excited, as are some of the museums that have already signed on to this whole notion of developing some kind of a cooperative approach to sharing history. Let me give you one example. I'm going to talk about a small museum, the Timmins Museum: National Exhibition Centre in northern Ontario. We have a very small exhibition there right now. The Timmins Museum is a very small museum. They would like to become a part of this network. What will be enough for the Timmins Museum would be to borrow two or three artifacts or put on a very small exhibition.

They will be able to contribute some of their material to our work.

(1715) Mr. Scott Simms : Who pays for that? What's the financial burden on a very small museum? Are they able to punch above their weight? Mr. Mark O'Neill : We have no misconceptions about that. We know that the majority of museums in this country are not going to be able to contribute a great deal of financial capacity to this project. We're aware of that. We are right now mounting a fundraising campaign to try to raise some money to help us do this. Mr. Scott Simms : So that's not part of the $25 million? Mr.

Mark O'Neill : The $25 million is going right to the renovations and the redevelopment of the two halls that we spoke about. We've also committed to raising an extra $5 million. Mr. Scott Simms : So you're going to raise money to allow these smaller museums access to that money, to get artifacts from your institution. Mr. Mark O'Neill : We are going to reallocate some of our resources to help do that, and we think that this network will lend itself very well to sponsorship. So we're looking at a variety of ways in which to— Mr. Scott Simms : For whom? Mr.

Mark O'Neill : We're looking at sponsorship to allow the network to function—private sponsorship. That's right. Mr. Scott Simms : I got that, but what about Timmins? How does that work? Mr. Mark O'Neill : We're hoping that if we raise some funds, we'll be able to assist the smaller museums as they participate in this network. Mr. Scott Simms : But none of that money, the $25 million, is going to help these people get some of those artifacts that you have on display in your museum. Mr. Mark O'Neill : The $25 million is slated for the renovation and the redevelopment of those two halls. Mr.

Scott Simms : I would love for the small museums to find themselves on an even keel with the larger ones in the larger centres. It seems to me that if you're in a larger centre, then you would have an advantage in getting this material. But you want to help these smaller museums out? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Yes, and they're eager to be part of this network. Mr. Scott Simms : But you plan to do this through private means. Mr. Mark O'Neill : If we can secure private sponsorship, that would be extremely helpful to us in offsetting costs. We do not intend to place any financial burden on the smaller institutions.

They're eager to participate. At the beginning of this project, we're going to have to work out the ways in which we will be able to finance this. We believe that we will be able to do it through a reallocation of some of our resources and through some private sponsorship activities. The Chair : Next, we will move to Mr. Calandra. Mr. Paul Calandra : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your coming here and I appreciate all the information you shared with us today. The minister talked earlier about the support of the Mayor of Ottawa, as well as the Mayor of Gatineau.

In fact, the Mayor of Gatineau said, [ Translation ] ...this decision is a step in the right direction... I think there is no cause for concern. [ English ] So it must be very helpful when two of the most important and relevant partners to drawing people to this brand new museum are so favourable to it and excited about it. It's actually part of building a consensus, which is on top of the extraordinary outreach you've done. I wonder if you'd just talk about that, the need to continue to consult with Canadians as we move forward. Mr. Mark O'Neill : Thank you very much again for the question.

We believe that the museum's history network will allow us an opportunity to reach Canadians where they live in a more concerted way than we have ever done before. I just want to give you a sample of some of the institutions that immediately signed on and didn't hesitate to become part of this cooperative form of network: The Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, several months ago; The Rooms in Newfoundland, which also agreed to sign on; the Museum of Man in Winnipeg, which became part of this partnership just last week; and many smaller museums across the country.

I have a list of about a dozen or so other museums that are hoping to participate—the McCord Museum in Montreal, for example—and many others. What this will allow us to do is to collaborate on museological projects over the long term, which has not happened before for our museum corporation. Things like research projects, joint public programming, all of which do not have to be in the National Capital Region, we will be able to do with new partners across the country in ways that we haven't been able to do before.

We're also looking at partnering with institutions that are not necessarily museums—centres of excellence in one region, and perhaps community federations in another. We're attempting to build all of these relationships. We want to expand the national footprint of our museums—the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization—so they really are national as opposed to federal in scope. We have a lot of work to do in that regard and we think that the network is a strategic opportunity for us to do this by building ongoing, long-term relationships that are reciprocal and do not exist now.

(1720) Mr. Paul Calandra : I will give the remainder of my time to Mr. Boughen, please. The Chair : Mr. Boughen. Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Thank you, Chair. Let me add my voice of welcome to our two guests. We're pleased that you're able to share part of your afternoon with us, because it's good to hear how the project is coming along from your firsthand. We'll leave the datebook and the English lesson and distribution of displays for another day, and maybe get back to concentrating on the museum. It seems to me that the museum has been in the planning stages for a number of years now.

The bill will update a museum that is at least 20 years old and this will indeed be a great opportunity for the museum to have a fresh start. Could you share a little of what the plans are for that, first of all? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Just to make sure I understand the question, it's about our planning forward and what the new exhibition itself might look like? Mr. Ray Boughen : Yes, are you looking at 10-year cycles with history tied in? People say that museums are a visual history of a country. Or are we looking at a broader timeframe? Mr. Mark O'Neill : I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I might ask Dr.

Morrison to answer that question? Would that be allowable? David, would you like to— Mr. David Morrison (Director, Research and Content, Special Project 2017, Exhibitions and Programs, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation) : Sure, if understood the question correctly, we do have a temporary exhibition program right now that goes to 2018-19, where we're filling in the slots of what kind of shows—either produced within our museum or borrowed and worked on in collaboration with other museums—we're going to bring in.

We have, of course, this big history hall initiative that's scheduled to open on July 1, 2017 for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. After that, we have been tasked, when planning out this hall, to make it reprogrammable and changeable so that it's the kind of hall that we can update as things move along and historicity changes, but also to integrate new events so that the hall doesn't immediately become out of date. The current plan is to bring the storyline of Canada right up to the year of opening—and as nothing ages faster than current events, we have to program this sort of thing into the hall.

At the same time, we are under no illusions that a hall like this might not also, by the act of some future Parliament 10, 20, or hopefully 100 years from now.... Nothing lasts forever, even permanent exhibition galleries. Mr. Ray Boughen : Right. Mr. Mark O'Neill : I could add briefly to that, if the member wouldn't mind. Mr. Ray Boughen : Sure. Mr. Mark O'Neill : Part of your earlier question was about when all of this starts and how long these kinds of visions take place. Here, I would note that John English's name was mentioned earlier. When I joined the corporation as corporate secretary in 2001, Dr.

English, former Liberal member of Parliament for Kitchener, was the chair of the board of trustees, and he was until 2005. Dr. English, in fact, began talking about the need to bring more broad historical themes into the Canadian Museum of Civilization, even back then. It's one of the reasons that today he has agreed to be one of our advisers and on one of our advisory groups for this project. The evolution of the museum into a national history museum really had its antecedence, well over a decade ago, in the museum corporation. Mr. Ray Boughen : In the planning, will aboriginal people be represented?

Will the display represent them in historical concept, as other folks are represented? Mr. Mark O'Neill : Again, thank you for the question. First, we have aboriginal historians actively involved in the project now. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, aboriginal history will be a part of the national narrative in the museum, fully and completely within the new national narrative that we've developed to tell the complete history of Canada. Mr. Ray Boughen : As a matter of curiosity, what will you do with the number of displays you've had in place for a while? They're going to be replaced.

As you've said, David, nothing lasts forever. What will become of those artifacts? Mr. David Morrison : One of the things we're doing now is deciding which parts of Canada Hall we want to keep, that we can reprogram and fit into the new mandate, the new vision, for the space. I can tell you right now that we have more or less decided—it's not cast in stone yet—on the St. Onuphrius church, the Ukrainian church. It is the largest artifact we own, a real consecrated church. We've decided it's going to stay in the hall, for instance.

We have also decided that the “Nishga Girl”, a west coast fishing trawler, is not going to make its way through the new iteration. It left the building last week for a new home with a national historic site in British Columbia. So we found a good home for it. But that's very much the issue. What do we want to keep? And what can we reprogram? There are wonderful architectural spaces in there that we'd like to keep, like the Ontario streetscape or the New France square. But can we tell a different and more coherent story by keeping that architecture in place?

(1725) Mr. Mark O'Neill : I’ll just quickly add to that— The Chair : Mr. O'Neill, we're out of time for that round. We might be able to pick it up before the end. Madam Turmel, welcome to our committee. The rest of the time is yours. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : I will be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Nantel. Mr. O'Neill, you talked about refocusing and rebranding the museum. Could you tell me how the temporary exhibits on other world civilizations will be affected.

I am talking about the space intended for those exhibits and the funding invested to attract major exhibitions. [ English ] Mr. Mark O'Neill : Thank you for the question, Madame Turmel. By rotating, do you mean the international exhibitions? Ms. Nycole Turmel : Yes. Mr. Mark O'Neill : As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, we intend to continue to have international exhibitions. Those partnerships are extremely important to us. We're planning several years out now. We have the Greek exhibition coming next year. In two years', time we’ll have a Vikings exhibition coming from the Swedish History Museum, for example.

We will continue to have those international exhibitions. I'm sorry, the second part of your question was...? [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Will there be an impact on the amount invested in either of those areas? [ English ] Mr. Mark O'Neill : No. We do not perceive any sort of detrimental impact on the funds we set aside for hosting international exhibitions. Each international exhibition has a wide variety of cost factors attached to it. Some are based on the complexity of the artifacts for travel. Some are even based on, frankly speaking, the value of the rental of the exhibition. There are many factors.

It can be very difficult to predict, but we have no intention, in any way, of diminishing our budget for hosting international exhibitions. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Thank you. I will ask my colleague to continue. Mr. Pierre Nantel : Thank you, Ms. Turmel. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison, thank you for being here today. As you can see, here with us we have some eminent individuals. These people are very interested in the issue. As a result, I feel that receiving five witnesses after your presentation and that of the minister, is not enough.

I would therefore like to introduce the following motion: That the current study be extended by two meetings to allow the Committee to hear from more witnesses. This basically means adding two meetings to the study of Bill C-49 in order to hear from more witnesses. I would like us to make a decision as soon as possible. I have a question for you about what you said with respect to the museum's ability to expand... [ English ] The Chair : Monsieur Nantel has moved a motion. Do you want to repeat what you said? [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Of course.

Basically, I wanted the committee to extend the study of Bill C-49 by two meetings in order to hear from more witnesses. [ English ] The Chair : Monsieur Nantel has moved a motion that we extend our study of Bill C-49 by holding two more, two-hour meetings. Mr. Pierre Nantel : Yes. The Chair : Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Calandra. Mr. Paul Calandra : Just to confirm, is the motion actually in order? This is a difficult one because the discussions were obviously held in camera.

(1730) The Chair : Yes, it's in order. Mr. Paul Calandra : Without betraying any confidences discussed in camera, Mr. Chair, if it is in order, we gave the opposition a great deal of opportunity to present witnesses and to discuss the length of time of these presentations in these hearings. Based on those conversations, both in public and in private, we will obviously not be supporting this motion. The Chair : If there are more speakers on this motion, I am going to dismiss our current panel because it was scheduled to wrap up at 5:30.

Once we finish this bit of committee business, we will start with the next panel. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Morrison, thank you to both of you. Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : Well, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure what my colleague is talking about in terms of the opportunity to discuss this in public. This is the first opportunity we've had to discuss this in public. As for the other discussions, we're not party to talk about them. That said, clearly, there are a lot of questions to be answered here. We have been given one day to question witnesses. That's not enough.

Canadians deserve a more thorough going over of this bill, especially considering the fact that it was never discussed in our committee study. We were relegated to one day of witnesses. Surely, we owe the Canadian people a more thorough discussion and witness testimony on this issue. It's been an issue that Canadians right across the country have been engaged in. We're stuffing it all in one session, which doesn't seem to be the way we should be proceeding on this bill, in fact, on any bill really.

On a bill concerning the key Canadian Museum of Civilization, the most popular museum in the capital region and the jewel in the crown of our museum system, we are giving one session to witnesses. The Chair : Well, we're chewing into that witness time now, so unless there's further discussion, we'll move to a vote on the motion. Mr. Paul Calandra : I don't know if this is in order, but I'm sure you'll tell me if it's not. With unanimous consent, I would be more than pleased to make public the discussions that happened in camera with respect to the time given for this testimony.

If the opposition would agree with that, and if that's even allowed, I think that would help explain to the Canadian people why we are having this set of meetings today. I would have no problem with that. The Chair : Well, we have a motion by Mr. Cash, so we'll move to a vote on it, unless there's further discussion. Mr. Calandra. Mr. Paul Calandra : I have a friendly amendment, then, that we also then, if allowable—and I'll wait for the clerk's

interpretation of that—make public the content of what was decided on and that led to these hearings today. The Chair : Mr. Nantel. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As a general rule, we would much rather have all the in camera discussions in public. Many people in the room would have been very happy to share their views on the issue. This is all over the place. The rules certainly do not allow it, but if we were to ask them whether they want to express their views, they would want to. It is important to let stakeholders have a say in this bill.

I hope that... (1735) [ English ] The Chair : The reason the stakeholders aren't at the table is that Mr. Cash has moved a motion, which we're debating now. The sooner we can get to a vote on that, the sooner we can call our witnesses. Mr. Paul Calandra : [ Technical difficulty--Editor ]...specifically on that motion while we wait for an

interpretation. The Chair : So on the motion by Mr. Cash, that— Mr. Andrew Cash : I think it was Mr. Nantel. The Chair : Those in favour of the motion by Mr. Nantel that we extend the study of this bill by two sittings? (Motion negatived) The Chair: At this— Mr. Paul Calandra : On a point of order, then, can the clerk tell us if we can make public what took place in camera with respect to this, and what the procedure would be for that? The Chair : Mr. Calandra, things that are done in camera are kept private and in camera. Mr. Paul Calandra : I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair : With the unanimous consent of the committee we could make it public— Mr. Paul Calandra : That's my question. The Chair : —if every member of the committee consented to it. Are you asking for unanimous consent? Mr. Paul Calandra : I would ask, then, for the unanimous consent of the committee to make public— The Chair : No, I think you should.... Are you asking for the— Mr. Paul Calandra : I am asking to make public the discussions and the voting with respect to the length of time for the meetings and the witnesses who were suggested. The Chair : It has to be the entire meeting, Mr. Calandra. Mr.

Paul Calandra : I'm okay with that. The Chair : Mr. Calandra is asking for unanimous consent that we make public the minutes of the previous meeting that was held in camera. We need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : First of all, I would like to get clarification about this. Then I would like to have a pause while I discuss this with my colleagues. But first, are we in order here? Mr. Paul Calandra : If you want to suspend for a moment, Mr. Chair, we'd be okay with that.

The Chair : I'm just clarifying that with unanimous consent we can make what was said at the in camera meeting public. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Andrew Cash : Before we move to that, I'd like to have a small pause with my team. The Chair : Well, at this point, we will suspend for a few minutes. We will reconvene in five minutes. (1735)

(1750) The Chair : Okay, we will resume our meeting. Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : Well, first, I'd like to say that we have been arguing to limit the use of in camera sessions since we got here in 2011. This is great news; finally, the government has listened to us in regard to transparency. That's fantastic. We have no problem with being open in all of these meetings in the future, and retroactively.

So I'd like to move a friendly amendment that we release all of the transcripts for all the meetings that we've had in camera in this committee in the past, and that we in the future keep all of our meetings in public. That's my friendly amendment to the motion. The Chair : I don't consider that a friendly amendment at this point. Mr. Andrew Cash: Mr. Chair, I have to challenge— The Chair: We can deal with that. That's no problem, but Mr. Calandra's motion is— Mr. Andrew Cash : This is a friendly amendment. I have to challenge you on this, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr.

Cash, it's not a friendly amendment; it's not in order. It's a separate motion that you are free to make. Are you done? Mr. Andrew Cash : Well, maybe with your advice, Mr. Chair, because if this isn't deemed a friendly amendment, we have seen motions come before this committee, and members have introduced friendly amendments to them. With your advice and counsel, how does one extend the period of the release of the in camera transcripts? That's what I would like to do.

I would like to say, yes, we agree with the spirit of this, and that we'd like to extend this spirit to all of the meetings we've had, and to the meetings we will have in the future. The Chair : That's very easily done. All you would need to do is to move a motion to that effect. What I'm saying is that you can't attach that to Mr. Calandra's motion. You could have your own motion. Right now we're dealing with Mr. Calandra's motion. Mr. Calandra. Mr. Paul Calandra : Just to be clear, because I might have had the date wrong, it's the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, May 29.

The Chair : That's Wednesday of last week. Number one, I'm going to ask for the indulgence of our panel here. We're not going to keep you over time. We do have a bit of committee business that has come up. Let's try to get to our panel as quickly as possible. Members of the committee, Mr. Calandra has asked for unanimous consent that the minutes of the in camera meeting of May 29 be made public. I will remind members that when we're discussing the motion we cannot discuss the contents of the meeting—and we all know that because it was in camera. That's his motion. Mr. Cash, on the motion. Mr.

Andrew Cash : Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to attempt a friendly amendment. I believe we had two meetings specific to this study, so I would like to move a friendly amendment that we include both the meetings in this motion. The Chair : Okay. Mr. Andrew Cash : I'm not clear on the date. The Chair : Mr. Cash is moving a friendly amendment that would add the minutes of Monday, June 3. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Mr. Paul Calandra : I know he needs unanimous consent to amend my motion. I'm not going to give unanimous consent to do that.

I think the minutes of Wednesday, May 29, will speak for themselves, Mr. Chair, and I'm prepared to vote on that and release them to the public. Sorry, I guess I'm not allowed to say, but the minutes will speak for themselves.

(1755) The Chair : Mr. Nantel. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Yes, we are not allowed to talk about what was discussed in those meetings. It is somewhat unfortunate. I don't understand why we really want to make public the minutes of one meeting but not of another that deals with the same topic. It is quite surprising for anyone listening. Why? [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Nantel, we can do both. We can do as many as we want, but we're dealing now with the motion of Mr. Calandra that we release publicly the minutes of the in camera meeting of May 29. Is there unanimous consent? Mr. Cash. Mr.

Andrew Cash : Again, forgive me, Mr. Chair, for my lack of total understanding of the procedure, but could we have a vote on my friendly amendment, please? The Chair : We could have a vote, but it would still need unanimous consent. We could have a vote to add— Mr. Andrew Cash : Could we, just to add the second day? Thank you. The Chair : We would need unanimous consent for the motion. Mr. Andrew Cash : Could we have a recorded vote on that, then?

The Chair : Because of the nature of this, and since this isn't something we often deal with, if you want to move a separate motion we can do that, but for now we are just going to deal with the motion of Mr. Calandra. He's seeking unanimous consent that the minutes of the May 29 meeting be released. Is there unanimous consent of the committee members to release the minutes from our in camera meeting of May 29? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair: There you go. That was easy. Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : Thank you. The Chair : So, just before we restart, Mr.

Cash, the clerk will endeavour to see how we do this, but we will make the minutes available publicly for the in camera meeting of May 29. That would basically be the transcript. Mr. Cash. Mr. Andrew Cash : I'd first like to move a motion that we release the transcript of the other meeting. It makes sense that if we're going to actually... The Chair : You mean the meeting of June 3? Mr. Andrew Cash : I mean the second meeting that we had around...yes. The Chair : Mr. Cash is asking for unanimous consent that we make public the transcript of our in camera meeting of June 3.

Is there unanimous consent for that motion? Some hon. members: Yes. Some hon. members: No. The Chair: There is no consent. Now we will move on to our witnesses. Thank you for your indulgence, witnesses. Thank you for appearing before us. From the Canadian Museums Association we have John McAvity, executive director, and Kirstin Evenden, vice-president. Welcome. From the Canadian Association of University Teachers, we have James L. Turk, executive director. Welcome. Here as an individual is Victor Rabinovitch, fellow and adjunct professor, School of Policy Studies, Queens University. Welcome to you, sir.

From the Canadian Anthropology Society, we have Lorne Holyoak, president-elect. From the Historica-Dominion Institute, we have Anthony Wilson-Smith, president. Welcome to all of you. We will begin our rounds of opening statements in the order you appear on the list. We'll start with the Canadian Museums Association. You have 10 minutes. Mr. John McAvity (Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. That was quite an enjoyable lesson in