Past Session:

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 3 - Evidence - December 5, 2013

OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 10:31 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.

Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable colleagues, we have one item on the agenda today. It is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Before I call the committee with regard to moving to clause-by-clause consideration, I understand that Senator Eggleton would like to have the floor.

Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much. I want to speak to the matter in general, particularly in light of the testimony of the witnesses we heard yesterday, obviously starting with the minister who was very enthusiastic about this change from the ``Canadian Museum of Civilization'' to the ``Museum of Canadian History,'' followed by Mark O'Neill, President and CEO of the museum, and also John McAvity from the Canadian Museums Association. They were all in support of it, all thinking it to be a good move.

Then, after we came back from the vote in the chamber, it was a different atmosphere here at the end of the table with our witnesses and the testimony we heard from the Canadian Anthropology Society, the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, all of whom are very knowledgeable in this matter, very knowledgeable on the history of the Museum of Civilization and very interested in the role that it plays in our society and in education particularly. They had concerns about it. They didn't think it was needed. They felt the museum already has Canadian exhibitions, and yes, we found out that they were not quite what we would want. For example, the stories of more recent immigrants are not sufficiently portrayed. Mr. O'Neill said it went up to about 1970 and that was it. There's no reason why the museum can't correct this itself, even with its current mandate. There is no reason why they can't divide the focus a little differently, making it more about Canadian history while maintaining civilization in the more worldly context, which has been part of its history since 1890.

They also pointed out — Mr. Holyoak in particular — that the amount of money being allocated is not really a sufficient amount to make this kind of change. It's redistributing existing funds, in effect, which is not the kind of commitment one would expect at this point in time.

The representative of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said that there is a change in terms of the research. They gave us a document on research strategy, and we should all read it. Remember, these are university teachers. This is an association saying some of the critical understanding is being taken out of the mandate, and their feeling is that this will affect the kind of research that is needed for the institution.

There were also a couple of very politicized comments that I read into the record yesterday, and I'll read them in again. I know my colleagues opposite will not agree with these.

Mr. Victor Rabinovitch is a former, very celebrated CEO of this institution, until recently. I think he retired about three years ago. I was hoping he'd be here yesterday, but he couldn't make it. He did say that the staff must ``strive mightily to avoid being pushed by the Harper Government into being an ideological messenger for its version of national identity.''

The Canadian Association of University Teachers also said that this change ``fits into a pattern of politically motivated heritage policy that has been emerging in the past few years.'' This initiative reflects a new use of history to support the government's political agenda. I know many not agree with that, and I hope it turns out not to be true in this particular case.

Independence is vitally important here, and I think that's where these three witnesses were particularly concerned. While we put a lot of money into celebrating the illustration of the War of 1812, I think we should have commemorated it. However, I question whether we should have spent the amount of money we spent on it. There were other things we could have better spent that money on, but we should have spent some money and there should have been some commemoration. At the same time, we ignored the thirtieth anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That certainly raises a suspicion about the politics of all of this.

When all is said and done, I think the Museum of Civilization could operate within its current mandate with maybe a revision of the name to the ``Canadian Museum of History and Civilization,'' or something like that, so it shows a joint mandate because more focus on Canadian history is a good thing. It would be very nice to say let's have a separate Canadian museum of history, but the realities of available funding are such that that's probably not realistic at this point.

I hope we do end up, by the way, with a portrait gallery. I always enjoy going to the portrait gallery in London, England, and we've got tons and tons of paintings. We have this old building across the street, the former United States embassy, that remains empty. It's a shell of a building and it's empty because the progress of making it a portrait gallery was stopped by the current government.

There are all sorts of pieces of artwork. I go back to my days as Minister of Defence and the massive art collections that are in the defence department, some of which are in the War Museum but not all of them, and some by great Canadian artists. Groups like the Group of Seven actually started as war artists back in the First World War. I used to have a Colville painting right behind me in my office when I was Minister of Defence. I don't know if it's still there or not. There are so many parts of the art collection that should be displayed, and portraits are a big part of it, yet we have never proceeded to get that done.

I will say that I hope the minister and those who advocate for this are right and that it will be done appropriately and will be something we can be proud of. But I think a lot of the evidence, particularly from some of the key experts we had before us, leads me to say ``on division'' for the entire bill.

The Chair: Thank you, senator.

Before I turn to Senator Eaton and possibly Senator Stewart Olsen, for the record I note that the minister and officials all clearly identified the authority in this organization as being that of a Crown corporation. They referred to the legislation with regard to how Crown corporations operate. It's important for us to understand that the concerns raised here are concerns and speculation on the part of individuals. We have a Crown corporations act that clearly defines the proper authority within that; and we take those observations as individuals' concerns and expressions.

Senator Eaton, is there anything you wish to add at this point? Senator Eggleton has made it clear that he's prepared to move through clause-by-clause consideration, on division in the end.

Senator Eaton: I am more optimistic than Senator Eggleton. This is a wonderful bill. I love the emphasis on Canadian history, and I don't believe the mandate will be narrowed, because they will continue to be affiliated with other history museums around the world and across Canada, which is terrific. I'm glad to see the staff is behind it because anyone who's worked in a museum knows that if the staff is on side, you've got a very good chance of making a success of things.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I certainly take your comments to heart. I spoke at some length yesterday with the people who disagreed with everything here, which is a very good thing. You should never move forward on something without critics. We have those critics, and I've asked them to be vigilant and get back to us for sure if they feel that things aren't moving forward the way they should move.

People in New Brunswick are very excited about a museum of Canadian history. Our Canadian history is something that we should treasure more, and there's so much we don't know. This is a perfect opportunity to bring before Canadians and the world the wonderfulness of our history, our background and how inclusive we are.

You mentioned human rights. Well, there's nothing in recent history on our Charter. I take heart from what the officials were saying yesterday — that we will include things that have more present history. I'm very much waiting for this, and I think the people are very enthusiastic, and I look forward to it.

The Chair: I will put the normal procedure before you. I'm required to ask: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: That's agreed.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: That's agreed.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.