Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 3 - Evidence - December 4, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:13 p.m. to study 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.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
My name is Kelvin Ogilvie. I am a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I would like to start by having my colleagues identify themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Toronto, Ontario. Welcome, minister.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto, deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: We are dealing solely today with 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.
I will advise the committee that we will be sticking precisely to the times of each session. This first session begins now and will end no later than 4:45 p.m.
I am delighted to welcome, for this session, the Honourable Shelly Glover, Minister of Canadian Heritage. She has two officials with her: Deputy Minister Colleen Swords and Assistant Deputy Minister Hubert Lussier, Citizenship and Heritage.
Minister, we are pleased that you could join us. I know you were prepared to stay for a longer period of time, but I hope you understand the constraints we are operating under. I will immediately turn to you for your remarks.
Hon. Shelly Glover, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage: Thank you very much, senator. I love this bill, so it would have been a true pleasure for me to have spoken longer on it. However, I do understand the time constraints. I thank you for allowing me to be here.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I am so pleased to appear before you today as you begin your study 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. I would especially like to thank Senator Eaton, who sponsored the bill in the Senate.
[English]
Our government is extremely proud to make learning, understanding and appreciating Canada's history a key priority. Creating a new Canadian museum of history will be a significant step forward for our country in bringing our shared history to people here and from all over the world. I'm pleased that our Prime Minister, as well as the many others of our government who have pursued putting a greater emphasis on Canadian history, has demonstrated such strong support for this initiative.
This legislation would change the name and mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Like the Canadian Museums Association's Executive Director, Mr. John McAvity, said, ``The renaming of the museum is essential. This is good news. It will give Canadians greater access to their heritage and to their history.''
The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the largest of Canada's museums. It is the largest both in size, with over a million square feet, and in visitors, averaging 1.3 million visitors over the past couple of years. The Canadian museum of history will provide today's citizens and future generations with an opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. The new museum will lead a network that will connect museums across this country so that they can access some 3.5 million items in the national collection.
There are also museums across Canada in the communities where we live, more than 2,500 of them. They cover different aspects of our history and many have fascinating collections. We want to ensure that these smaller museums will be able their share exhibits with the Canadian museum of history and, in exchange, be able to access the new museum's collection.
With that goal in mind, we've put new support in place to make it easier for them to approach the new museum of history and access the national collection. Several changes have been made to Canadian Heritage's Museums Assistance Program to assist small Canadian museums.
[Translation]
By negotiating partnership agreements with institutions across the country devoted to Canadian history, the new museum will reach out to many more people.
We have started the countdown to Canada's 150th anniversary, which will take place in 2017. The period leading up the 150th anniversary festivities offers us an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and the achievements that have defined who we are as Canadians.
We have many great stories that need to be told — whether it is Samuel Champlain's arrival on our shores, or the last spike that marked the end of construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway connecting our country from one ocean to the other, or the exploits of Louis Riel, the leader of the Metis people in the Prairies and founder of my province.
Canada needs and deserves a national institution that tells our stories. Canada needs an institution that will carry out independent research and explore our history. Our children need to have more knowledge of Canada's past. That is why our government announced the creation of the Canadian Museum of History.
[English]
To those who would mislead and suggest that the creation of this museum is somehow an attempt to present a narrowed view of Canadian history, I would remind them that, as an arms-length Crown corporation, the museum alone is responsible for decisions related to the content of exhibitions. To quote David Morrison, Director of Research and Content at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, on this issue:
The government doesn't and couldn't and wouldn't be allowed to get involved to that extent. It's not something I worry about because it's never going to happen.
To those who claim that the new mandate will infringe on the museum's ability to conduct research, I would emphasize that nothing in this bill limits the ability of the new museum to carry out research. The new museum will have exactly the same powers as the current Canadian Museum of Civilization, and research is an essential component of that museum.
[Translation]
I am confident that the new Canadian Museum of History will present a comprehensive, authentic and honest telling of the history of Canada and Canadians.
As Mark O'Neill, President and CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has said, the new exhibitions will deal with Canada's history, ``warts and all.''
That is why I ask this committee to pass Bill C-7, which amends the Museums Act, so that the Canadian Museum of History can become a reality.
Thank you. I am now ready to answer any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I understand that the officials with you are available to further elaborate should the need be. I will open the questioning to my colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for your comments and for being here.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization — in this name or in other names, in this building or in other buildings that it now occupies — apparently has a very long history in this country. Why would you change the mandate of the facility at this point in time as opposed to starting another museum that might bring together all of the stories about Canada under one roof as opposed to the broader context that this one is in?
Ms. Glover: Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the senator for the question. I do want to say as I start that it's exciting to be here. I don't often get to appear before senators, but I know how hard you work and I want to thank you for the work you do on behalf of Canadians.
With regard to answering the question, first and foremost it's important to realize the name ``Museum of Civilization'' is being changed to the ``Canadian Museum of History'' to really focus on something that I think is important to all Canadians, and that is the stories of people who came before us. They are the stories of our ancestors and the stories that make us truly Canadian people. In changing the name, we make an explicit attempt to focus this museum's efforts on the history of Canada.
A number of things were done, Senator Eggleton, to ensure we understood where Canadians sat with regard to understanding their history. Let me share some statistics with you, if I might.
We found that of the students who are studying Canadian history before graduating, more than 80 per cent failed the Dominion Institute's basic history quiz. That is disconcerting. As the mother of five children, I have often asked my own children about history and unfortunately they are not up to par where I would like them to be. I would like to say they're better off than the 80 per cent, but they're not.
Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians feel that learning more about Canada's history would be a significant factor in strengthening their attachment to Canada. That's another stat that really convinced us this is something extremely important not only to us as Canadians but to our children in preserving the history of our people and who we are. Lastly, over 90 per cent of Canadians feel that museums provide us with a valuable learning experience about our collective heritage as Canadians.
To take a museum and make it focus explicitly on the history of Canada and the history of Canadians seemed like the perfect way to address those statistics that are, quite frankly, disturbing. I hope that you will all support our efforts to address those statistics and help to educate our children here in Canada.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you about a couple of words in the current mandate that are being removed — ``critical understanding.'' The absence of critical understanding could result in research directed at popularization rather than facts. Some critics would say that history without criticism becomes propaganda.
Why are those words removed and could you reiterate and expand upon what you said in terms of the research that will be conducted? Will it continue to be the same level of research, continue to have the same resources and continue in much the same direction as it has been?
Ms. Glover: Those are important questions that have been asked along the way through this process and so I'm happy to reiterate that the removal of the word ``critical'' really is a modernization of language. Many saw the use of the term ``critical understanding'' to be interpreted as traditional, scholar-oriented. We have, in fact, changed the Museums Act on two separate occasions. Once was when we ventured toward the creation of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in my hometown of Winnipeg and another time when we created the Canadian Museum of Immigration. Modernization of language was also used at that time and this modernization of language is accepted by many different museologists, archivists, et cetera. It is a modernization.
With regard to research, I would ask that all senators look closely at paragraphs 9(1)(f) and (g) of the Museums Act that speak directly to research. Research is important, and I'm glad you asked Mark O'Neill to be here after I am done because he will be able to explain exactly how the museum intends to embark on research. We have some very talented researchers. I believe he has a team of approximately 30 if not more and they are valuable. We really do appreciate the work that they do and I look forward to having Mark O'Neill answer that in more depth.
Senator Eggleton: The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which does a lot of advertising on television, will apparently contribute $1 million over the next five years. At one point in time they were involved with another exhibit portraying the oil industry. In fact, the initial exhibit was putting the oil industry in a somewhat harsh light.
There was some suggestion in documents released later that showed the organization exerted pressure to alter exhibits. How can we be sure that funding will not be used in unusual or controversial ways that run against the independence and the purpose of the museum?
Ms. Glover: Let me say at the outset that I know Mark O'Neill and his team have committed to a fundraising effort. They are committed to raising $5 million. This is something he and his team will be responsible for. The government has absolutely no input on their fundraising efforts. I would suggest, sir, you might want to ask Mark O'Neill about that fundraising effort.
I do want to reiterate with regard to content that there is a law under the Museums Act that says we cannot direct the museums. No one can direct them on content. It is solely their responsibility.
Senator Eggleton: No political interference in terms of curatorial —
Ms. Glover: None, whatsoever. That's why this is so special. It's because of that arm's-length process that we are able to put our faith and trust in the professionals and experts who are hired within the museum to do the work that Canadians want done. We're proud as a Conservative government to support them in their efforts, but we leave decisions on content completely to their experts and Mark O'Neill can speak further when he appears.
Senator Eaton: If I'm not wrong, minister, I think that you were referring to section 27 of the Museums Act. Curatorial independence of the Canadian Museum of History, as with other national museums, is established in section 27. That applies to any major museum, including the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum when they go after sponsorship money.
It is to be the museum of history. Senator Joyal, who is the critic, brought up something interesting. He felt that its vision would be narrowed. He talked about the Canadian Museum Of Civilization having these other lovely exhibits. Am I wrong in thinking that the museum has signed two major exhibits, one with Greece on 5,000 years of Greek history and one with Japan? Am I correct?
Ms. Glover: Absolutely correct. I am excited about the things happening at this museum. Mark O'Neill and his team have done a fantastic job of reaching out internationally and bringing exhibits to Canada to help educate us and develop these wonderful relationships. Canadians appreciate different cultures. That is what makes us Canadian. We are a diverse population. I am pleased to say that Senator Eaton is absolutely right in her comments about that.
I have not met with the critic, but I would welcome a dialogue if the senator has any issues that he would like to speak more about. I'm happy to speak about them. This is an opportunity to broaden our understanding of our history. This museum has not had major renovations or alterations in almost 24 years. Just think about the things that have happened in our country over the last 24 years that have not been incorporated into this museum. They need to be incorporated into this museum.
In a recent article, Mr. Morrison commented on some of the intended changes and updated exhibitions. He will be appearing, so I'll leave it to him to share that news with you.
Senator Eaton: Senator Joyal made the point of interpreting history. History is an interpretive thing.
I was involved with the Royal Ontario Museum for 20 years. After 25 years, galleries are old and tired. I find it very exciting because one of the reasons for this is to promote Canadian history to children, is it not? It is to tell the stories in a more linear, sequential, narrative fashion. Is that not right?
Ms. Glover: Absolutely. When you talk about our children, I get goose bumps. This is a huge opportunity to tell Canadian children that all of the things over the last 24 years matter just as much as what is happening today. We have made some huge efforts to allow more exchange between museums with the advent of this new museum. We have small museums that have never had the opportunities through the Museum Assistance Program to share their artifacts and exhibits with the major national museums. Now we will have the opportunity to allow them to do that. Children will have seen those exhibits in their local areas. Now they will be able to share them with children in this area and vice versa. National museums will be able to share their artifacts and exhibitions with those small museums. This is hugely educational, and children across this country deserve no less.
This is something that Minister Moore took into great consideration when thinking about this, and I'm just so proud of the efforts he has made to acknowledge them.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Welcome, Madam Minister, and forgive my lateness.
I have carefully read the bill and looked over a number of documents we have received with comments on Bill C-7. I like the fact that emphasis is being placed on Canadian history. It is important that we be thoroughly familiar with our history, that we know where we come from and that our children know our history, as well, and be proud of their roots.
Some people are worried about the disappearance of the Canada Hall because that exhibition contains many works of art, artistic creations and information related to First Nations and Inuit. Can you tell us what will happen to all those items currently located in the Canada Hall?
Ms. Glover: Thank you for your question, Madam Senator. I am so happy to see you here, as both of us hail from Manitoba. Some parts of our Manitoban history are very important to me.
A number of changes will be made, but some exhibitions will still remain in place. I am talking about the First People's Hall, which will remain intact, as well as the Canadian Children's Museum. However, the Canada Hall, the Canadian Postal Museum and the gallery called Face to Face will be renovated. The exhibitions will have a temporary location, as we would like to finish the work as quickly as possible. Those renovations should be completed by early or mid-2014 — and this question should clearly be put to Mark O'Neill — but the other renovations, the major renovations to the permanent exhibitions, will not be completed until 2016.
Once again, people will be able to visit temporary exhibitions until the permanent exhibitions are set up. Some exhibitions will remain the same, but some of the spaces will change completely. I have all the information on the number of square feet, but I do not know whether you are interested in knowing such details.
Senator Chaput: Madam Minister, we were told that, in 2012-2013, the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum had undertaken consultations, as they wanted to analyze certain elements that could be integrated into the Canadian Museum of History. Are you familiar with the process used and the recommendations made?
Ms. Glover: Thank you for the question. I have a friend next to me who just produced a report on the topic. I refer you to that report, but consultations were held, and not only with the team, but also with members of Parliament. The minister travelled from coast to coast to coast to hold consultations. About 24,000 Canadians were consulted. Online consultations also took place. A whole process was involved, and the findings are in the report I mentioned. The document is somewhat long, but it is very interesting, and I strongly encourage you to read its results. It contains suggestions on considerations such as themes and events. I am sure that you will find that report fascinating
Senator Chaput: Is it available on the website?
Ms. Glover: Yes, it is on the website.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. I would like to know who will make the final decision in this whole process. Is the government involved in deciding what items will be exhibited in the new museum and which ones will, I assume, be put into storage?
Ms. Glover: The government cannot interfere in any decisions on the content, as that is up to the museum's administration. As we said earlier, the bill contains provisions — more specifically in chapter 27 — that clearly indicate the government cannot make any decisions as far as the content goes. Members of Parliament and senators, as well as their family members, could have participated in the consultations, of course, but the actual decisions are the responsibility of the museum's administration.
Senator Chaput: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.
[English]
Senator Dyck: Thank you so much for your presentation. Your passionate enthusiasm for this is evident.
You mentioned the fact that Canada is a diverse country and my question is related to that diversity. We all know that minorities, women and Aboriginal people often don't get into the history books. In terms of what is going to go into the museum, what has been done to solicit the input from women, from minorities and from Aboriginal groups to ensure that they are represented properly in the museum?
Ms. Glover: Thank you for the question. I want to celebrate the fact that the museum went to great lengths every time they wanted to change, for example, the First Peoples Hall. They went to great lengths to make sure they got it right, which meant that they ensured they got consultation with Aboriginal peoples. My understanding is they consulted elders. I think that is something that is absolutely required, so I'm pleased to see that they are doing that.
As they move along, they will be continuing the consultations. Yes, the initial consultations are done, and the report has been produced. However, the consultations for the rest of the history of this museum will continue. Mark O'Neill's team is well-known for engaging and looking for people to give their opinion, so I'm confident that that will continue.
As for the comment about Aboriginal peoples not making it into the history books, we need to rectify that. I am proud to be part of a government that agrees that those kinds of things have to be addressed, which is why the residential schools apology was important to Prime Minister Harper. My friend Minister Jackson Lafferty has put forward a curriculum that will be used in all schools to explain what happened in that tragedy of residential schools.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, senator, that we have work to do on this, and, as Canadians, we have to work together on it.
Louis Riel is, of course, someone who really did help my province. You will find hundreds of books on the history of Louis Riel. Our students named our extra holiday in February after Louis Riel. It is Louis Riel Day, not Family Day, which shows that the influence of being able to write about our Aboriginal people's successes and achievements and, quite frankly, some of the losses has helped to remove that sometimes derogatory opinion and shine a light on the successful Aboriginal people we have today.
Senator Dyck: You said ``they'' consulted; ``they'' meaning that Mark O'Neill and his team were doing this?
Ms. Glover: Mark O'Neill and his team did some consultations. They had advisory panels. The minister did consultations. Some of the members of Parliament did consultations. There were online consultations through the website.
Have I missed any, Hubert? I think I got them all.
The Chair: Minister, we are drawing to a close, and I will end this session. I just wanted to comment that we had an excellent summary today in the Senate of the evolution of the museum, from its original geological sciences base up through the many name changes that it has had. It seemed to me that, in each case, it expanded the dimension into the kinds of elements of Canadian history and the peoples of Canada from the composition of the Earth and the geological sciences, on which many museums were founded, up to the present day. I just wanted to make the observation that we did have an excellent summary in the Senate today in regard to that evolution.
I want to thank you and your officials for being here today
We will transition immediately into the next session. I'm very pleased to welcome our guests for this session, which will end no later than 5:15. To give us a heads up, our colleagues will be running to vote, and we will return here at 6 p.m.
I will move immediately to our guests from the Canadian Museum of Civilization. We have Mark O'Neill, who we have already heard referred to a number of times. Questions will be ready for you. He is the President and Chief Executive Officer and is accompanied by David Morrison, Director of Research, Canadian History Hall Project.
We also have, from the Canadian Museums Association, John McAvity, Executive Director. With him is Audrey Vermette, Director of Programs and Public Affairs.
I didn't get to ask who would go first. Perhaps Mr. O'Neill.
Mark O'Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of Civilization: I would be happy to. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, senators. I will modify my speech in the interests of time, and I will speed ahead.
[Translation]
I believe these changes will strengthen our institution and greatly enhance its contribution to the public life of this country.
[English]
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 a pan-Canadian perspective.
[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]
In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely unto themselves. Entire categories of endeavour — politics, sport, culture and our contributions to the world, to name only a few — 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. Perhaps the most egregious flaw in the current Canada Hall is its starting point. Its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of First Peoples in time immemorial but with the arrival of Europeans in the 11th century.
Here is our vision very briefly. Half of the permanent space in the museum will be used to create the largest and most comprehensive museum exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. A new permanent hall, with a continuous span of 50,000 square feet, will house Canada's national treasures and contain exhibitions that inclusively and chronologically preserve the memories and experiences of the Canadian people.
I want to put that into context. For those of you who know the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto, that museum is 39,000 square feet. This one exhibition hall will be bigger than the Bata Shoe Museum. It will also include a new permanent exhibition space devoted to the presentation of exhibitions originating from a network of history museums across the country that help complete the national story. These new galleries will complement the existing Grand Hall and First Peoples Hall, which display the remarkable history of Canada's First Peoples and highlight the wealth of their modern day contributions. Those will not change.
[Translation]
The Canadian Museum of History will continue to present outstanding temporary exhibitions that illuminate world history and cultures. Those exhibitions will remain part of our mandate and an important aspect of our programming.
Finally, the museum will continue building its national collection and undertaking scholarly and other types of research.
[English]
The content for this new exhibition is developed by a multidisciplinary team of museum researchers, curators and museologists in close collaboration with six external advisory committees comprised of historians and experts from across Canada. Today, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Canadian Historical Association for the contribution of many of its members to this advisory work.
[Translation]
There has been some concern expressed that changing the museum's name will affect its brand. Actually, a 2009 Ipsos Reid survey across Canada on awareness of museums in the National Capital Region showed that only 14 per cent of Canadians knew the museum by name. Rather, the museum is recognized for the excellence of its exhibitions, the strength and breadth of its research, and the expertise of its staff.
Internationally, the museum is recognized more as the national museum of Canada, and by its reputation for building successful international partnerships. This will only increase as we proceed under our new name.
[English]
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.
And as recently as 2003, the Government of Canada announced a $50 million plan to convert the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa into a Canadian history centre. The museum's transformation, to be completed by 2017, will be a fitting one-hundred fiftieth birthday present to Canadians and will combine this sharpened focus on the Canadian experience with a continued commitment to excellence.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: I will now invite Mr. McAvity to present.
John McAvity, Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association: In the interest of time I am also going to edit what I have written so that we can have more questions. I love the opportunity to come and talk about museums with you. It's not an opportunity we get nearly enough, so we cherish this opportunity.
My organization, the Canadian Museums Association, is the national not-for-profit organization that represents museums of all types in Canada. We have about 3,000 museums across Canada and they welcome approximately 60 million visitors each year. They are phenomenally popular and I would say respected.
Museums are not just popular but they are respected institutions for being accurate in the knowledge and the presentation that they give. According to public opinion polls we have conducted, 92 per cent of Canadians believe it is important for children to be exposed to museums and 96 per cent of Canadians believe that museums contribute to the quality of life of our country.
We strongly support Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Museums Act. The mandate and the roles expressed in this legislation are consistent with museum practice in this country and in other countries. Most nations have major national museums devoted to their history and their culture. One of the best examples is the fascinating Te Papa museum in Wellington, New Zealand. The Smithsonian in Washington is also worth noting as it embraces a broad approach to presenting American history from the grand achievements to the life of everyday Americans.
We are confident that the new Canadian museum of history will paint a broad picture and help to raise awareness and appreciation of Canadian history.
[Translation]
Audrey Vermette, Director of Programs and Public Affairs, Canadian Museums Association: Canada's history is not told only by wars, prime ministers and monarchies. Our history is also built on the land, from First Nations to today; on social developments, from internment camps to women's suffrage; and on immigrants, who are the reflection of our country today.
But our history is much more. It must also include Canada's unique creative and scientific achievements. Our history is multidimensional, and it is expressed and preserved through artifacts, art, archived documents and science.
It is of the utmost importance that this rich heritage be properly represented in the new museum. We note clause 9 of the bill — which clarifies the Canadian Museum of History's purpose and powers in relation to its mandate when it comes to collections, research and conservation — and specifically paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (m) and (o), which provide for the establishment and fostering of liaisons and partnerships with other museums and organizations across the country. We strongly support the wording used.
The creation of a new network connecting museums from across the country is timely. The main features of that initiative were presented by the museum's President and CEO last May and applauded by over 250 colleagues who attended the CMA's Annual General Meeting in Whitehorse.
In a time of budgetary restraint, the sharing of resources is crucial. A network that uses partnership to make the showcasing of our historical heritage in museums more effective and accessible will be extremely beneficial for the whole country. That network will become a nerve centre for the distribution of many important artifacts in the collections. In addition, the role assumed by the Canadian Museum of History in this partnership could provide other institutions across Canada with a positive example.
[English]
Mr. McAvity: Connecting the museums across Canada, which is one of the objectives of this legislation, will be of great benefit to the museums and to the Canadian public in turn.
Thank you very much. We will welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these points.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will open up the floor to questions, beginning with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. O'Neill, your predecessor, Victor Rabinovitch, said that staff at the museum will have to ``strive mightily to avoid being pushed by the Harper Government into being an ideological messenger for its version of national identity.''
We also find in recently released documents that an exhibit in 2011 sponsored by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers showed that that organization exerted pressure to alter exhibits that portrayed the oil industry in a somewhat harsh light. With all these warnings about interference, how do you ensure that will not happen?
Mr. O'Neill: I have worked in this museum corporation for 12 long years. I was there when we built the Canadian War Museum. I was a corporate secretary, later held other executive positions, and was director general of that museum before I became the head of this museum. I am familiar with the arm's-length principle and the way in which Crown corporations operate in this country.
The staff and curatorial experts of the museum will be solely responsible for the content of the museum as was the case when we built the War Museum, as is the case when we build all temporary exhibitions in our museum. We have a very rigorous board of trustees, management cadre and expert staff.
With respect to the issue of CAPP and its support of another museum, I can assure members of the committee that the partnership we announced with the petroleum producers last week is a partnership where the industry has absolutely no content role to play at all, nor did it ask for one. Museums, incidentally, have been doing this kind of corporate sponsorship for many years. It's nothing new. The War Museum, for example, has recently partnered with Rx&D in Canada for a major exhibition at its museum. As I think many members know, CAPP has supported many cultural institutions here in the national capital and across the country.
So I believe that the museum is extremely mindful of its status as a Crown corporation and its obligations to Canadians under the act and through its board of trustees, reporting to Parliament.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. Rabinovitch must be aware of all that as well; he's your predecessor. But look at the warning he's provided. That, to me, is a cause for some alarm.
Mr. O'Neill: I would simply say that Mr. Rabinovitch is a private citizen. He retired from the museums some three years ago, and he's entitled to his opinions. My views about this particular piece of legislation and the great opportunity this museum has to transform itself are entirely different, senator.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you one more question, very quickly. Senator Dyck earlier, and I think the minister — there was some exchange about portraying First Nations people within the museum. Senator Eaton has talked about narrative timelines, dates, events, heroes and those kinds of things. But a lot of our more recent history involves a very large number of people who would not be seen in those old types of things, like the War of 1812 — I mean, the people who have immigrated to this country in the last hundred years or so. Are we going to see their stories as well?
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the senator for the question. Those of you who have been through the Canada Hall, the major history hall in the museum, will know that, with the exception of Chinese-Canadians and one small module devoted to a Ukrainian church from Alberta, there is no such history now in the Canada Hall. In fact, the diversity of Canadians is largely absent. The journey strangely begins, not with First Peoples and time immemorial, but with the arrival of the Europeans in the 11th century. It ends in the 1970s.
Frankly, there is no opportunity to discuss almost half a century of the history that you have pointed out: There is no discussion of the flag debate or constitutional crisis; there is no Quiet Revolution in Quebec; there is nothing of Canada in the world; there is not even a hint as to what Canadians aspire to be as a people.
This is a social history hall that has been modified to some extent over the years but simply no longer serves the purpose of a modern museum speaking to the comprehensive history of Canada and Canadians.
Senator Eggleton: So you're going to rectify that?
Mr. O'Neill: That's exactly the purpose of our project at the museum, senator.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: The AGO and the Royal Ontario Museum would be jealous of your CAPP sponsorship. I wouldn't worry for a moment about curatorial independence.
Can you tell me, Mr. Morrison, about the Canadian history hall? That must be something new and very exciting. You haven't done anything in the museum for 25 years. You have $25 million and you have to —
David Morrison, Director, Research Ð Canadian History Hall Project, Canadian Museum of Civilization: It's certainly the opportunity of a lifetime, or of a generation for sure. It's a wonderful project to be involved in.
We have 25 staff working on it right now. About half of them are curators; that is to say, historians, archaeologists and anthropologists. We've been working on it heavily now for about eight months — since about Christmas. We've chunked out a lot of the work, and we're starting to make sense of it. The topic is such a vast one that it's almost difficult to get one's grasp around.
Senator Eaton: How many square feet?
Mr. Morrison: It is 45,000 square feet. We have a lot of room to put it in, but it's a big topic to deal with. Every time you turn around, we're adding new topics; there's a new subject; we forgot this; we have to deal with this; what will we say about that?
I will mention also that we're plugging along. Last week, we sent out a major content package — and by ``major,'' I mean 800 pages — to our advisory committees. We have six advisory committees out there to broaden our in-house expertise and to provide us with a wider historical perspective on events than we can do with our own staff. We have a general committee. We have three period committees that focus on particular eras in Canadian history.
Senator Eaton: These are all academics?
Mr. Morrison: Yes. We also have a women's history committee and an Aboriginal history committee. These are academics or Aboriginal elders, many of them through the Canadian Historical Association, with whom we're cooperating. They're there to advise us. We're getting feedback from them and we're moving ahead with this.
It's hard to be very specific in a situation like this because so many of our decisions are assumptions at this stage. I don't know what kind of detail you want me to go into.
Senator Eaton: For instance, the big push, certainly for me, is how little Canadian history Canadians — not children but Canadians — know. As Senator Eggleton pointed out, so many people have come here in the last 30 and 40 years and have no idea of Canadian history.
Is there going to be anything interactive? Will you have rotating displays? Will it there be a part of the gallery that will be a changing display?
Mr. Morrison: It definitely will be interactive. Museums in the 21st century depend a lot on digital interactions and augmented reality. We'll be assuming that many of our visitors will have smartphones and be able to interact with things in that fashion.
We also want to make sure that what's on the floor, without technology, speaks and works as well. We are thinking about rotating exhibitions at the end, because we need to constantly renew the project. Ten years after we open, we don't want it to be out of date.
Senator Eaton: One final question, quickly. Will you use social media, like Twitter or any other social media, to constantly reach out to new facts of Canadian history, getting people engaged?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, very much so. We plan to do that.
Senator Dyck: Mr. Morrison, you mentioned that you have advisory committees and that you had a women's committee and an Aboriginal committee. Were all those committees initiated at the beginning of the consultation phase? Did they all start at the same time? You had six committees?
Mr. Morrison: No, they didn't. There are a couple of consultation phases. There was a public phase that came right after the minister's announcement last October, where we reached out to Canadians across the country. That was very general, with public meetings, and web interaction and input.
Since then, we've organized these specific committees that are staffed with experts and cultural leaders. We began with the four period committees, then added a general committee for general oversight, and then the Aboriginal and women's committees came online as we became increasingly aware of the need to have them.
The Chair: I'll pick up briefly on Senator Eggleton's line of questioning. One of the concerns we've heard expressed is that there will be a narrowing of the focus of this museum. What we're hearing from you, and I think with considerable enthusiasm, is the idea that it is not a narrowing but rather an expansion into the true elements of Canadian history in its broad sense.
Mr. Morrison: Absolutely, senator. ``History'' is the most inclusive word in the English language. It includes everything that ever happened, anywhere.
The Chair: You've done a marvellous job in a short time.
I see my colleagues ready. People love votes here, and they're desperate to get up to the chamber for a vote.
I want to thank you all very much. I will suspend the meeting.
(The committee suspended.)
——————
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we resume our session with our third and final panel. We have three witnesses with us this evening. I will identify them as I invite them to speak.
I will start with the Canadian Anthropology Society and its president, Mr. Lorne Holyoak.
Lorne Holyoak, President, Canadian Anthropology Society: Thank you to the committee for this opportunity to speak this evening. I represent the Canadian Anthropology Society, which is an organization made up of both academic and professional anthropologists from across the country.
I want to start with an illustration. If you lived in a community that needed a new police station and your city council proposed what they were going to do was convert the fire hall into a police station, I wonder how you would feel about that, whether you would think that is a good idea. It's an analogy that is similar to what's being proposed in this bill.
I want to emphasize from the outset that the Canadian Anthropology Society supports, in principle, the idea of a Canadian museum of history. It's a terrific idea. Canada needs a really great Canadian museum of history.
It's not the concept of such a museum that we find dismaying. There are three reasons we want to call upon the Government of Canada to take care to preserve the crown jewel of Canadian museums: the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
First, we are concerned about the lack of true consultation with the professional communities of historians, anthropologists and archaeologists in the planning for the proposed CMH. The meetings held were not consultations in advance of a decision but were information sessions; the decision had been made. Subsequently, we have seen nothing to indicate how the museum is planning to respond to concerns raised by the participants. The process is flawed and indicative of a predetermined course of action that is not based on evidence or advice drawn from the widest possible pool of expertise.
Second, the repurposing of such an outstanding museum is problematic, at best. The museum's collections are 80 per cent Aboriginal, and the curatorial expertise of the museum is in keeping with that emphasis. It is not feasible to convert those materials and that expertise into other still-unspecified Canadian historical themes. What this means is that the museum really does not have an adequate collection for a Canadian museum of history.
Third, the funding is not adequate. The $25 million allocated is for a renovation of half of the museum's 100,000 square feet. Current costs to meet curatorial standards are normally about $1,000 per square foot. This means you need $50 million, not $25 million, to carry out a renovation that will ensure the maintenance of a world-class standard for the museum. So we're talking about gross underfunding that will diminish the quality of the museum and do nothing to address the larger issues surrounding the needs associated with the collection.
I've noted that we're assured that there's $10 million in the collections fund. If you are proposing what is essentially a new museum, $10 million is a drop in the bucket if you want to have a proper research collection.
So those are the three biggest problems.
On top of that, there are problems with the loss of the VP of research and collections, the attrition in the ranks of specialist curators and ethnology, cultural studies, archaeology and even history. It's a Canadian museum of history that has been losing historians.
We are reassured that the Grand Hall and First Peoples Hall will remain, but without adequate research support, it's going to be impossible to renew these halls properly. They can't renew themselves. There has to be research and consultation in order to ensure that they reflect contemporary realities. It's very clear that the First Peoples Hall is not the priority in this new museum.
We are assured that the museum is not narrowing its focus. This is an issue that perplexes me because, yes, it's narrowing its focus. It's a Canadian museum of history, not civilization — history. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with having a museum focused on and celebrating Canadian history.
So why pretend that the museum is not narrowing its focus? Why can't Canadian heritage proudly proclaim, ``Hey, we are going to have a world-class history museum and a world-class museum of civilization''? Why not? Why not seize the day?
When you visit the CMC website, you get all this flummery about how the museum will be even better. It won't be better; it will be diminished. All the propaganda in the world won't change that.
What I find most difficult to fathom about the process is that the government isn't boldly seizing the initiative; it is taking half measures. We will lose a great ethnological museum, and we are going to have an inadequate history museum, all in one fell stroke.
I'll close with another analogy. Assume your community needed a school and you said, ``Well, we have got a library with lots of books, so let's turn that into a school; that's what schools need is books, right?'' That wouldn't work because it's the wrong kind of books, but that's what we're left with here.
The Chair: I will now turn to the Canadian Historical Association and invite Dominique Marshall, the president, to present.
[Translation]
Dominique Marshall, President, Canadian Historical Association: Honourable senators, thank you for your invitation to comment on Bill C-7, which aims to amend the Canadian Museums Act. We also want to thank Mr. O'Neill and the minister for their recognition of our colleagues' work in the advisory committees.
[English]
The Canadian Historical Association, which I represent, has represented Canada's professional historians since 1922. It's devoted to fostering the scholarly study, teaching and communication of history in Canada. It has more than 1,000 members, and it is the largest association of historians in the country.
We are vitally interested in the legal changes the Museums Act related to the Museum of Civilization, and we welcome the creation of a network of exchange of artifacts which is included in it. Four aspects of the amendment of the Museums Act under review concern our members.
[Translation]
First, the transformation from a ``Canadian Museum of Civilization'' to a ``Canadian Museum of History'' indicates a narrowing of the period about which the institution will present, collect and study material from the past. Written this way, the bill presents history as starting with written documents, and the 13,000-year-old prehistory of Canada will no longer receive the same degree of recognition and will only be accessible through archeology, anthropology and oral history.
[English]
This is our second point. We gave you a little sheet there with them. We are concerned that the world outside of Canada needs to receive as much attention as it formerly did.
The CHA represents scholars in all geographical fields of history, and we deplore the narrowing of the mandate to foster Canadian citizens' knowledge of the history of this country alone.
The new name, which includes ``Canada'' and ``history'' but no more civilization, points to such a direction.
Clause 2 of the bill, which amends the purpose of the museum in section 8 of the act, deletes references to international audiences. It deletes the mandate of developing a collection which is not in exclusive reference to Canada; and the world history and cultures only appear at the end of this article as an addition to the main mandate, which is Canada's history and identity, whereas the words ``human achievement'' and ``behaviour'' were at the centre of the mandate of the museum before.
[Translation]
Third, the museum's revised mandate does not require that material presented to the visitors encourage a ``critical understanding'' of the past. That wording comes from the new text. The Canadian Historical Association believes that critical understanding should be a goal for all museums. They should encourage visitors to consider multiple perspectives of the past, and multiple approaches of the past in the present.
Museums should present texts and displays that challenge master narratives, and pay justice to the variety of the populations of the past, rather than simply venerating national heroes and powerful actors.
[English]
Finally, our fourth point: The CHA is concerned by the deletion of the very words which assured the maintenance of the standards of discipline and the curatorial autonomy of the historians and other professionals of the past in the employ of the museum in the Museums Act. Their professional obligation to respect the diversity of approaches to history, and the groups that have composed the societies of the past, needs to be guaranteed in that law.
Clause 2 of Bill C-7 amends section 8 of the Museums Act on the purpose of the Canadian museum of history by withdrawing ``to increase critical understanding of the past.'' The CHA is worried by the deletion of these words. ``Critical'' in this context doesn't mean ``given to adverse or unfavourable criticism'' but, rather, ``involving or exercising careful judgment and observation.'' Such a stance is crucial for the type of conduct of scholarly work of my colleagues, which, to this day, has guided their work and has guided the work of historians in the national museum in line with the CHA's ethics statement: ``our commitment to free and open inquiry, adhering to the ideal of academic freedom . . . .''
Other deletions from section 8 on the mandate announce a similar direction. The methods of the museum work have been withdrawn, that is to say, ``establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest . . . .''
Paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (f) of the act mention collection, documentation and research, but it occupies a lower status in the law.
From subparagraph (f) of section 9 on the capacity and powers of the museum, how the research at the museum is defined has been deleted, and the withdrawal of these words weakens the future status of independent and scholarly work. So the museum is still to undertake and sponsor research, but the words ``including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research'' have been withdrawn. This change goes against our members' core values, our ``openness to hear with respect divergent interpretations and views, even as we subject those interpretations to critical scrutiny.''
So, to conclude, the CHA respectfully asks the Senate to consider the deletion of parts of paragraph 9(1)(f) and to reconsider the changes in the mandate of the museum in section 8, as well as the change of the name of the museum.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I'll now turn to the Canadian Association of University Teachers and Rosa Barker. Ms. Barker, please.
Rosa Barker, Professional Officer, Canadian Association of University Teachers: Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm very pleased to be here representing the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 68,000 academic staff at 124 universities and colleges across Canada.
Senators, you have a chance today to make a real difference, to ensure that a mistake is not made, by making amendments to the flawed bill that you have before you. The changes to the Museums Act outlined in Bill C-7 are unnecessary. If the motivation for this bill is to promote Canadian history, certainly a laudable goal, the objective is already possible under the current legislation. In fact, approximately 75 per cent of the exhibitions at the Canadian Museum of Civilization are devoted to Canadian history, including the history of Canada's First Peoples. Why not preserve and expand on what we already have, a world-class museum, as evidenced by its immense popularity, as well as its stature within the museum sector? This bill will only serve to restrict what is possible at Canada's most popular museum.
The current legislation, which has been in effect since 1990, mandates that the museum promote ``knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behavior'' and that it establish, maintain and develop collections for research and posterity, and that it have a special but not exclusive focus on Canada. Bill C-7 intends to replace this with something fundamentally different by reducing the scope of the museum's activities to promoting an ``understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity . . . .''
There are three major problems with this mandate revision. First, it pulls away from an expansive understanding of Canadian history to a much reduced focus on ``events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity . . . .'' This emphasis on dates, heroes and objects is an approach that risks leaving out the experience of the vast majority of Canadians. The stories and experiences of ordinary people and events that don't fit into this political biography model risk being marginalized.
Second, it removes ``critical understanding,'' as my colleagues have mentioned, and replaces it with ``understanding.'' The promotion of critical understanding of history is an essential goal for any great museum. Providing visitors with a critical understanding of history means offering them the opportunity to consider different points of view, the opportunity to critically analyze the past, to weigh the evidence, and to make up their own minds, rather than being spoon-fed a singular representation of our history.
Thirdly, it eliminates all references to maintaining a collection for research and prosperity. The removal of paragraph 9(1)(f) from the act is particularly distressing. This paragraph empowers the museum to ``undertake and sponsor any research, including fundamental or basic research and theoretical and applied research, related to its purpose and to museology, and communicate the results of that research.'' The deletion of this central part of the museum mandate suggests that the research and knowledge advancement function of the museum is seriously under threat, a deeply troubling prospect.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a central Canadian cultural institution. Over its long history, it has made significant contributions to this country and internationally. There is nothing that this bill offers that cannot be done under the current mandate.
Senators, we urge you to revise this bill, to ensure the preservation of the research and knowledge advancement function, the critical public engagement, and the expansive scope of activities that this renowned Canadian cultural institution engages in. There is nothing to gain with this bill, and there is so much to lose.
The Chair: Thank you.
I'll now open the floor up to my colleagues, and I'll begin with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Ms. Barker, I'll start with you, because I have another quote here from your organization, the Canadian Association of University Teachers. It is that this proposed 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.'' Would you care to expand on that?
Ms. Barker: I think we are concerned about this. This is in a context where there has been a systematic defunding of many of the country's most central cultural institutions and programs, such as Library and Archives Canada, such as archaeology and the historic sites through Parks Canada, our federal libraries, public library programs such as the community access program — very central and important institutions and programs.
On top of that, there has been a celebration of very specific sorts of events. The War of 1812, as a series of small skirmishes, has now become a central feature of Canadian national identity, somewhat of a rewriting and ``revisioning'' of our past, and a certain sort of focus on our military history, instead of a more complicated appreciation for the diversity of our historical past and our present, for that matter.
Senator Eggleton: I will ask this to all of you. With regard to changes in the mandate, it's a much shorter mandate, but they may well argue that many purposes of the current Museum of Civilization can be met with it. It, of course, puts the focus on Canadian history, but it also says, ``and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.'' I guess you don't feel that does the trick, that that wouldn't be all encompassing. Do any of you want to comment on that?
Ms. Marshall: I said already in the text that ``world cultures'' are now at the bottom of the mandate. They were in the middle of it, because before it was talking about human achievements and behaviour right in the middle. Now, it's Canadian history, and world history comes second. We know that in the law when things come second, it's not the priority. There's a change in priority indicated by the law.
Also in the purpose of the museum, it is not explicit that the museum will also work for international audiences. It's for Canadian citizens. That is a narrowing. It's there, but it's narrower or less important.
Senator Eggleton: Let me add to that. Perhaps this is something I should have asked of Mr. O'Neill. Why can't the present mandate cover an expansion of Canadian history? They already have components of Canadian history. Why couldn't it expand it? If you wanted to tweak it slightly — for example, a name change — would you change it to the museum of Canadian history and civilization or something like that?
Mr. Holyoak: I would like to respond to the first part of your question, most of all to re-emphasize the idea that you can't just take a museum and repurpose it as another museum. That's the problem. The collection that they have is not suited to this proposed narrowing of focus on Canadian history, so that's problematic. The former president of the museum proposed exactly that idea of having a Canadian museum of history and civilization. That could work if you were going to maintain equal priority, as my colleague has pointed out, and if the government were willing to fund it properly.
Senator Eggleton: Do you think there should be two separate museums? Is that what you would advocate?
Mr. Holyoak: Yes, that's my opinion. The reason I feel that way is that the museum as it presently stands, as the Museum of Civilization, works very well. There is no reason to disrupt that. Then you're talking about building a legacy of museums in this country that will serve us well for many years to come — a vision.
[Translation]
Ms. Marshall: Earlier, the minister compared the new museum to the Smithsonian — the American museum of national history — and the Te Papa museum in New Zealand. The Smithsonian is part of a large museum network of several museums, so we are talking about a museum of national history that was created within a large network of museums. Therefore, the comparison is not totally accurate.
In this case, a national museum of history alongside a museum of civilization would be much more appropriate. If the available funding does not allow for that approach — and we need to think about a realistic way to do things — I would prefer to keep the original name because ''civilization'' includes ``history,'' but ``history'' does not include ``civilization.''
[English]
Senator Eaton: All three of you surprise me because you are all academics. There are only four provinces that teach Canadian history in high school, and 80 per cent of students have been found to be lacking in the most basic concepts of Canadian history.
Mr. Holyoak, have you worked for the Canadian Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Holyoak: No.
Senator Eaton: You seem very familiar with its collections. It has most of its collection in storage, I understand.
Mr. Holyoak: Right.
Senator Eaton: You heard the director talking to us about how they want to include the last 40 years of Canadian history. They want to include people who have not been included before, or objects, subjects or areas of history that have not been included before. Would you not think it would be a good idea if we started concentrating on our own Canadian citizens and new immigrants who have no idea, who go to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which is very beautiful? You go to see those wonderful sculptures and carvings, but unless you are into Canadian history — and I try to read a lot of it — there is no sequential narrative. It's difficult. I felt reassured when I heard the director talking today.
Madam Marshall said that it's closing down. They are having two huge exhibitions — 500 years of Greek civilization. They have set up an affiliation with a history museum in Japan. I don't really see the terrible things that will happen if the government is going to put money into it.
Would you not agree that after 25 years the galleries are tired?
Mr. Holyoak: First, the government is not putting money into it; they are repurposing money from the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is no new money going into it, and they are not putting enough money into it, as I tried to establish. That's a canard.
Senator Eaton: This is the beginning.
Mr. Holyoak: Can you guarantee me that there will be adequate funding? Of course you can't.
Secondly, as I and my colleagues have suggested, it is not a question of not having a focus on Canadian history. I agree with you 100 per cent that we need to tell our stories better, and the provinces should do a better job in their education. That is their job; it's not the job of the Government of Canada. However, as I've already indicated, you don't fix that problem by getting rid of something that works really well.
Senator Eaton: I was involved with the Royal Ontario Museum for 20 years, and I can tell you that after 25 years galleries are tired. As Senator Joyal, the critic of this bill — who is not here unfortunately and who knows a great deal about museums — kept saying, history constantly has to be reinterpreted. Would you not agree? We should probably be looking at refitting those galleries every 10 or 12 years. History teaches us something. All the time, new things come to light. Would you not think it is time to have another look?
The Chair: I wonder if we can come to Ms. Marshall, who wanted to get in on the first question, and then come to Ms. Barker. Would that be suitable?
Ms. Marshall: Thank you.
First, about Canadian children and their knowledge of history, you can be assured, Senator Eaton, that every single time the high school curriculum of a province diminishes the place of history, we deplore it. My colleagues are mostly academics in universities but are also in heritage institutions, and some of them are teachers. We are also training teachers to teach. We are completely committed to Canadian children knowing more of their history, and we try to be vigilant about this.
The other thing is that we are delighted there will be exhibitions on Japan and on Greece. We have been following the news about that. It is just that the bill does not say that. What the museum is doing now is different from what the bill is saying. There is nothing in the bill about refurbishing existing galleries. The bill is talking about the mandate. How the museum refurbishes its gallery and when is not in the bill. I was addressing the bill, and the bill is narrowing the mandate.
Ms. Barker: Similarly, I just want to say thank you for the question. Why not use $25 million, hopefully of new money, to expand and refresh the exhibitions that are there? This is a world class museum; 1.2 million people vote with their feet every year walking through that museum. It's branded. It's good. Promoting Canadian history also requires a critical engagement with both the past and the present. It requires an appreciation for the diverse nature of Canada's people, and it can't be about narrowing our vision of the past. That is what we are all talking about. That is what we see this mandate doing. That is the harm that this mandate potentially does. We will not see the effects of it immediately; we will see it after years.
Senator Eaton: We have to respectfully disagree. I read the mandate one way. You are reading it another way.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question is for our three witnesses and concerns the consultations that were held by the Department of Canadian Heritage and other groups, if I have understood correctly.
I would like you to tell me what those consultations focussed on and whether you were involved in them.
Ms. Marshall: Some of our members were invited to the public consultations that took place as part of the research portion. A source of concern for us in those consultations was the fact that no report was produced afterwards, but a report was published this fall.
Since the summer, advisory committees have met to discuss the Canada Hall, but not the whole museum. That is not what Mr. Holyoak is talking about. No consultations were held before the drafting of the bill, but since its drafting — and this has nothing to do with the bill — advisory committee meetings have been held concerning the Canada Hall, which is just one gallery. Our organization was invited to participate in that committee, and the process was open and professional. However, no provisions of the bill guarantee such consultations. That was something the museum's current administration organized — and we were satisfied with that — but the bill, in principle, reduces the museum's commitment to those types of consultations and that kind of professionalism.
Senator Chaput: If I am understanding this correctly, no consultations were held before the bill was drafted. The consultations are currently being held, now that the bill has been drafted. Is that right?
[English]
Mr. Holyoak: I do not have anything to add beyond what Ms. Marshall has said, except that as the process continues and they consider what the Canadian museum of history is going to look like, it is a very closed process. No broad consultation is taking place in that regard either, which is also disturbing.
Ms. Barker: Thank you for the question. I'll just add our particular association's issue here, agreeing with my colleagues.
Our organization originally raised concerns, and we were pleased that the CEO, Mike O'Neill, the Vice-President of Research and Exhibitions, Jean-Marc Blais, and the Director of Research, Dr. David Morrison, agreed to meet with us. We met for about an hour, and further consultations were promised. This was simply a passing of messages; we wanted to be consulted.
That meeting was promised. We received a message from Mr. Blais in February of this year saying that consultations would be forthcoming. We've heard nothing yet, so we are still waiting to be consulted in this process.
The Chair: Well, I see no further questions from my colleagues. I think you've very clearly explained your positions. They are very understandable in terms of the points all three of you have made with regard to the issues. We certainly thank you very much for appearing here before us this evening.
(The committee adjourned.)