But this lack of notice is the silver lining in the government’s present cloud, enabling them to take control more easily of our important independent institutions.
The omnibus bill, passed through the Commons on June 11 without a news report, includes a section giving the government management of all Crown corporations. The startling variety in Bill C-60’s list of 45 corporations ensures that no government could possibly know enough to make decisions on their salary management and working conditions. The government’s stated aims are financial accountability and a uniform code of conduct for all Crown corporations. Financial accountability already exists through grants, reports, and audits. As a sign of things to come, we have already seen codes of conduct muzzle scientists, librarians, archivists, and the RCMP.
The CBC has found possible legal protection in the Broadcasting Act. Two sections of the act demand editorial independence to ensure CBC’s journalistic freedom. Doubtless, this act will soon be amended, especially since the proposed resolutions for the upcoming Conservative convention contains three resolutions which would ultimately kill CBC funding, eliminate needed services as well as delete a statement about the broadcaster’s importance to Canada.
The other 44 corporations—without that protection—offer a mixture of technical and financial services, arts, culture, and—vital to our Canadian identity—the national museums and art gallery. Whether in pilotage, or ports, or rail, or other technical Crown corporations, the influence of political staffers will be far-reaching. Government interference in all areas is disastrous for the public interest. The implications affect public services, safety, the environment and labour.
The ultimate arrogance and hubris is the government’s attempt to control the Bank of Canada, whose independent mandate is to act against inflation and advise the government on fiscal safety. Conflict of interest here! Mark Carney was independent when he became a hero in saving Canadians from the worst of the financial meltdown.
Equally arrogant is the handling of the Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC). Arts and cultural corporations, along with museums, are especially vulnerable to control. CMC’s case foretells what would happen to the rest. Having gutted the archives, government now attacks this prominent museum. Its exhibits for all ages are respected worldwide, and the most visited in Canada. The situation of having significant collections in one place permits complex and more complete exhibits.
A sequence of moves against Canada’s museums has happened and is likely to continue.
1. A bill, introduced last October changed the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s name to Canadian Museum of History (CMH). “Civilization” implies interest in understanding the basis of our society and of other peoples in the world. Limiting the scope of CMC’s mandate would cost $25-million.
2. The omnibus bill introduced the threat of government management through control of salaries and working conditions. Workers could be picked, hired, and fired to influence exhibit subjects.
3. The recent change to the “two pillar” basis of history (military and political) means the loss of social history (defined as: covering societal/cultural influences as well as our voices in stories of specific persons and places). We already have the large, shiny Canadian War Museum; is the “new” museum to be overwhelmingly focused on political stories?
4. An alarming move came in second reading on May 22, when Canadian Heritage James Moore sought to remove protection for museums from the Museum Act. He stated that the present act “creates a barrier” to keep politicians from telling a museum what it can or cannot do on a daily basis. It is essential to keep this protection; otherwise, museums become government propaganda sites.
5. Further, he enthused that 3.5 million artifacts will be “stuff moving around the country“ to other museums. The wholesale throwing out of historic artifacts is barbarism beyond the scope of belief and impossible to do! It is senseless and financially wasteful, due to the high percentage of outstanding Canadian artifacts, permanent scenes, and temporary exhibits. All are available for use. The minister wants the museum “updated,” i.e., backdated to old traditions. My past tour through the holdings revealed a wonderful mixture of social history (for example, children’s toys). There’s the rub; for the government, social history must go.
In so easily offering so much to so many museums. the minister reveals his ignorance of how museums work. He could not get rid of even a few thousand, since the first rule of museums is: “Only accept what you can store, afford to catalogue and conserve.” The limited number of larger museums may not have much “spare” room. They might even need to build more.
Already Canada’s smaller museums have seen Moore cut their $300,000 program, which gave small grants for specific projects to local archives. Museums in smaller places often share space with archives.
Many depended on these funds to continue. Experts warned that these archives—and thus the museums—could be at risk without that aid. As many are on the brink, they could not take more; those surviving could take little. Is the minister providing funding to the receivers to cover future costs?
The obligation continues to the many donors. They signed away their precious objects with the expectation of continued safety, care, and public use. Thus, any dispersal requires checking the receiver’s ability to maintain high standards. Selling to private collectors is not what donors expected nor does it get rid of the rest. Sending loads of antiques or bones to the dump is simply not allowed; any “leftovers” would have to be looked after.
6. An expected code muzzling museum employees seems to have already begun. Political permission could be required for all forms of publishing; exhibits, catalogues, websites, videos and books. Censoring museum labels to leave out social history is a frighteningly real prospect.
7.With the government’s policy of commercializing science, the Museum of Nature and the Museum of Science and Technology likely will be on the “hit-list.” Gutting references to environment, climate change and anything else displeasing to politicians would mean disposal of artifacts. The National Art Gallery could potentially require political permission to buy paintings or even receive donations. Likewise, the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada would need permission to pursue topics.
It remains absolutely vital to retain the “Civilization” name, remove the control takeovers from the government’s omnibus bill, and drop the changes to the Museum Act. Moore’s lack of knowledge on museum basics increases our fear of any politician-made decisions on salaries for skilled corporation employees or on their working conditions.
The Senate spending scandal involves only money. Paper trails, a mysterious cheque, and Senators’ paybacks have taken Parliamentary time and reporters’ investigations. In contrast, Bill C-60 and its implications for Crown corporations did not inspire newscasts, reports, or debates. If this bill and the others connected pass, the public would never know what is dangerous, missing or—in history—skewed. The loss of knowledge, artifacts, documents and services cannot be made up. Bill C-60’s control measures are not simple cheating. They represents direct and unfair losses, to the public and to employees. It is a deeper scandal that can be somewhat reversed but never fully paid back. Wake up!
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: MARY DOODY JONES
No comments:
Post a Comment