GUARDING HISTORY
A Study into the Future, Funding, and Independence of the Canadian War Museum
Report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
May 1998
Chair of the Subcommittee : The Honourable Orville H. Phillips
Deputy Chair : The Honourable Anne C. Cools
MEMBERSHIP
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs:
The Honourable Orville H. Phillips, Chair
The Honourable Anne C. Cools, Deputy Chair
and
The Honourable Senators:
Chalifoux, Thelma Forest, Jean B. *Graham, B.A., P.C. (or Carstairs, Sharon) |
Jessiman, Duncan J., Q.C. *Lynch-Staunton, John (or Kinsella, Noel) |
*Ex Officio Members
Marie Danielle Vachon
Acting Clerk of the Subcommittee
Senators who participated in the hearings but who were not members: The Honourable William M. Kelly and the Honourable Marcel Prud'homme, P.C.
The Committee met in Ottawa from February 2 to 11, 1998.
ORDERS OF REFERENCE
Extract from the Journals of the Senate of Tuesday, November 25, 1997:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Phillips, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bonnell:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report upon all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence; and
That the Committee submit its report no later than March 30, 1998.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate
Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology of November 25, 1997:
The Chairman informed the Committee that the Senate was currently considering another Order of Reference for the Committee, namely, that it be authorized to examine and report upon all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence; and that the Committee submit its report no later than March 30, 1998, which, if adopted, would be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The Honourable Senator Cohen moved, That should the said Order of Reference be referred to this Committee that the Committee refer it to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs for examination.
After debate,
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Jill Anne Joseph
Clerk of the Committee
Extract from the Journals of the Senate of Thursday, March 19, 1998:
The Honourable Senator DeWare for the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simard:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology which was authorized to examine and report upon all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence, be empowered to present its final report no later than Tuesday, June 30, 1998.
The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.
Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
OPENING REMARKS
The Canadian War Museum is a very special place, not just for Veterans and Historians, but for all Canadians. It is the place our sons and daughters can visit and see for themselves the horrors of war their parents and grandparents knew but could never share.
When a motion was presented to the Senate for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs to undertake a study on the Canadian War Museum, the mandate was clear: examine every aspect of the museum including its future, funding and independence. This was to be a complete study, encompassing all of the issues, concerns, and controversies.
When members of the Subcommittee gathered in Ottawa in February to hear more than fifty individual witnesses and organizations a number of truths became self-evident: that the recommendations contained in the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada had not been implemented by government or its subordinate crown corporations, that the Canadian War Museum was not being administrated by persons with a vested interest in Canadian war history, and that planning for expansion of the Canadian War Museum had not involved any proper consultative process.
Many members of the Subcommittee and officials of government were impressed by how much public attention was focused on the activity of this subcommittee and the issue as a whole. Some believe it was indicative of a nationalism that exists just under the surface of the Canadian psyche. As Veterans pass and memories fade, there is a generation of children and grandchildren now making themselves aware of Canada’s proud war history, and affirming their important role in educating generations to come.
Much has happened since we began this journey last November. It is gratifying to hear that such a marked change has been embarked upon by the Canadian War Museum, but these are just small victories of battle in a greater war. Only when the governance of the Canadian War Museum is truly independent and properly funded by government will this conflict be resolved.
The Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs will endeavour to see that this happens, through continued work on this mandate.
As Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who agreed to undertake this study, both the Members of the Subcommittee and those Honourable Senators who gave of their own time to participate in the hearings. I would also like to thank our dutiful clerk, Mr. Tonu Onu, clerk’s assistant Laura Fox, and our public relations assistant, Elaine Collins. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention other staff who assisted the committee throughout its proceedings, such as Janelle Feldstein, Bruce Carson, and Joe Varner. Finally, I have to thank the many individuals and organizations who agreed to appear as witnesses, who offered such articulate and fair testimony, and spoke openly and honestly.
This interim report is the first step in mapping out a future path for the Canadian War Museum. As we embark upon this important first step, rest assured that the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs will be among the hundreds, and thousands of Canadians who will continue to be Guarding History.
Orville H. Phillips
Chairman
Introduction
The Structural Evolution of the Governance of the Canadian War Museum
The Development of the Plan to Place a Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum and its Relationship to Fundraising and the Theory of Accountability
(i) The Development of the Holocaust Gallery Plans
(ii) Relationship of Fundraising to the Expansion of the CWM
(iii) Ministerial Accountability for Decision Making at the CMCC
(iv) Summing Up and Recommendations
Evidence Adduced from Private Sector Witnesses
(i) Veterans Groups
(ii) Groups Representing the Jewish Community
(iii) Representatives of those Currently Serving in Canada’s Armed Forces
(iv) Evidence Provided to the Subcommittee by Historians
(v) Alternative Sites
The Way Ahead
(i) The Canadian War Museum
(ii) The Holocaust Gallery
ANNEX 1 Suggested Terms of Reference of the Canadian War Museum Board of Trustees
ANNEX 2 Recommendations of the National
Council of Veteran Associations, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, and the
Royal Canadian Legion
The National Council of Veteran Associations
The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada
The Royal Canadian Legion
ANNEX 3 Canadian War Museum Press Release
ANNEX 4 WITNESSES
The Subcommittee recommends:
- That Canada’s War Museum become a separate and independent Museum Corporation.
2 That the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of National Defence assume the responsibility for the newly constituted and independent Canadian War Museum.
3 That the newly constituted Canadian War Museum have its own Board of Trustees and that a significant percentage of representation on this Board be composed of representatives of Canada’s major veterans organizations.
4 That this new Canadian War Museum Corporation be made a government funding priority so that it can carry out its mandate in an effective manner.
5 That the federal government and its subordinate crown corporations prepare an up-to-date response to the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada.
6 That the decision making process, and management practices at the CMCC be thoroughly audited and reviewed, paying particular regard to the lack of consultation with stakeholders.
7 That criteria be established to ensure proper and adequate consultation takes place with stakeholders prior to public announcements being made.
8 That the appropriate Minister be made directly responsible to Parliament for the decisions made by crown corporations.
9 That in continuing your Subcommittee's efforts to discharge this mandate from the Senate, a survey of alternative sites for the CWM be conducted by the appropriate government department or agency and be reported to the Senate.
10 That your Subcommittee, in the interest of continuing to discharge this mandate, make future recommendations on those issues not covered in this interim report, in recognition of the serious and marked changes that have taken place since this study was initiated.
11 That the new governance structure of the CWM, in whatever form, make an annual report to the Senate in an effort to ensure that issues concerning ministerial accountability, decision making structure, funding, and independence are being addressed.
12 That the Government undertake a meaningful and thorough study as to the feasibility of a national holocaust and/or other acts of genocide gallery.
On the 25th day of November, 1997, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs received an Order of Reference from the Senate to study and report on "all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence".
The desire of the Subcommittee to commence this study arose out of the negative reaction of Canadians and in particular, all of Canada’s veterans groups, to an announcement made on November 13, 1997. On this date, Ms. Adrienne Clarkson, Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, and Daniel Glenney, Acting Director General of the Canadian War Museum unveiled elaborate expansion plans for the Canadian War Museum. We were concerned that these plans would not be in line with the museum’s mandate and attempted to take it in entirely new directions.
While the location of a Holocaust Gallery in the expanded Canadian War Museum may have been the catalyst for the intense public focus on these hearings, the interest of the Subcommittee in the Museum goes far beyond this topic. In fact the Subcommittee’s view of the situation is illustrated by the opening remarks of its Chair, Senator Orville Phillips.
Today we embark on a week of hearings into the future funding and independence of the Canadian War Museum. Before we begin to hear the more than 50 individuals and organizations scheduled to testify this week, clarification on a number of issues is needed.
First, I proposed to the Senate that this issue be studied because many Canadians, veterans in particular, contacted me with concerns about a $12 million expansion launched by the Canadian War Museum. That expansion proposes to take the War Museum in entirely new directions; as a result, many are concerned that these directions are not in line with the museum’s mandate. It is important that everyone here examine and understand the mandate in this complex debate.
Some would argue that the War Museum is simply a storehouse for guns and tanks. That is not the case. Some would say that this museum is a place for veterans to trade old stories. That is not the case. The museum is best described by its own mandate: To share in the remembrance of and serve as a memorial to those Canadians lost in or as a result of war; to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians; and to document Canada’s continuing commitment to peacekeeping and the maintenance of international security. Those words will be our compass in our search for answers to the simple question: Where should the War Museum be heading?
Ultimately, when those Canadians who fought in or lived through the war and who know of its loss and sacrifice are gone, they will no longer be able to tell their story. It is then that institutions like the War Museum should be able to tell their story to future generations for them.
It is the intent of your Subcommittee to inquire further into the future, funding, and independence of the Canadian War Museum. The goal of the Subcommittee is to present a set of recommendations that will work toward ensuring a War Museum that is truly independent.
The first phase of the Subcommittee’s hearings on this subject have revealed a museum structure which subordinates the Canadian War Museum (CWM) to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation (CMCC). This has resulted in decisions being made as to the governance structure of the CWM which we believe were not in its best interest. This is best evidenced by a consistent pattern of failing to consult veterans groups and other museum stakeholders, and the development of a disturbing trend that degrades the proud war history of Canada, in turn denying Canadian Veterans the respect owed to them.
In order to best explain how the unfortunate set of circumstances which gave rise to these hearings came about it is vital that we deal with the structural evolution of the CWM. This report will then analyze the testimony received in what we considered to be a balanced and fair hearing process. Throughout our work during the hearings and in this report - we kept the mandate of the CWM foremost in our thoughts.
To share in the remembrance of and serve as a memorial to those Canadians lost in, or as a result of war;
To examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians;
And to document Canada’s continuing commitment to peacekeeping and the maintenance of international security.
The Structural Evolution of the Governance of the Canadian War Museum
In order to understand the circumstances being investigated by your Subcommittee, it is necessary to go back into recent history and trace the changes in the governance structure of the CWM. Prior to December 21, 1967, the CWM had its own Board of Trustees. The National Museums Act, given Royal Assent that day created the National Museums Corporation. Its Board of Trustees redesignated the Canadian War Museum Board to be the Canadian War Museum consultative committee.
In 1990, the Museums Act established the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation under whose aegis the Canadian War Museum was to operate.
On July 1, 1990, the Board of Trustees of the CMCC pursuant to section 22 of the Act passed a resolution by which the Canadian War Museum Consultative Committee became what we know today as the CWM Advisory Committee.
Between that date and 1995 the two trustees on the Board of Directors of the CMCC who had military experience retired and were not replaced by people with military experience. As well, the CWM Advisory Committee was disbanded in 1995 after Ms. Adrienne Clarkson became the Chairwoman of the CMCC. Therefore, throughout the entire period when the plans for the Holocaust Gallery as an integral part of an expanded CWM were being conceived and developed, there was no one on the Board of Trustees of the CMCC who had a military background nor was there a CWM Advisory Committee in place. It should be noted that the new Advisory Committee is composed of a majority of people with no military experience.
In fact, it was not until 11 days after making its expansion plans public, and considerable public outcry, that Ms. Clarkson announced the reestablishment of the Advisory Committee to the CWM. After five days of continuous Subcommittee hearings, on February 6, 1998, the Minister of Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps announced that the Honourable Barney Danson had been appointed to Board of Trustees of the CMCC and would assume the role as Chair of the CWM Advisory Committee. It should be noted that this appointment took place in the midst of your Subcommittee's hearings, and was an attempt to diffuse a controversy, revealed by your Subcommittee's study of the issue.
The reason given to your Subcommittee by Ms. Clarkson in disbanding the CWM Advisory Committee in 1995 was:
We did not have a military person to chair a (Advisory) committee and we were waiting until we got someone who would be able to chair a committee, then we would reconstitute a committee. We did not have anyone on our Board to fill that role and we, as you know, have our members of our Board of Trustees appointed by the Ministry of Heritage. We waited until we had someone appointed. Now we have Barnett Danson, who will chair our Advisory Committee for the War Museum.
This reasoning is flawed as there is no requirement, other than bylaw No. 1 of the CMCC, which requires a Board member to sit on the Advisory Committee. And we were told by Ms. Louise Dubois, Corporate Secretary of the CMCC that this bylaw could be changed by the Board of the CMCC itself.
It is the conclusion of your Subcommittee that the Board of Trustees and the senior corporate officers of the CMCC were not going to alter their plans based on advice quietly given to them by military experts through an Advisory Board even if one had existed. The minutes of the nineteenth meeting of the executive committee of the CMCC Board of Trustees which met on May 12, 1997, are instructive in this matter.
G. Macdonald and V. Suthren both felt that the story of the Holocaust would allow the museum to explore the root causes of war for not just Canada but for humanity. D. Morton and J. Granatstein said this would be useful but such an exhibition would be more appropriate at the CMC since its message is to touch the broader human experience.
Ignoring the advice of two of Canada’s most respected military historians indicates to your Subcommittee that the CMCC Board of Trustees simply would not accept the views of those who are more knowledgeable about Canada’s military history and the sensitivities in this proposal.
All of this points out the need to restructure the CWM so that it emerges from the umbrella of the CMCC. Your Subcommittee heard evidence from veterans groups of the necessity of having the CWM placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Canadian Heritage cautioned against such a move in her appearance before your Subcommittee because of the limited resources in the Ministry of Veterans Affairs. She did, however, propose that the Department of National Defence may be helpful on this matter.
The relationship between the CWM and the CMCC was explored at length by the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections and it concluded that the CWM should become a separate museum within the portfolio of the Minister of Heritage.
We recommend that the federal government act immediately to establish the Canadian War Museum as a corporation separate from other museums and that it remain within the Ministry of Heritage but be resourced at a level so that it can effectively fulfil its mandate.
Your Subcommittee would like to state its full support of the recommendations and analysis contained in the 1991 Task Force Report and questions why it has gone largely unheeded by Parliament and the CMCC since its tabling.
Your Subcommittee is greatly disturbed by the evidence it heard concerning the lack of understanding of the role and mandate of the CWM by the Trustees and senior officials of the CMCC. It is obvious to us that the CWM must be separated from the CMCC.
- We recommend that Canada’s War Museum become a separate and independent Museum
Corporation.
- We recommend that the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of National
Defence assume the responsibility for the newly constituted and independent Canadian War
Museum.
- We recommend that the newly constituted Canadian War Museum have its own Board of
Trustees and that a significant percentage of representation on this Board be composed of
representatives of Canada’s major veterans organizations.
- We recommend that this new Canadian War Museum Corporation be made a government funding
priority so that it can carry out its mandate in an effective manner.
- We recommend that the federal government and its subordinate crown corporations prepare an up-to-date response to the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada.
The Development of the Plan to Place a Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum and its Relationship to Fundraising and the Theory of Accountability
(i) The Development of the Holocaust Gallery Plans
In order to place in context the anger of Canada’s Veterans Associations at not being involved in the process by which the expansion plans of the CWM were developed, it is necessary to trace the history of this matter.
In 1988, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the CWM presented to the National Museums of Canada Corporation a Comprehensive Development Plan for the CWM recommending the building of a new facility to reunite the collection at Vimy House and at the CWM under the same roof. There was no mention at that time of any proposal to locate a Holocaust Gallery within a new museum building. In fact, the most striking feature of the 1988 CWM Development Plan was its description of the deplorable conditions in which the collection was kept and the need for immediate rectification.
The building is heated by cast iron radiators and old fashioned pipe coils heated by steam or hot water. Temperature control is primarily a manual operation, leading to wide swings in temperature.
There is no positive supply of outside air for ventilation.
There is no humidification system.
A museum cannot operate under these conditions for any reasonable length of time.
Documents filed with your Subcommittee prior to the commencement of its hearings, indicate that the Holocaust Gallery and the intention of the then Director of the CWM were discussed at the October 21, 1996, meeting of the Board of Trustees of the CMCC.
The CWM wishes to build the Holocaust Gallery, working in close cooperation with the Jewish Community, in the new pavilion planned for the museum. The Gallery will be a stand alone theme installation and will complete the thematic content at the CWM.
At the February 10, 1997, meeting of the Trustees of the CMCC, it was announced that Irving Abella had accepted an invitation to participate in the CWM’s advisory committee on the planned Holocaust Gallery. On April 9, 1997, the Request for Proposals for the Addition/Renovation at the CWM was issued. It contained specifications for a 560 sq. metre Holocaust Gallery. The Request for Proposals was due to close on May 1, 1997, twelve days prior to the Trustees meeting at which Professors Granatstein and Morton advised against the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery within the expanded CWM.
This seems to have been the only formal consultation with anyone with a military background and it seems to have been the last time, prior to the public announcement of the expansion on November 13, 1997, that the CMCC contacted anyone who might hold an opinion different from their own.
(ii) Relationship of Fundraising to the Expansion of the CWM
As well as developing this plan without consultation, the CMCC embarked on a public fundraising scheme which greatly disturbs your Subcommittee. Colonel (Ret’d) J.W. Holtzauer, President, Friends of the Canadian War Museum explained that initially fundraising plans were based on raising funds through specific recognition initiatives.
For example, the Dutch Canadian Community was asked to achieve a target of $2 million for which the new 250 seat theatre would be named the Netherlands Liberation Theatre.
Another $1 million was to be raised from the Jewish Community to go towards the Holocaust Gallery and a donation of $1 million by General Motors Corp has resulted in the naming of the planned forecourt after this company. We are also concerned with the contents of certain letters tabled with your Subcommittee by Mr. Scott Taylor of Esprit de Corps Magazine. These letters describe proposals to have certain officials of the CMCC work behind the scenes to arrange government funding for the Holocaust Gallery.
Either a group or an event is worthy of recognition or it is not. Therefore, the idea of being able to buy recognition in Canada’s national War Museum is repugnant in the extreme to your Subcommittee. Adequate resources should be supplied by government to expand the museum so that Canadian War Veterans do not have to suffer the humiliation of having their War Museum redeveloped to commemorate names or events based on the size of donations received.
(iii) Ministerial Accountability for Decision Making at the CMCC
We believe that the decision making mechanisms in place at the CMCC are fundamentally flawed. To arrive at a decision to include the Holocaust Gallery in an expanded CWM without widespread consultation with veterans groups and against the specific advice of two of Canada’s most renowned military historians is appalling. Furthermore, the fundraising techniques condoned by the CMCC which linked the size of donations with the naming of commemorative rooms are at the very least offensive to those who served valiantly in Canada’s armed forces. Surely, at some point the doctrine of Ministerial Accountability or at least answerability should come into play in this matter. However, Mr. Bill Peters, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage explained to us that the CMCC as a Crown Corporation operates at arm’s length from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Minister communicates strategic directions to the corporation and through the Minister, the corporation is responsible to Parliament. But the Minister is prohibited by the Museums Act from giving directives to museums with respect to their cultural activities. Therefore, according to Mr. Peters, it would have been inappropriate for the Minister to have intervened in this matter.
(iv) Summing Up and Recommendations
The development of the plan to include a Holocaust Gallery in an expanded CWM by the Board of Trustees and senior officers of the CMCC gives your Subcommittee reason to question the decision making ability of this group. We cannot imagine how plans for this Gallery could have developed to the stage of a public announcement without formal consultations with Canada’s veterans groups.
Under the new structure we propose for the CWM that it is imperative its activities be adequately resourced by the government of Canada. The government of Canada represents the people of Canada and through the activities of the CWM Canadians are reminded of their proud military history. Therefore, in order to perform this task the CWM needs to be resourced to the extent it deems necessary by the government of Canada. However, if the Board of Directors of the CWM under the new arrangement we recommend deems it appropriate to seek private funding to carry out some of its activities, it should be able to do so, providing "naming" is not tied to the size of the donations.
While we believe it is necessary that Canada’s historic and cultural institutions should be free from government interference as far as artistic freedom is concerned, the Minister in charge should be answerable and accountable for the decisions of these institutions.
Therefore, based on the evidence we have heard and keeping in mind the new structure we have recommended for the CWM we make the following recommendations.
6. We recommend that the decision making process, and management practices at the CMCC be thoroughly audited and reviewed, paying particular regard to the lack of consultation with stakeholders.
7. We recommend that criteria be established to ensure proper and adequate consultation takes place with stakeholders prior to public announcements being made.
8. We recommend that the appropriate Minister be made directly responsible to Parliament for the decisions made by crown corporations.
Evidence Adduced from Private Sector Witnesses
Many witnesses, outside of those representing the Department of Heritage and the CMCC, were in support of the construction of a memorial to the Holocaust, as long as it was not connected with the CWM. Your Subcommittee was impressed with the degree of thoughtfulness and sensitivity that these witnesses brought to the debate. The veterans groups stressed time and again that they recognized the horror of the Holocaust and their opposition to locating a Holocaust Gallery within the CWM was not to be construed as opposition to such a commemorative structure being built.
While they expressed their opposition to the Holocaust Gallery being located within the CWM, veterans groups also expressed great concern over the lack of consultation with them by the CMCC.
Mr. Joseph Kobolak, Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion, advanced the position that through the lack of consultation it became difficult for veterans organizations to know what exactly had been proposed. He estimated that the size of the proposed Holocaust Gallery would occupy 35 percent of the additional space. Even Mr. Joe Guerts of CMCC, when closely questioned, admitted that his original estimate of six percent of the floor space had to be increased, to approximately 25 percent of the new addition.
This view was reiterated by Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations. He made it clear that lack of consultation was a very divisive factor resulting in veterans feeling that their views were considered by the CMCC to be irrelevant. He stressed, however, that veterans do not want to be, nor should they be, the final arbiters of what goes into the CWM. Their concern is "about how the War Museum depicts our military heritage".
It was this lack of consultation that led veterans groups to question the bona fides of the CMCC and the legal relationship between the CWM and the CMCC. It led the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans to suggest that the Museums Act, 1990, be amended to:
(a) sever the relationship between the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation; (b) establish the Canadian War Museum as a separate museum; (c) establish a separate board of trustees for a separate Canadian War Museum; and (d) that the Canadian War Museum be the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs and that the director general and the Board of Trustees of the war museum be responsible to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. (See Annex A of this report for a more detailed description of this proposal).
Mr. Ian Inrig, the General Secretary of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans stated very simply, "We feel that if the CWM had been an independent museum with its own board of directors it would not be in the position it finds itself in today."
It is the view of your Subcommittee that had proper consultations taken place, the distrust exhibited by veterans associations would have been avoided and their concerns with respect to the restructuring of the museum could have been addressed in a more collegial manner and with more satisfactory results.
Veterans organizations believe the mandate of CWM does not allow the Holocaust Gallery to be constructed there as part of the new addition. This was the position taken by the Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded:
We have difficulty with the suggestion that the Holocaust was central to the Second World War. The membership of the Sir Arthur Pearson Association, all war blinded persons, saw a great deal of war until they lost their sight, but they wish to make it clear that they knew little or nothing about the Holocaust.
This was also the position taken by Mrs. Dorothy Jean-Gogan, the National President of the Nursing Sisters Association of Canada. After reciting the mandate of the CWM she stated simply that there was "no way to embroider into [the mandate] a holocaust gallery".
(ii) Groups Representing the Jewish Community
The Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans and B’nai Brith in their appearances before your Subcommittee all took the position that they would be satisfied if a Holocaust Gallery were to be established in its own free standing structure.
We and the Canadian Jewish Congress enthusiastically endorse the recent proposal by the Canadian Museum of Civilization to establish a free-standing permanent Holocaust Gallery in Ottawa as a symbol of the nation’s commitment to memorializing the horrors of the Holocaust for generations to come.
(Canadian Jewish Congress)
It was made abundantly clear by the Canadian Jewish Congress that if a separate structure could not be found, the Holocaust Gallery should be located in an expanded CWM. It is their unequivocal belief that such a gallery is within the mandate of the CWM and the Holocaust is inextricably linked to Canada’s military history.
Your Subcommittee is concerned that the lack of consultation which the veterans organizations complained of, was also suffered by the Jewish Community. "We played no role. We were not consulted" was the evidence of the Canadian Jewish Congress. While certain members of the Jewish community were consulted as part of an advisory committee there was no evidence of formal consultations presented to your Subcommittee.
Consultation continued to be an issue for your Subcommittee when the following document was presented to the Subcommittee, unsigned and without attribution during the first day of our public hearing process.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, The Jewish War Veterans of Canada, and Bnai Brith Canada would like to make a joint statement in response to the controversy that the Canadian War Museum expansion plans have engendered.
The concept for an expansion to the Canadian War Museum’s facility at 330 Sussex Drive which included a Holocaust Gallery was put forward by the Corporation as the approach that could be achieved within the current budget of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
We feel at this time that an alternative solution can be proposed that, given the goodwill of all parties, could satisfy the needs of all parties. While we have not abandoned our original proposal, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation is prepared to pursue other options to house the Holocaust Gallery which everyone agrees warrants a permanent exhibition.
We affirm the importance of highlighting the vital contribution of our veterans to our Canadian Military history, and it is our firm intention to make the Canadian War Museum a centre for national commemoration and interpretation.
When questioned about this document, representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith advised us that there had been discussions between their organizations and the CMCC regarding its contents. It was unclear to your Subcommittee if the representatives of the Jewish War Veterans had ever been consulted.
While your Subcommittee believes that those who put this document together did so with the best of intentions in order to attempt to diffuse a controversial situation, we believe that it should have been presented in evidence by a witness knowledgeable about its origins and content.
(iii) Representatives of those Currently Serving in Canada’s Armed Forces
Both the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association and the Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada appeared before us and expressed their opposition to the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery in an expanded CWM. It is the position of the Peacekeeping Veterans that the space now occupied by the Holocaust display in the CWM is sufficient.
The Holocaust, although an important social event in civilization, as a stand alone display has no place within the walls, let alone the mandate of the Canadian War Museum... We strongly believe that any display, regardless of space, other than that of Canadian military heritage, and the Canadian War Museum, would be an absolute insult to the Canadian soldiers who participated in making that very history.
(Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association)
This view was reinforced by the testimony of Major General (Ret’d) Clive Addy of Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada when he stated:
Members of our federation are very concerned that the ill-conceived juxtaposition or integration of a Canadian Holocaust memorial in our War Museum is neither in keeping with the mandate of our War Museum. Nor is it in keeping with what the Holocaust means to Canadians and their descendants who were subjected to the atrocities of the Nazi death camps.
(iv) Evidence Provided to the Subcommittee by Historians
Your Subcommittee was privileged to hear from three distinguished Canadian academics during its hearings. Professor Terry Copp of Sir Wilfrid Laurier University stated his views quite clearly:
I believe that putting a gallery in the Canadian War Museum that dealt with the Holocaust would diminish both the significance of the Holocaust as an issue in the history of humanity and would so seriously impact upon the present and future purpose of the War Museum that it, in my opinion, calls into question quite seriously whether it is something that should be done.
Professor Copp did have an interesting suggestion for the CWM. He advanced the idea that the CWM depict the liberation of Camp Westerbork by the Canadian Army.
Dr. R.H. Roy stated that "those of us joining the army in 1939 and 1940 did so for a number of reasons, none of which involved a direct desire to stop the Holocaust".
From a military point of view, to my mind, Canadian servicemen would have fought just as hard to destroy Hitler’s Nazi Germany had there been no Holocaust, and this is why, among other reasons, I feel a special gallery in our War Museum is not particularly appropriate.
(Dr. R. H. Roy)
Dr. Michael Marrus, Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto and Canada’s foremost academic authority on the Holocaust expressed his view that the proposed Holocaust Gallery should not be in the CWM. He argued that the Holocaust has nothing to do with Canadian Military History rather the Holocaust is about civilization. Also, he believes a Holocaust Gallery should be created in the national interest - it is not to be negotiated with a few interest groups. It also should not be a project which pits groups of Canadians against each other.
As Dr. Marrus is part of the CMCC Advisory Committee on the Holocaust Gallery, we were particularly heartened by his views. He also indicated he had no objection to the CWM proceeding with its expansion while the issue of the Holocaust Gallery was being resolved. We are concerned that his views, which we found to be very well founded were, nevertheless, ignored by the Board of Trustees of the CMCC. This reinforces our view that the CMCC was not open to views which contradicted its planned agenda.
Two witnesses who appeared before us suggested alternative sites for the CWM. Mr. Bruce Levine, an architect, suggested that the Connaught Building, located between MacKenzie and Sussex Drive be renovated to accommodate the CWM. He pointed out that its location, structure and size make it ideal for such a project. While offering no estimate on the cost of doing this, he did believe it would be cheaper than buying a new building.
Mr. Albert Lawrence MC proposed that the National Research Council building on Sussex Drive be considered as an alternative to the present site for the CWM. It is appealing because it is situated on a large parcel of land and is big enough to accommodate much of the CWM collection. As the property backs onto the Ottawa River, it could also be used as a naval museum.
Your Subcommittee considers these to be imaginative and useful suggestions which we believe should be explored.
9. We recommend that your Subcommittee's efforts to discharge this mandate from the Senate, a survey of alternative sites for the CWM be conducted by the appropriate government department or agency and be reported to the Senate.
Our hearings on this matter have led us to conclude that the proposed construction of a Holocaust Gallery in an expanded CWM has been mishandled by the CMCC right from the beginning. Lack of consultation with veterans groups, botched fund raising schemes, elimination of the CWM Advisory Committee, architects designing an extension for the CWM which extended beyond the CWM property lot line are but a few examples of the attempts of the Board of Trustees and senior officials at the CMCC to manage this issue, albeit unsuccessfully.
In the aftermath of the hearings of your Subcommittee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps, seems to have become directly involved in this matter. Your Subcommittee is pleased with the appointment of the Honourable Barney Danson to the Board of Trustees of the CMCC and as Chair of the recently revived CWM Advisory Committee. Certainly, this is only a first step for the government and the CMCC in adapting to the consensus developed at your Subcommittee's hearings.
We are also encouraged by Ms. Copps’ suggestion that the many military museums located across Canada be linked together perhaps under the umbrella of the CWM with support from the Department of National Defence or the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is the hope of your Subcommittee that the Minister finally consider enacting some of the recommendations of the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada.
We would also request that Ms. Copps direct her officials and the CWM to provide a place within the CWM to recognize the contributions made to Canada by our Aboriginal War Veterans.
We hope that in future an incident such as this one will not have to re-occur to necessitate the direct attention of the Minister. It is also the opinion of your Subcommittee that throughout these hearings, until such time as the pressure of public opinion became unbearable, that the officials of the department and the CMCC were evasive and duplicitous in many of their actions. This type of behaviour is a direct affront to Parliament, and should not go unmentioned.
However, we believe that our work in relation to the Holocaust Gallery proposal has only scratched the surface of the problems that beset the CWM. The lack of adequate resources, lack of a plan for the future which has the approval of all stakeholders, lack of a decision making process which involves consultation, and lack of accountability for decisions which are made, are all symptoms of a situation which if left alone could result in the death of the CWM as we know it.
In this report, we have made recommendations in regards to the future, funding, and independence of the CWM. We believe these matters should be studied in greater depth by your Subcommittee. This will allow your Subcommittee the time necessary to recommend the structures, procedures, and processes which need to be put in place so that the incident which gave rise to these hearings never occurs again.
10. We recommend that your Subcommittee, in the interest of continuing to discharge this mandate, make future recommendations on those issues not covered in this interim report, in recognition of the serious and marked changes that have taken place since this study was initiated.
11. We recommend that the new governance structure of the CWM, in whatever form, make an annual report to the Senate in an effort to ensure that issues concerning ministerial accountability, decision making structure, funding, and independence are being addressed.
It should be noted that the widespread opposition to the construction of a Holocaust Gallery in the CWM was conversely balanced with support for a free standing gallery. Due to the compressed time period and limitations of the order of reference, little time was available for discussion as to what could or should constitute this free standing gallery. Your Subcommittee feels that the following comments of Dr. Marrus are most appropriate in that they indicate this is a complex undertaking.
"...it is important to have a holocaust gallery with the highest degree of professionalism and historical and museological expertise...it is a national effort."
The many questions that arise, such as how this gallery would be funded, where it would be constructed, what would constitute its governance or the composition of its exhibits, should be left to another body, parliamentary or otherwise, who would be able to conduct a thorough study.
A number of witnesses delved further into the issue as to what a possible alternate of an independent Holocaust Gallery would be composed of, suggesting that the scope be broadened to include other genocides and human atrocities.
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations, proposed that any such gallery or museum be broader in scope and include other historical genocides.
Mr. John Thompson of the MacKenzie Institute introduced a new term to the debate when he spoke of 'democide'. The reference, coined by Professor A.J. Ruimmel, a scholar of note on this issue, refers to the systematic extermination of people by the state for reasons of beliefs over identity.
Your Subcommittee feels that this issue warrants further in-depth study to consider the many sensitive and complex aspects of the possible construction of a Holocaust Gallery. It is our hope that because of these proceedings we can see a rejuvenated CWM and a national Holocaust Gallery that will serve and educate Canadians for years to come.
12. We recommend that the Government undertake a meaningful and thorough study as to the feasibility of a national holocaust and/or other acts of genocide gallery.