Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:05 a.m. to continue its study of all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our first witnesses this morning are representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Please proceed.
Mr. Joseph Kobolak, Dominion President, Royal Canadian Legion: Mr. Chairman, as Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to you this morning the views of our 500,000 members concerning the Canadian War Museum. More than 100,000 of these members are veterans of World War I, World War II and the Korean War. Another 125,000 have served this country in peace time and on worldwide missions in the pursuit of peace and stability. The remainder are mainly relatives of those who have served in this country's military and merchant navy. Together, we represent the largest veterans' organization in this nation.
We will be very brief this morning, but the brevity of our presentation should in no way be construed as a lack of interest or complacency on the subject of the War Museum. We are extremely concerned with what is happening to the recording, preservation and communication of those aspects of the history of Canada in which our members were an integral part, and we are not happy with the current situation. Our concerns have been voiced in many fora over the past years, and, once again, the Royal Canadian Legion finds it necessary to come to you, as an arm of the government, to urge you to consider positive and quick action on what has become an extremely important issue to our members and especially our veterans, and that is the fate of the Canadian War Museum, its planned expansion and the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery within that expansion plan.
By way of background, the Canadian War Museum dates officially from 1918 through the appointment of a commission on the accommodation of military-related records and trophies and its more formal establishment in 1942. Its present location was occupied in 1967 but, as you all know, the vast majority of its artefacts are not on display there. They are stored at Vimy House because there is insufficient space to put them on display in the museum proper.
Significantly, the museum lost its status in 1986 as a separate entity when it was re-established as an associate museum of the Museum of Man. In 1990, the Museums Act established the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, and the War Museum's position as an affiliate became firm under the law. This has led to many changes at the War Museum, some of which have not stood well with this nation's veterans. I will not elaborate except to say that thousands of artefacts still rest at Vimy House unable to be shown to the public because of a lack of space, and the War Museum has no dedicated budget to acquire artefacts of importance to the nation's heritage and development of that heritage amongst Canada's youth.
It was in this regard in 1988 that the Legion passed a resolution at its dominion convention to urge the government to provide enough resources to the Canadian War Museum to permit it to carry out its mandate. Because of the subsequent introduction of the Museums Act in 1990, this resolution was updated that same year, and the Legion then asked the government to provide enough resources and autonomy to the War Museum to carry out its mandate. These resolutions continue to stand today as the cornerstone of our position on the museum. However, the Legion also endorses that part of the 1991 Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada, which calls for an expansion of the museum so that it may more effectively carry out its role and function.
That report also properly described the museum's mandate as having three components: First, to stand as a memorial to those Canadians who served in war or lost their life as a result of war; second, to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians; and, finally, to document Canadian military contributions to peace-keeping and the maintenance of national and international security.
The Royal Canadian Legion fully concurs with the 1991 task force report and its definition of the museum mandate. We also strongly endorse the report recommendation that the War Museum be established as an entity separate from the Museum of Civilization Corporation. The Legion is not opposed to the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It is an admirable organization which is well led and which plays an integral and vital role in the Canadian community. However, because of its administrative structure and wide operational mandate, it has not been able to cater adequately to the specific aims and objectives of the War Museum.
The deficiencies of the current situation were highlighted most recently when the War Museum was unable to react in a timely manner when the Jock MacGregor Victoria Cross and the Colonel John McCrae medals were placed on the auction block. The War Museum does not possess a dedicated budget to ensure its ability to acquire such significant artefacts of our military history. This pales in comparison to the art gallery and its abundant resources which may be expended on articles of questionable relevance to our Canadian heritage. We appreciate that the national art gallery is not a component of the Museum of Civilization, but it stands as an example of a separate entity established by government with more than adequate resources.
Even more significantly, the Legion was shocked when it was recently announced that the Canadian War Museum was terminating the veteran commissioners who played such a meaningful role at the museum. This directive apparently originated with the Canadian Museum of Civilization in its attempt to reduce expenditures. The objective of achieving a sound bottom line is appreciated, but the manner in which this was implemented was inexcusable and illustrated just how remote the administrative officials of the Canadian Museum of Civilization are from the aim and function of the War Museum.
The recent termination or resignation of the War Museum's director general was also mishandled and led to many questions concerning the chain of command and the channel of communication between the Canadian War Museum and its parent. The Legion is convinced that such concerns as these could easily be avoided if the Canadian War Museum were established as a separate entity with direct reporting responsibility to its minister and with adequate resources to carry out its mandate. We do not presume to suggest the best ministry in which to locate a separate War Museum. There would be advantages under the minister with responsibility for veterans, but we can accept that the museum could operate effectively and efficiently under the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. This ministry has taken on its responsibility to protect our heritage and culture in a most productive manner, and we are confident that the War Museum could flourish as an independent body under its stewardship.
Before I proceed with our comments concerning the Holocaust Gallery, I would emphasize a most important point. Our War Museum is a vital component of our heritage. It must stand as a tribute to those who fought to protect our way of life. We have an obligation to perpetuate the tradition of remembrance so that the horrors of war will never be forced upon our children and grandchildren. The Canadian War Museum must be able to help transmit that message to our youth. It must, therefore, be established in a manner, and with the resources, to portray effectively our military history but, most importantly, it must be of sufficient size to display the critical pieces in a coherent manner. The current museum is far too small. It must be expanded. Therefore, regardless of the issue of the Holocaust Gallery, the expansion must go forward and the additional space used to maximum advantage.
I must add that we regret that the expansion has not taken the natural route of incorporating the facilities which are adjacent to the museum and which are currently occupied by the Mint. This is a heritage building of the same design and character as the War Museum. Its valuable space and location has been totally misused as a factory in which to produce coins. Its conversion to a full museum would complement the historical context of Sussex Drive while providing the critical space required by the Canadian War Museum. Certainly, the coin factory could be relocated elsewhere in the city without too much disruption. I ask honourable senators to consider this in their deliberations.
Without a doubt, the issue of cost will be raised as the argument to prevent such a relocation of the Mint, but in the interests of long-term benefit to our nation, perhaps the Government of Canada could be convinced to devote some of its projected surplus to the veterans of Canada by ensuring a full and proper expansion of the War Museum. However, irrespective of this aspect, the expansion of the museum is critically needed and the debate over the Holocaust Gallery should in no way deter that initiative.
Finally, I should now like to discuss the issue of the Holocaust Gallery. You are probably aware that the Legion has been a positive and proactive supporter of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum in their crusade to raise funds for the museum expansion. I take great pride in standing as a patron of their Pass the Torch campaign.
As such, I was not distressed when I first read that the friends were supporting some form of a Holocaust exhibit in the expanded museum. The Legion has always maintained that such an exhibit could potentially be developed in a constructive manner to help foster the tradition of remembrance.
We, therefore, regretted the controversy that arose over the proposed plan for the Holocaust Gallery, as the media frenzy focused on the racial and religious aspects of the debate. Veterans' organizations were placed in a most uncomfortable position as they attempted to defend the basic premise and purpose of the Canadian War Museum. There were even attempts by the media to divide the various veterans' organizations and to suggest that we were at odds with each other. Honourable senators, that was never the case. The root cause of the debate and the opposition to the gallery by the Legion and other organizations was the lack of an appropriate consultation process.
There had been some surveys in the past, but these lacked the detail and definition to support any final decision on the potential for a full Holocaust Gallery. It was in this regard that we were most disturbed that the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation went forward to implement the Holocaust Gallery. At no time was the Legion consulted with the detailed proposals on the size, content and context of such a gallery. At no time were we asked to support a specific plan. When we did ask for a full briefing during the debate, the context and relevance of the proposed gallery was not fully explained.
In fact, to our great concern, it was revealed that the gallery would consume some 35 per cent of the additional space. On this basis alone, we cannot accept the establishment of a Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum. A small exhibit would have been acceptable, but a major gallery which consumes 35 per cent of the proposed expansion is totally inappropriate, as thousands of military display pieces rest unshown in the Vimy warehouse. These are the priority items for display in any expansion. The implementation of a major Holocaust Gallery will only serve to overshadow the historical military displays while occupying valuable space which should be dedicated to those who fell in the defence of our country. A separate Holocaust museum or a Holocaust Gallery in the Museum of Civilization would be a significant and beneficial aid in the depiction of the history of mankind, but in no way can it support the mandate and function of the Canadian War Museum.
Honourable senators, in conclusion, the Royal Canadian Legion appeals to you to take urgent action on the matter of the Canadian War Museum and its current establishment. First and foremost, it must be set up as a separate entity under a minister of the Crown, with an adequate budget to support acquisitions and operations and to provide for meaningful guidance.
Second, it is recommended that a Canadian War Museum advisory board be established with representations from the major veteran organizations, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada.
Finally, the museum must be expanded so that it can effectively display the proud history of our veterans in the defence of freedom and the dedication of our armed forces in carrying out that legacy. We would prefer a meaningful commitment from the government in dedicating the facilities occupied by the Canadian Mint for the expansion. At worst, the limited refurbishment and expansion as currently proposed should go forward. In no event should a Holocaust Gallery be established in the Canadian War Museum. The display space currently allocated for that gallery should be used for the display of its items currently buried at Vimy House.
We cordially thank senators for this opportunity to offer our views on this critical subject, and congratulate the Senate for taking up this issue in such a timely manner.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Kobolak.
Senator Forest: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here this morning to make your presentation.
You spoke about the importance of the Canadian War Museum becoming an independent entity. This was recommended in the 1991 report. When the senators discussed this yesterday with personnel from the museum it was suggested that they would agree with this in the long term, but that to undertake that administrative change at this time might jeopardize the expansion program at the Canadian War Museum and that it might be allocating scarce resources to an administrative change when that could be used for the expansion program.
What is your response to that?
Mr. Duane Daly, Secretary, Royal Canadian Legion: The Legion would be prepared to support that. The long-term aim would be the development of the museum as a separate entity, but there is a process involved in that. We understand the objective of the museum officials to get on with the expansion and use that as a secondary concern.
The Chairman: Mr. Kobolak, I will question you on your figure of 35 per cent of the display space.
Yesterday when officials from the Canadian War Museum were describing the expansion, they confirmed that the expansion will give them 900 square metres of permanent display. Of that amount, 340 square metres would be for the War Museum, and 560 square metres would be for the proposed Holocaust museum. How did you arrive at the figure of 35 per cent? My math and yours does not jibe, because 560 square metres of 900 square metres is more than 35 per cent. I am speaking here about permanent display space.
Mr. Kobolak: Both Mr. Daly and I were at the meeting at the museum, but I will ask Mr. Daly to answer that question.
Mr. Daly: The figures that we came up with refer to the additional space being provided in the expansion. Unfortunately, we do not have all of those numbers in front of us here. We computed the space allocated to the Holocaust Gallery as a percentage of the new space being added on. It is 35 per cent of the additional space that is being provided.
The Chairman: Were you not here for the presentation yesterday?
Mr. Daly: No, we were not.
The Chairman: I am pleased the Canadian War Museum will include a chronological gallery. Presently, you cannot go into the museum and follow any period of Canadian history. I am not blaming that on the officials because they have a design problem in a building that was not meant for a museum in the first place, and that results in the displays being fragmented.
However, in the expansion I find that no additional space is being allocated to World War I and World War II displays.
Were you advised of that in your meetings with the officials of the museum?
Mr. Daly: Yes, we were, but at the time we also understood the constraints under which the War Museum officials were working in that the priority given to them was evidently the Holocaust Gallery and, therefore, the majority of space was to be used for that. The museum officials were obviously trying to work under those constraints, but we do appreciate that there were very few additional artefacts or displays provided for World War I and World War II and that was one matter that greatly concerned us.
The Chairman: I was going to ask what hope we have of getting these artefacts out of Vimy House and into the museum if we are not getting any additional display space, but you have already answered that question.
Senator Cools: The witnesses have basically said that they have no objections to a Holocaust memorial, that they think that is a valid endeavour. You heaped a bit of abuse on some of the journalists who are sitting here. You basically suggested that if the museum were to proceed with a Holocaust memorial it would alter the mandate as was intended in law and by Parliament.
Because of the explosiveness of the subject matter, and because it is my wish and that of many here to have stability returned to the situation, could you expound on that further? One of the recurrent themes in the presentations yesterday from museum officials was the numerical diminution of the veterans or their diminishing influence.
I do not think the mandate of the Canadian War Museum is crystal clear in many of our minds.
Mr. Daly: We were very pleased with the task force report of 1991 which reinforced the mandate of the museum which essentially focused on veterans and the depiction of Canadian military history itself. The Legion was concerned as the debate started because we thought there might be a manner in which a small exhibit, perhaps an interim exhibit on the Holocaust, could be developed to enhance the perpetuation of remembrance itself, because it was a significant aspect of the Second World War. Certainly it did not involve Canadian troops firsthand or directly, but it was a major aspect of the war. Therefore, we do want Canadian youth to be well aware of the Holocaust.
The question then became one of relevance and context. When we had the briefing on December 18 with the Canadian War Museum, we were not satisfied with the response. The linkage between a Holocaust Gallery and a depiction of military history was not well developed. That context was not shown to us. How did one reinforce the other?
It was on that basis that we felt that we would be in a very difficult position to support this in light of the fact that we had so many other military displays that should be developed but could not be due to lack of space. I guess the straw that broke the camel's back was when we saw how much space was going to be allocated to that Holocaust Gallery. It would not be just a small exhibit; it would be a major gallery of significant proportion consuming 35 per cent of the space. We were left with the opinion that we could not support it; that it would be counter-productive to the original mandate of the museum rather than supportive of it.
Senator Cools: You have obviously paid much attention to this issue and taken a few risks. How has that linkage been made by those at the museum?
Mr. Daly: I am sorry, I could not answer that.
Senator Cools: Let me put it another way: How have the officials and people at the museum justified to organizations such as yours the linkages they have made in their museum public mind?
Mr. Daly: I think that is the core of the problem. They did make a linkage on their own, but it did not take into consideration the interests of veterans. It was not people specifically devoted to the depiction of military history who were making those decisions. They were made by general museum officials, Museum of Civilization officials who were endorsing this linkage. We, as veterans or veterans organizations, did not feel that an appropriate linkage had been made.
Senator Cools: The word that seemed to recur in their presentations yesterday was "viability." Some people believe that some aspects of Canadian history are not viable. I, however, believe that Canadian history is exciting and worthwhile and that it should be told. However, at some point in time we must have a dialogue on exactly what our history is, who should tell that history, and how it should be told.
I thank you very much for your presentation. The point you have made is well taken, that being that these two events are separate tragedies of great magnitude and they each deserve their own separate space.
Senator Prud'homme: Page 10 of your brief is factual. It covers the entire debate. I will join with you and all your members to say how sad it is to have come to this point. At least you have the Senate to listen to your concerns, with all due respect to the other chamber. I was a member there for 30 years so I am not attacking the House of Commons, but often matters that are extremely important are too quickly dismissed without study so that no one has an opportunity to be heard, and people want to be heard. We have had many debates recently on other issues on which people just wanted to be heard, after which they are ready to lose the battle. They only want their day in court -- to be heard. That is why I am glad that the Senate took this job on its shoulders. It is not an easy one.
Lack of consultation has always been a tragedy. I have been in politics for 35 years. Lack of knowledge and lack of consultation leads to terrible misunderstandings.
On page 10 of your brief you say:
The root cause of the debate and the opposition to the gallery by the Legion and other organizations was the lack of an appropriate consultation process.
That situation still prevails. Although I am not a member of this committee, I am here because I believe this controversy has led to terrible and dangerous statements being made. I have heard it said that the Legion made anti-Semitic statements. This country and the Legion do not want to hear accusations of that sort.
Mr. Blair, who is now your Grand President has been a member of Parliament for a long time as well as a judge. Perhaps something positive will be gained from his input.
You say you represent 500,000 people. I am sure these members will ask you, as I am asking you, to take a renewed interest in our institution. The Canadian War Museum is certainly a most important institution, one of the functions of which should be to teach the history of Canada as it relates to the sacrifices people made for their country.
I know that you regret the controversy that took place, as do we. However, this is not the first time this has happened. In other instances people, without adequate consultation, have jumped to incorrect conclusions. You either accept silently and reluctantly, or fight back, but then you pay the price for fighting back.
I would hope that the Royal Canadian Legion will take a renewed interest in the museum. You are in a position to do that, and you must do it rapidly, with our help and support. Then younger people may take up the torch. If that does not happen, then the museum will be like a piece of old, unused furniture.
I would hope that all of us will come out of this week with a renewed interest in the Canadian War Museum and with a renewed interest to combat those who may have used this unfortunate event to further their own purposes.
Senator Chalifoux: For the record, were you ever consulted by the officials of the museum regarding this expansion and the designs?
Mr. Kobolac: Only after requesting a hearing at which Mr. Chadderton and the army and navy veterans were in attendance. That was the first time, but it was not a consultation, it was just a briefing on how they were going to do it.
The Chairman: After they made the announcement did you have meetings with them? Did they attempt to clarify anything or meet any of your objections?
Mr. Kobolac: No.
Senator Chalifoux: When did the debriefing take place?
Mr. Daly: The debriefing occurred on December 18. I would not want to leave the impression that the Friends of the War Museum and the museum officials had not attempted, with their best efforts, to clarify points of concern. However, in many areas they could not answer our questions because the plans were so rudimentary in their own minds. All they knew is there was to be a Holocaust Gallery and it would consume a lot of space. That is essentially all we got from the debate.
Senator Chalifoux: I realize that the Holocaust was a very significant part of the war, however, I believe that the efforts of the French Underground in the First and Second World Wars are more important and more relevant to our own Canadian war history. Were you ever given the opportunity to have some input as to how we could depict another aspect of those wars that would be more relevant to our own Canadian history?
Mr. Daly: No, that was never a subject of discussion.
The Chairman: It was a pleasure to hear from you, gentlemen.
Honourable senators, our next witnesses represent the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada.
Mr. Akmal Khan, Dominion President, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada: Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada is Canada's oldest veterans' association. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Ian Inrig, our Dominion Secretary and Treasurer, who will assist me in this presentation.
We, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, or ANAFVets, as we abbreviate our rather lengthy name, thank the Senate subcommittee for extending this opportunity to us to appear before you to express our views, concerns, and recommendations on the Canadian War Museum. We also thank you for holding these hearings and for bringing forward to the Canadian people the operation, management, and control of the Canadian War Museum so that they are aware of the problems which beset it.
We believe that the Canadian public is the owner of the Canadian War Museum, as it is of all of Canada's public museums. As owner, the Canadian public is entitled to full disclosure of all aspects of the operation of the museum and should have the capability of input into such operations. We submit that, currently, such is not the case.
We submit that, while Canadians are the owners of the Canadian War Museum, Canadian veterans and their survivors, families, dependants, and the former and current serving members of the Canadian armed forces are the stakeholders in it. They, then, should have some input into its management, operation, and control. However, they, like the public, have no such input.
We will present our assessment of the situation and our recommendations which we hope, if accepted and implemented, will rectify this situation. I will now ask Mr. Inrig to review the significant points of our submission.
Mr. Ian Inrig, Dominion Secretary, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada: Our submission contains many areas of concern in the entire operation of the Canadian War Museum. In fact, our concerns are too numerous to illuminate in the time allocated to us this morning. Therefore, I will concentrate on five of those areas. The first is the relationship of the Canadian War Museum to its parent, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, which I will refer to as "the corporation."
We were heartened by your questioning yesterday to see the grasp that you have of the significance of the mandate of the Canadian War Museum because we have a concern about conflict between the mandate and the policies of the corporation. If their policies are not in alignment with the mandate, those policies could erode the mandate and change it to a point where it would no longer be recognizable and the Canadian War Museum could no longer "serve as a memorial to those Canadians lost in or as a result of war."
We believe that the mandate is inviolable -- that is, it cannot be violated. However, the president and CEO of the corporation, Dr. MacDonald, has advised us that it can be changed, and that worries us very much. If it can be changed, then artefacts, exhibits, dioramas, et cetera having nothing to do with Canada's war history can be placed or established in the Canadian War Museum. You can imagine the result of that. We have cited examples of such possibilities in our submission.
We would also express our concern about the current lack of independence of the war museum from the corporation. It has no autonomy, no board of directors, and no self-governance. We believe it should have, and we feel that, if the Canadian War Museum had been an independent museum with its own board of directors, it would not be in the position it finds itself in today. We are very much concerned about the influence of the corporation on the management, operation and control of the war museum and have cited examples of that influence in our submission.
We touch briefly on the budget of the Canadian War Museum. As you know, it has an operating budget, but it has no budget with which to acquire artefacts which from time to time become available. We support the concerns of our confreres, the Royal Canadian Legion, and we see that the Canadian War Museum was unable to purchase the McCrae medals or the Victoria Cross of Lieutenant Colonel Jock MacGregor, both of which would have gone outside the country had not some loyal Canadians come forward to purchase them for private donation. We think this is a sad commentary on our national military history museum. More appalling is the fact that the corporation had the funds to make those purchases but obviously did not think those artefacts were worth spending any money on; yet they are prepared to spend in excess of $12 million in expanding the building to house, among other things, a Holocaust Gallery.
Most of our concerns were recognized by the 1990 Task Force on Military History and Museum Collections in Canada. You are aware of the 26 recommendations made by the task force in its report of 1991 and of the 13 which pertain specifically to the war museum. We think the principal one was Recommendation No. 16 -- that the Canadian War Museum should be a separate museum. We were surprised that General Ramsey Withers does not share this view and cited the recommendation that the museum be increased in size as the most important recommendation. It is certainly our sense that Recommendation No. 16 was being put forth by the authors of the report as being the most important. How else does one explain the Recommendations No. 17B, 18A, 18B and 12F, which all support number 16, or how else does one explain that the task force devoted a whole section, 3.4, of its report to this issue?
We were also surprised that General Withers dismissed your questions on the implementation of Recommendation No. 16 as a goal for the longer term. We certainly do not get that sense in reading the report. We feel that a separate war museum should have its own board of trustees, its own budget, and its own autonomy, free from the control and influence of the corporation. These are our principal recommendations, and we think, as did the task force, that they can be achieved through an amendment to the Museum Act, 1990.
Our second primary concern pertains to the expansion plans for the war museum. We thought your questioning on this issue yesterday was thorough, and we thank you for that. We are not convinced, however, that the proper procedures were carried out. We would like the bidding and selection processes re-examined. We would like to determine if adequate consideration has been given to alternate means of achieving expansion, and again I refer to the Royal Canadian Legion's brief. We favour the acquisition of the adjacent building housing the Royal Canadian Mint and joining the two with a breezeway. This would be considerably cheaper than spending $12 million to construct an addition. As well, the money saved could be used to fund the construction or the renovation of another building for a Holocaust museum as a separate entity which we favour and which we think would be satisfactory to the Jewish community.
We were struck by General Withers' response to your question on the acquisition of the Mint building. It varied significantly from the reasons given in the task force report, which stated on page 31:
In our view, however, the urgency of the CWM's accommodation needs suggests that they not become entangled with those of other organizations.
We understand a feasibility study was done around 1988 on this concept, and we would like that study to be revisited.
With respect to the fund raising to pay for the expansion of the Canadian War Museum, we have concerns which we have indicated in our submission, including our belief that the fund raising carried out by the Friends of the War Museum under the campaign Passing the Torch is one of the roots of the question of whether a Holocaust Gallery should be in the war museum or not. We think your exploration of that yesterday has given insight into this issue.
The third area of our concern relates to including a Holocaust Gallery in the war museum. We believe that the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery in the expanded war museum would violate the museum's mandate. The war museum included in its long-range plan mention of establishing a Holocaust Gallery. However, that plan, which is designed to demonstrate strategies to be utilized to achieve the various objectives, has no strategies included in it to demonstrate how it proposes to establish the gallery in the war museum.
To support his contention that the war museum is the proper place for the Holocaust Gallery, Dr. MacDonald has written prodigiously, even enlisting the assistance of General Withers. Whereas we respect their opinion, we believe that a Holocaust Gallery anywhere would satisfy those museum visitors who specified that they would like to see more related to the Holocaust. A simple notice could be used to direct them to the Holocaust museum wherever it is situated.
As well, what little Canada had to do with the Holocaust is currently demonstrated in the war museum by a small display showing that involvement. Visitors could be advised to visit the Holocaust museum for more information, as mentioned above.
We would draw your attention to our dissatisfaction with the survey referenced by Dr. MacDonald to justify the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery in the war museum. As we state in our submission, we are suspect of the results, and we think the question was a planted one.
With respect to the size and details of the proposed Holocaust Gallery in the war museum, we support the figure that the Royal Canadian Legion have advanced that 560 square metres represents 35 per cent of the new exhibition space acquired by the expansion. Since space is at a premium, it should not be used to exhibit anything that is not directly related to the mandate of the museum.
Further, concerning size and details, as the Legion has mentioned, there was the inability by Dr. MacDonald to explain anything about the proposed gallery when asked at the briefing on December 18. As a consequence, we veterans' associations who were present were being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
With respect to the public clamour invoked by the media's presentation of our opposition to locating a Holocaust Gallery in the war museum, we found that responses support our position by a margin of four to one. Whereas our survey is admittedly unscientific, it does indicate the broad public support of those who took the time to write letters to newspapers. It is conceivable that the level of public support of those who did not take time to write is even higher. We think that you may have found this among your constituents.
The fourth area of concern is accountability. As our Dominion President said initially, we believe that the museums of Canada belong to the people of Canada. They do not belong to the bureaucrats who run them, and they do not belong to the politicians who appoint the bureaucrats. Yet, the people of Canada have no direct say in the running of their museums. If they do not like something, the best they can hope for is that their member of Parliament might take an interest and support their concern. He or she might get the ear of the responsible minister -- in this case the Minister of Canadian Heritage -- and that minister might do something to address the concern. More likely, the minister will defer to the board or its chairperson, and the issue will not be addressed.
Of greater concern are those Canadians who have a special interest in a particular museum. They are its stakeholders. In the case of the war museum, the stakeholders are the veterans of Canada. Yet, they have no voice. There is no structure available to them to gain this voice. Therefore, we reiterate our recommendation that a separate board of trustees be established for a separate war museum. We have indicated in our submission what we consider to be the logical and desirable composition of that board which we feel must have representatives from the various veterans' associations, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the public.
We have included in our submission the suggestion that the legislation used to amend the Museums Act of 1990 to effect the creation of a separate war museum be used to designate the composition of the board and its membership, and to indicate that in regulations drawn up to support that legislation.
Incidentally, we do not believe that the newly established advisory council should be considered for the board of trustees mentioned above. It has seven members, four of whom have direct connections to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation board of trustees.
Our final area of concern is consultation. We have made much about the lack of consultation by the management of the war museum and, by extension, the corporation, with the major veterans' associations. We stress this because it is our belief that, had consultation taken place, the problems which confront the war museum would not have occurred. We regret that we have belaboured the consultation issue, but it indicates the questionable management techniques of the museum. It is particularly disconcerting that, with some forethought, it could have been avoided. We believe that it can be avoided in the future with an autonomous board of directors comprised of representation from veterans associations as recommended above.
Mr. Khan: In conclusion, we reiterate our recommendations as follows:
The Museums Act of 1990 should 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 board of trustees of the War Museum be responsible to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Our second recommendation is that the amended Museums Act of 1990 specify that the board of trustees is to contain representation from the major veterans' associations, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Veterans Affairs and others, and that the composition of the board be listed in regulations which support the act.
Our third recommendation is that the Canadian War Museum have a budget for its own operation and that such a budget include an annual budget for the acquisition of artefacts which, from time to time, may become available from private sources and which may need to be purchased.
Our fourth recommendation is that, if the Government of Canada wishes to display its role and participation in the Holocaust, both pre-war and subsequently, then such a display should be established in the Canadian Museum of Civilization or as a stand-alone museum created for that purpose and that such a museum be constituted a museum of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
We hope that the minister and her advisors -- and we do not mean the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation or the Canadian War Museum or the Friends of the Canadian War Museum -- will recognize that the issues here are the mandate of management, the operation of the Canadian War Museum and the establishment of a Holocaust memorial. The issue here is not the gratification of the chair and board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. The decisions made by the minister will have far-reaching and long-ranging effects, much longer than the remaining tenure of the chair and the board of Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. A wrong decision could be unnecessarily divisive and hurtful. Undoubtedly, it would be harmful with affects far beyond our appreciation. We implore the minister to make the right decision.
Finally, we again thank you, honourable senators, for holding these hearings. We emphasize that we, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans of Canada, do not oppose the creation of a Holocaust Gallery but, rather, we oppose its location in the Canadian War Museum which we feel is an inappropriate venue for it.
Senator Chalifoux: That was a most interesting and informative brief. Thank you very much.
Were you ever consulted by the officials of the museum regarding the expansion and the future plans for the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Khan: No, we were not.
Senator Chalifoux: Were you consulted upon request, or did you request such a consultation with the Canadian War Museum staff?
Mr. Inrig: We did not request a consultation with the Canadian War Museum or the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. We were invited to a briefing on December 18 at which time they presented their plans and told us that they wanted to discuss those plans. They elaborated on their plans, but it was not a consultation. It was not a dialogue.
Senator Chalifoux: Yesterday, when the museum staff made their presentation, they talked about the relevance of the Holocaust to the Canadian participation in the war itself. It is to ensure that future generations know what a terrible thing war is.
Is there any other event in World War II or World War I that you could consult with them about depicting? I am thinking of the efforts of the French Underground. That was a major involvement with Canadian forces in France, Holland and the Netherlands. Would you consider consulting with the staff on that?
Mr. Inrig: We could certainly consult with the staff. However, I think you are looking at the broad aspect of man's inhumanity to man in the historical sense, and we have all manner of examples of that which transcend the Second World War and so on. Our interest is not in depicting that in the War Museum. We want to show Canada's military history in the War Museum. If we had a Holocaust museum or gallery elsewhere, ideally it could be expanded to include any number of things. It could include an exhibit on the "Rape of Nanking"; or any number of things.
Senator Forest: Yesterday we heard from museum officials about the value of the Holocaust exhibit as an educational tool for children who visit the gallery. It would illustrate at least one cause of conflict -- that is, racial genocide. As an educator, I feel there is real value in that. Do you have any objections or have you had any objections to the small exhibit at the museum at present; or including such a small exhibit in an expanded War Museum if the Holocaust Gallery were situated in a different venue?
Mr. Inrig: We would have no objection to expanding what is currently shown in the Canadian War Museum, which depicts Canada's small involvement in the Holocaust. If we had more space in which to put Alex Colville's paintings and others, we could accept that. That is not a problem. We feel what is currently there accurately shows Canada's involvement in the Holocaust and the context and the perspective of that small involvement.
Canada's involvement was with the liberation of the Westerbork staging camp in Holland in late April of 1945, at which time that staging camp was almost emptied. I believe 1,000 captives held there, and Canada liberated them. They obviously did not understand what it was.
Alex Colville went to Bergen-Belsen under the direction of Canadian authorities and did some paintings there. The number varies, but I have heard that 27 airmen were incarcerated in Buchenwald. They arrived there as a party of 168 allied fliers. They were in a prison in Paris and, as the allies arrived in Paris in 1944, the Germans put these prisoners on a cattle train and sent them off to Buchenwald. When the Canadians arrived, they said, "Good heavens, what is this!" The point is that no one understood what the Holocaust was until after the war when the dimensions of the Holocaust were revealed to a horrified world. That is why a Holocaust museum by itself would be a great thing and it should be built but, in the context of Canada's military history, the little involvement that we had is currently portrayed.
Senator Forest: It accurately portrays the involvement and the effects on Canadians.
Mr. Inrig: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Inrig, I should like to ask you a question based on your recommendation that the museum have a separate board of trustees or directors. I will ask this question of you as well as of the three major veterans' organizations. Would you submit to our committee the proposal for the board of directors or trustees; who would appoint them; their term; their duties; and whether veterans' groups will be represented on them? This is an idea that I have favoured, but we need some direction as to what would be expected of that separate board of directors or trustees. If all three organizations would do that, it would be most helpful.
Mr. Inrig: We would be most pleased to do that.
Senator Cools: I, too, regret the lack of consultation that was accorded. As I said before, life is filled with misunderstanding as human conflict raises its head again and again.
I observed that one of the witnesses this morning is of East Indian descent. Senator Chalifoux raises the flag of the Métis and of aboriginal peoples. Does the witness have knowledge of persons of East Indian heritage and also West Indian heritage who served in World War II? I was born, as you know, in the West Indies. I keep dreaming that at some point in time our committee might do something for the colonial peoples who fought for Canada and for the British.
For example, many West Indian young men, black and white -- and it must be known that they were both black and white -- were recruited to the Canadian Armed Forces from, in particular, the island on which I was born, Barbados. It is not widely know that many Barbadian boys were on the beaches of Normandy, Italy and Sicily.
To the extent that we have here a veteran of East Indian descent, I thought we could accord him a second or two to speak to that particular experience, which is non-white colonial peoples fighting for this country.
Mr. Khan: Thank you very much, senator.
First, I am not a veteran; I am an ex-serviceman. I was too young during the war and after the war. When I immigrated to this country, I was a young kid of 15.
I did, however, serve in the Royal Canadian Airforce for five years, five years with the Royal Canadian Navy and five years with the Canadian army. I am what you would call a truly integrated soldier. That is the extent of my participation in the Canadian forces -- 15 years for God and country. Unfortunately, by virtue of not being born during the war, I did not serve in the war.
There have been many conflicts and lots of pressure, but they could not send me to the Golan Heights, for various reasons, for example, my name. They did not want someone with the name "Khan" going to the Middle East wearing a Canadian uniform. I was excused from those duties. However, they did send me to places such as Alert and others. I cannot shed much light on this. My parents and my uncles all served in the British army.
Senator Cools: I have spoken to many of the veterans' organizations about some of these West Indian individuals. At some point in time, we should hear from some of these individuals. As much as many of us want to turn our backs on our history, during both those world wars, and previously, Canada fought side by side with its greatest ally, namely, England and the colonies. Our British heritage is not something to be forgotten or overlooked. Many colonial countries were also deeply involved in those wars.
Senator Prud'homme: Thank you for your brief. I find it extremely informative and useful. Your brief is helping me with my research work this week concerning questions that I wanted to ask Adrienne Clarkson, a well-known public figure in Canada. I sit in the Senate as an independent; therefore, I do not have a large staff at my disposal.
As a result of this sad incident involving the museum, we should all renew our efforts to rededicate ourselves. I will do so personally, but I hope you will tell your members that this museum is not only for them but also for all Canadians.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, for your interesting and informative brief. We look forward to receiving your views on the duties of the trustees or directors and how they should be appointed. Perhaps you could include in that document your views on the amount of independence that they should have.
Honourable senators, our next witness is Dr. Chadderton from the National Council of Veteran Associations. Dr. Chadderton needs no introduction since he has probably appeared before this committee more often than anyone else. We look forward to your presentation, Mr. Chadderton.
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations: I should like to introduce Mr. Brian Forbes, Honorary Secretary General of the National Council.
I draw your attention to the major brief which I produced in which you will see the names of 33 veterans' organizations which I have the honour to represent and on whose behalf I will be submitting this brief today. Let me assure the committee that I have no intention of reading this brief. However, it was prepared because I have spent five years, on and off, working with the War Museum. I am the first patron named on the Friends of the War Museum. I know a lot about it which I feel this committee should know. I believe that in your deliberations you should refer to this document to learn some of the history.
In my presentation, I shall use my briefing notes, which I believe the clerk has distributed. Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I was on the telephone at 6:30 this morning with the Canadian Press about an article it printed which I believe should be raised out at this time. I will quote parts of that article. Of course, the headline is wrong. It reads, "Museum does Holocaust gallery turnaround." If you read the fine print, I do not see a turnaround. The reporter writes:
The museum announced its decision to "consider other options"...
Then we read that:
Paul Pontbriand, vice-president of the museum corporation, said the original proposal to house the Holocaust gallery in the War Museum is still the corporation's first choice...
The story quotes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, because this was a joint statement from museum officials and leaders of the Jewish community. The article goes on to state:
Mr. Farber said the museum corporation has clearly said it hasn't abandoned its original plan. If a site can't be found, then it will press ahead with its plans to include a Holocaust exhibit in the War Museum.
The joint announcement by leaders the Jewish community and the Museum of Civilization does not take any heat off this committee, Mr. Chairman, and I see no reason for us to draw back. I do see the very dangerous statement in there that, if a suitable site cannot be found, they will revert to their original plan. What will happen if three months from now they say they cannot find a suitable site? Will we go through this all over again? I do not think so.
I think this committee has done a remarkable job in setting up this inquiry, and I think every person and organization that appears from now on should do two things: First, they should take what the Museum of Civilization is quoted as saying in this press article with a grain of salt; and, second, they should be extremely critical of the fact that officials from the Museum of Civilization sat in front of this committee yesterday --
Senator Cools: And did not say that.
Mr. Chadderton: Absolutely, Senator Cools. They sat here with this document in their pocket. I suspect it was leaked, because I wonder how the media got it overnight. But that is another story.
This very prestigious Senate subcommittee has solved two major problems before: the Billy Bishop controversy with the National Film Board; and The Valour and The Horror controversy with the CBC. How responsible people on the payroll of the Government of Canada could sit before this committee with such a piece of paper in their pocket and not reveal it is beyond me. However, they did it, and I think that anyone appearing from now on should bear in mind that its full steam ahead for us.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, not to cut Mr. Chadderton off, but when he has completed his remarks on this subject, I believe the committee should take formal note of this newspaper article and the issues contained therein because the museum officials appeared before us yesterday and had ample opportunity to make any statements that they may have been intending to make. Mr. Chadderton is speaking about a series of newspaper reports in the overnight and early morning press, and I think our committee should take formal note of them, otherwise, we have a situation where the museum is speaking to us through the media.
Senator Kelly: On a point of order, honourable senators, I would suggest to this witness and all future witnesses that we are not here to talk about the tactics of the various sides of this argument. We want to know the issues in support of the position the witnesses take, and then we will have our own deliberations. I think it is unfair and out of order to get into a discussions of tactics.
Senator Prud'homme: I, too, have a point of order.
The Chairman: I am hesitant to interrupt a witness who is usually an excellent witness.
Senator Prud'homme: That is the point I wanted to make. At the end of the presentation I wish to comment on what both of my esteemed colleagues have said. I am upset about what took place and I think it should be on the record.
Senator Jessiman: I would also like to speak on the matter at that time.
The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Chadderton.
Mr. Chadderton: I will speak with brief reference to my notes. First, the NCVA had its hopes ignited when the government tore down the War Trophies Building and there was an understanding that we would not lose that space, that something would happen in the future to expand the War Museum. We were delighted with the announcement of the 1991 task force, but we were very disappointed that some of the major recommendations of that task force were not acted upon.
The NCVA received a briefing on November 4 from Murray Johnston, chairman of the Passing the Torch campaign. We took the position at that time that the mandate of the Canadian War Museum was to preserve our Canadian military heritage and that it had to be maintained. The plan for expansion provides less than sufficient space to display our military heritage.
The third decision we made at that annual general meeting was that the government should certainly sponsor a museum for the Holocaust and other genocides, but at some other place.
We raised objections to the 1991 task force report, some of which have been mentioned. The major recommendation of the 1991 task force report was that the Canadian War Museum should be separated from the Museum of Civilization. The recommendations were not prioritized, but in the 1991 task force report, about seven paragraphs are devoted to why the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization should be separated. I listened yesterday to General Withers with great surprise. I have been a patron of the Friends of the War Museum for a very long time. I was most surprised to hear, as I understood him, that the reason they did not act upon this separation of powers was that they did not think they needed it immediately, that it was to be dealt with in the future.
I quite frankly have a hard time believing that because it was one of the major recommendations. I suggest to this committee that if that recommendation had been followed we would not be meeting today. If the Museum of Civilization had been taken out of this picture, whoever was running the Canadian War Museum would say that was their mandate and that it has nothing to do with anything other than our military heritage.
One of the recommendations was that non-military use of space should not be accepted. "Non-military use" simply means "stick to your mandate." We consider that to be a breach of trust.
On the mandate itself, we feel that the Museum of Civilization is in violation of the published mission statement of the War Museum. It is the Museum of Civilization that is supposed to be carrying out the mandate of the War Museum. They are the powers that be, yet they are operating under a published mandate or mission statement of the Canadian War Museum. Incidentally, if you want the source of that, it was published in a booklet under the authority of the National Museums of Canada in 1987.
One of the objectives of the War Museum is that it is to be a memorial to those who served or lost their lives. Another objective is that it is to examine the war and the war-related history of Canada. I will stop there a minute. I have heard evidence from the museum officials that the Holocaust is part of the war-related history of Canada. There are strong grounds to object to that. It is undoubtedly part of the war-related history of the world but not specifically that of Canada.
The third objective which is being obscured and shoved even further into the corner is that it is to document the Canadian contribution to peace-keeping. I have three peace-keeping organizations on the national council and they are very upset. They will be making a submission to you.
For the definition of the Holocaust as opposed to what is pertinent to the War Museum, I would refer to the only statement I have been able to find, a statement by Mr. Neil Sher, a top Nazi hunter who is a special advisor to the Canadian Department of Justice. He said that war against the Jews was not a traditional war and had nothing to do with any legitimate act of war. The Holocaust was a crime against humanity. That sets the stage. The War Museum relates to war; the Museum of Civilization encompasses crimes against humanity.
On the issue of the Holocaust itself, I come to the announcement of the CEO of the Museum of Civilization on November 13 in which he made the statement that Canadians played a major role in defeating the Nazi regime. That is true. However, we were also involved with the wars which affected populations in France, Holland, Germany, Italy, India, Burma and the Far East, much more than freeing the survivors of the Holocaust.
I wish to speak about the media for just a minute and particularly letters to the editor. Anti-Semitic criticisms are unfortunate and our allegations that we are anti-Semitic really hurt us.
Let me bring to the attention of this committee the published comments of three prominent Jewish personalities. Barnett Danson, a former Minister of National Defence, is a very proud veteran whom I know well. He is a proud Jew and he does not want the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. Another prominent Jewish personality who spoke out against this plan was Barbara Amiel -- and I refer the committee to her comments in McLean's magazine. A third well-known Jewish personality, David Frum, columnist for The Financial Post, spoke out against this Holocaust Gallery. If we are anti-Semitic, I suggest they are too. I follow that up by saying that this is not an anti-Semitic situation.
Our objections, Mr. Chairman, are based entirely on the availability of space. The inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery would certainly detract from the message which should be conveyed by the Canadian War Museum, that is, to honour our military heritage.
I, too, have been a guide for a short time at the War Museum. I know what children and other visitors are looking for when they go there. A visitor would see a display of Canada's Armed Forces. A Holocaust Gallery would show a totally different perspective arising out of the slaughter of civilians.
I am also concerned that the Holocaust Gallery would deal with political issues such as Canada's immigration policy of the late 1930s. I notice that Dr. Irving Abella will be appearing before your committee, at which time I hope you will question him on the statement which was reported in The Ottawa Citizen on February 1, 1997, in which he talked about the "whole dirty story" of Mackenzie King's immigration policies and about Canada being soft on neo-Nazis. If that is what they want in the Holocaust Gallery, I suggest there is no place for that in the Canadian War Museum.
As honourable senators know, on November 17, the CEO of the Museum of Civilization circulated a briefing book to the Senate. We must clarify some of the points in that book. In his covering letter he states that the purpose is to demonstrate that the Canadian War Museum is fulfilling its mandate. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with Dr. MacDonald on that at all; it is not fulfilling the War Museum's mandate.
He went on to state that the CEO's letter states that the museum action is based on the 1991 task force report. Most of us in this room are familiar with the 1991 task force report and I do not see that the proposed plan announced by the Museum of Civilization for this Holocaust Gallery and the War Museum is in any way based on the 1991 task force report.
It is crucial that the Museum of Civilization CEO's briefing book should include only chapter four. Those who are not familiar with the 1991 task force report would have seen only chapter four, which was a summary. Why did they not include chapter three, which contains the specific recommendations concerning our War Museum? I am not going to impute motives to them. I am simply saying that if I were a senator -- and God forbid, because you people work too hard -- I would ask why they only sent chapter four? Why did they not give you the essence of the report which was the specific recommendations on the War Museum?
The brief from Dr. MacDonald had a title, "Selected Media Coverage." I have been receiving all of the media coverage for the last four months. I was not surprised to find that the media coverage they selected for senators to read was not the complete story. Only the articles which favoured the position of the War Museum were included.
One of the areas which we must openly challenge, and I ask senators to realize what is behind this, is museum officials contacting Alex Colville for a statement. He is also a friend of mine, by the way, and not only an artist but a war veteran who served as a lieutenant. They included his statement in the submission to senators but they left out the important part of his statement which was that he does not think the Holocaust Gallery fits into our military history. He thinks it is a political, social and moral event more than a military one.
I would simply say that it is unprofessional to quote Alex Colville and only quote that part of his statement which could be taken to mean that he was more or less on track with the Museum of Civilization. They left out the important part of his statement.
The briefing book contained a quote from Mr. Alec Douglas, a well-known historian, and a great personal friend of mine. Mr. Douglas had been asked to prepare some notes for Mr. Glenney. In his letter to me, Mr. Douglas indicated that he had no idea that Mr. Glenney was going to give those all to George MacDonald to be included in his briefing notes. I suggest that is a somewhat unprofessional way to treat a man of the stature of Alec Douglas.
This did come up at a meeting of the Battle of Normandy Foundation of which Dr. Douglas is the chairman. He indicated quite clearly that he was very embarrassed by the fact that his comments appeared in a briefing book to the Senate.
You received the briefing document before the debate in the Senate about setting up this committee took place. It describes the proposed Holocaust Gallery and a planned 560 square metres. The briefing document then goes on to say that the space required for the proposed Holocaust Gallery would be less than 15 per cent of the existing exhibition. I will answer your questions later as to how we get at the figure and what it really means.
What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have to do with this meeting? At the meeting the veterans eventually had in December with Dr. MacDonald and officials of the Museum of Civilization, they at last answered the question: What is it that you are really trying to do? Dr. MacDonald said that we had to use the Holocaust Gallery as part of Canada's statement that we were supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I think this is a clue to what we are looking at today, honourable senators -- that is, that Canadian museum officials seem to be driven by the desire to establish worldwide recognition of the political side of war.
With respect to fundraising, Colonel Murray Johnston, chairman of the Passing the Torch campaign, told us on November 4 that the objective was either $3 million or $5 million. We have those minutes. We checked them, and he gave both figures. He referred to the "Passing the Torch" campaign. We suggest that it is a serious impropriety if it is intended to identify a fundraising campaign for anything except our military heritage.
I must say this: There is no relationship between the meaning of In Flanders Fields, which we all learned as five year-olds, and the Holocaust Gallery. In Flanders Fields is very sacred to my father, to many people, and to me personally. I did have a bit of service.
Murray Johnston then referred to the Holocaust. He told us that this was a very important factor in fundraising. He mentioned that Ketchum and Company, the fundraisers, said that they would have a tough time getting the $5 million but if they put in a Holocaust Gallery, they would be able to target the Jewish community.
Mr. Chairman, that is deplorable. We suggest that if private fundraising cannot provide the necessary funds, then perhaps the Government of Canada will to have to step in. To target one section of the community and say that you will give them special consideration, for whatever it is -- a genocide museum for the Asian community or whatever -- that is totally improper.
With respect to the Imperial War Museum, the Museum of Civilization has been saying that one of the reasons we should be doing this is because it is already planned that this be done in the Imperial War Museum. If you want the information, go to the Internet. You will find it there. We should like to make some comments about that.
First, the current display in the Imperial War Museum displays a large sign which warns that the display is not suitable for children under 14 years of age. It goes on to say that you can only enter if a guide accompanies you. If that situation exists in the proposed Holocaust Gallery, I do not want to take my grandchildren there. They will see that sign and they will say, "Grandpa, why can I not go in there?" It also tells something about the kind of thing you have to show in a Holocaust Gallery.
We are also concerned about using the Imperial War Museum as a legitimate reason for the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery in Canada. I think we have to cut the apron strings. If the Holocaust Gallery is important to us, we should do it on our own.
The other point is that if the Museum of Civilization wants to mention the Imperial War Museum, and if it wants to mention the war memorial in Australia -- because they are both developing Holocaust exhibits -- they have to say, first, that both of those museums already have world-class exhibits on military heritage and we do not. They are just tremendous. It is apples and oranges.
I want to speak about the divisive nature of this controversy. If someone had set out to provide a controversy that would divide two important elements of our society -- that is, the veterans and the Jews, many of whom I served with in the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, and they were wonderful officers -- they could not have done better than to take our War Museum and then propose the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery. It was a recipe for controversy the likes of which I have never seen. Mind you, we do support a gallery to the survivors of the Nazi death camps, but not in our War Museum.
Continuing with the divisive factor, the trustees of the War Museum developed their plans without consultation -- and that fact has been raised many times. However, I want to make this point: Do veterans consider that they should be the final arbiters of what goes into the War Museum? The answer is: No, we do not. However, if the mandate is changed, because that is something we know well, then there should be consultation. We are not saying, "Come to us and only put in what we say." That would be totally wrong. However, we do have an overall concern about how that War Museum depicts our military heritage.
When this controversy was first raised, I recognized the potential for divisiveness. I was in Toronto. I held discussions with Rabbi Jordan Pearlson of the Sinai Temple in Toronto. He is a Jewish scholar and a very fine gentleman. We also conferred with Bernie Farber, the public relations director for the Canadian Jewish Congress. It was agreed at that time -- long before the controversy began -- that Rabbi Perlson and Cliff Chadderton, as chairman of the NCVA, would prepare a joint statement to this effect: If we can present the Holocaust in such a way that it is separate and apart from the Canadian War Museum, then there would be no controversy.
I was in Montreal two days later, and Rabbi Perlson contacted me by telephone. He said: "After contact with the Museum of Civilization, I am not able to proceed with our plan to write a joint statement. Please do not blame us. We tried our best to avoid this conflict."
Further to this divisiveness, I am sure this committee has correspondence -- as do I -- from the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It may be surprising to the committee to learn that I also have -- and I sent it to the committee -- correspondence from the Canadian German Congress. They are not objecting to the Holocaust Gallery. This is what they say:
...an expression of the soldier's commitment in history and should demonstrate the sacrifice they gave to fight for the freedom of this country, Canada.
Here we have German Canadians saying that it is wrong to detract from the history of the Canadian forces which, after all, defeated the German forces. It is wrong to put that into the War Museum. There is a very divisive element to this issue.
My final point on divisiveness is that the Chinese and Asian communities are very upset about this issue. The published figure, as you know, on the cost of the Holocaust is around 6 million in human lives. According to Professor Rummel, a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, the cost for the Japanese Holocaust was very nearly that -- 5,900,000. The War Museum officials approved the initiative of establishing the Holocaust Gallery without giving serious thought to the provocation of other ethnic groups in this country.
I know that the committee has had the long-term plan, which runs about 30 pages, prepared and issued by the Canadian War Museum, but I do not know if you have had as much time to study it as I have, because I have had it for six months. I studied it in reference to what we are discussing today. It was made available in September of 1997. It indicates that the long-range plan will continue to be a memorial to Canadians who served in war and were lost as a result of war, and it will document Canada's peace-keeping efforts. No reference is made in that long-term plan to the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery.
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, it is misleading to put out a long-term plan and then bring along the idea that we would have the Holocaust Gallery in there.
The Canadian Museum Act is of great interest to us. I listened to Mr. Peters yesterday. It indicates that the Museum of Civilization should play an essential role in promoting the cultural heritage of Canada. Their long-term plan says that the War Museum should present the war-related history of Canada as well as a documentary of Canada's peace-keeping efforts. Although the Museums Act directs the Museum of Civilization to promote cultural matters, it does not state what should be done with the War Museum. The long-range plan issued in 1997 made no reference whatsoever to the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery and in fact again stressed that the mandate of the Canadian War Museum was to preserve our military heritage.
The long-range plan talked about the role of Canadians in past military conflicts. If the long-range plan included a Holocaust Gallery -- and they knew that in September 1997 -- why did they not say so? It is not my role, Mr. Chairman and senators, to say they were misleading anyone. I am simply asking why they did not say so in September 1997.
If we accept the mandate of the Canadian War Museum as being in the Museums Act, then I wonder what the law is. I believe that Crown corporations must be guided by some form of law. If it is not in the act, or in the regulations somewhere along the line -- I suggest that the law of the land insofar as the Museum of Civilization is concerned, and its stepchild the Canadian War Museum, is in the mandate of the Canadian War Museum.
I am not a lawyer. I take my advice from Mr. Forbes, who is a very senior lawyer in this country. We have studied that mandate and we do not see any way that you could legally say that mandate allows them to put that Holocaust Gallery in our War Museum.
Right in the middle of all this controversy, and long after it had been agreed that it would come to the Senate subcommittee, by the way, we get an announcement via the media that an advisory committee had been established. On November 13, a briefing took place for the Passing the Torch campaign. A week later, the Museum of Civilization, in what I call a somewhat belated announcement, said, "We are going to have an advisory committee." I think that we must look at that advisory committee not only from the point of view of coming along as an appeasement but also as to what kind of a committee it would be. They are still talking Holocaust Gallery. In my view, there is no one on that advisory committee who could advise them about the Holocaust Gallery. Is the purpose of the advisory committee just to talk about military matters and then depend on the Jewish community and scholars to tell us what should be in the Holocaust Gallery? If that is what they want to do, fine, but it should have no place in the War Museum.
As well, if the advisory committee has anything at all to do with the Holocaust Gallery, then it simply will have all the earmarks of another point of divisiveness because the Jewish community will say: "Wait a minute, we do not want a bunch of war veterans telling us what goes into the Holocaust Gallery." The whole thing is fraught with divisiveness, all the way through.
On December 18, many weeks after this thing blew up, representatives of veterans' organizations were invited to a consultation process held by the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. It was not a consultation process. Mr. Glenney made a remarkable submission, as he did to this committee yesterday, about that War Museum, how it would be developed, and so on. We were not there to be consulted; we were there because we were being told what was going to happen.
I think we must look at some of the documents that were presented to us, and I will do it as briefly as I can. Colonel Holtzhauer said, and he repeated it here yesterday:
A high percentage of veterans are opposed to the inclusion of a Holocaust exhibit in the War Museum.
That is a given. Of course we are. However, in the introductory letter, other things were said. He said they were now initiating a consultation process. This was not only long after they had made their announcement, but also after this Senate subcommittee was set up.
I ask myself: "What is more important? Should they be making an approach to veterans knowing that we were committed to go in front of this subcommittee, or should they say: `No, we will make our representation here too'?" Then we found out that they wanted to get a position paper from us which they could present to their own board of trustees.
Our written submission contains letters from myself, Joe Kobolak and Mr. Khan, letters written as a result of a request to present our views. We consistently said that we were opposed to the use of space for the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum and that we would be making representations as such to this committee.
I have heard, and I heard it again yesterday, that the opposition that we have made here could adversely affect fundraising. Well, it depends. It could affect fundraising if you are talking about the Jewish community.
Let me interject another story. I am a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Battle of Normandy Foundation. That is strictly a military preservation exercise. We raised $1 million three years ago to erect a memorial in Cannes. We are fundraising currently and, as such, are not experiencing any difficulty in raising money from corporations for veterans. I can only read how our opposition could affect the fundraising in one way -- it is affecting it because we are turning off supporters of the Holocaust Gallery. Yes, we are also turning off supporters of our military heritage because they are waiting to see what happens. Once that is decided and our War Museum sticks by its mandate, I suggest to you that the funds will be coming in. Speaking for NCVA, we are not going to accept any responsibility if their fundraising fails. The flash point was the Holocaust Gallery. We did not start it. We had to oppose it. If that has affected fundraising, then put the blame where it belongs, with the Museum of Civilization.
Referring again to the December 18 meeting, the museum staff presented a paper entitled Canada and the Holocaust.
It says that the elimination of the Nazi apparatus would call forth the utmost Canadian war effort no longer in the defence of Great Britain alone.
In Western Canada, when we joined the army, we did not join to fight for Great Britain. We joined because if we could see on that terrible black map that Hitler was in Denmark and France. That is why we joined. When the War Museum says that we joined no longer in defence of Great Britain alone, that comment is considered an insult and it certainly should be challenged. It carries the inference that we were prepared to defend Britain but that we did not volunteer to carry the combat to continental Europe. What a joke. However, that is what they stated.
It is incorrect and insulting to state that the Nazi treatment of the European Jewish community was, to use their words, the compelling reason for our military intervention in Europe.
I remember the briefing from General Montgomery about three days before D-Day. It is burned in my memory. General Montgomery never said a word about the Holocaust. He said an awful lot about the German SS and about what we would be facing, but certainly it was not the compelling reason why we climbed into those landing craft and did what we did on June 6.
The museum seems to say that it is entirely appropriate to memorialize Canada's role in preventing a Holocaust recurrence in any guise by establishing the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. That is a wonderful statement, if you leave off the last four words. That is, it is entirely appropriate for Canada to recognize the Holocaust and perhaps other acts of genocide, but not in the War Museum.
Ministerial responsibility is something that has been skirted here and I will not skirt around it. The question arises as to which department of government should have responsibility for the War Museum. We were very pleased with the announcement from Mr. Chrétien that we would once again have our own Minister of Veterans Affairs but, all the way through in this controversy, I have wondered where he is.
I know Deputy Minister David Nicholson, as do you. This committee has met him. He is a wonderful fellow, but he says, "Not my baby." I wonder where the Honourable Fred Mifflin is in all of this. I have not heard. I say: "Wait a minute -- there is a department of government that deals with veterans."
On another point, DVA is spending a lot of time and money on remembrance activities. They are doing a pretty good job. The War Museum is a wonderful opportunity to deal with remembrance, but why do you have the remembrance activities of the War Museum under the direction of the Museum of Civilization and under Minister Sheila Copps while Canada's remembrance activities, per se, are handled by the Honourable Fred Mifflin in DVA?
I have some specific reasons against the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery. I simply point this out: Putting the military artefacts and the Holocaust side by side is a bad mix. Visitors to the War Museum are taking a journey through Canada's military past; they are looking at films, memorabilia, armaments. If the War Museum includes stories of genocide, a dangerous misconception could arise.
I would ask senators to look at this very carefully as we have studied it carefully. First, few Canadians participated in the military operations which freed the survivors. There is an addendum, incidentally, in my major brief which indicates that 27 Canadians were in concentration camps because they were captured in uniform. There is a letter from one such ex-prisoner who says that their part in the Holocaust should not be memorialized by saying that they were in a concentration camp. If their efforts are to be memorialized, that should be done in the War Museum but should not be tied in to the Holocaust. He had a very strong view in that regard.
Genocide, what is it? It is a political act. Military actions, on the other hand, involve planning, supporting arms, hardware, combined operations of the merchant navy, air supply support, deployment of ground forces. These are essentially factors of a military nature. On the other hand, political issues, such as ethnic cleansing, racial extermination, have no place in the war museum. It would sadly dilute the depiction of military matters.
As well, a Holocaust Gallery would have to include a graphic portrayal of murderers, pitiful human remains, burial pits, gas ovens. These could not, in any way, be associated with the life and times of the young Canadians who have gone to war at the behest of their government during the history of this country.
I make no apology for wearing my medals today. I was berated by one of the members of your committee as to why I did not wear them. All right, they are here. I can speak for the people who went to war at the behest of their government. The Holocaust has nothing to do with their life and times.
Speaking of the Holocaust, we have heard words from the bureaucrats at the Museum of Civilization, words like "neo-Nazis," "doctrine of hate," "crimes against humanity." Fine, they should all be brought out, but if you start mixing those in with our military heritage, you have a very bad mix and you will give a very mixed message.
As I mentioned earlier, the Holocaust Gallery has drawn serious criticism from groups of Canadians from ethnic backgrounds other than Jewish. How will they look at this? They will ask: What about us?
Regarding the board of trustees of the Museum of Civilization, something has come up which I will handle very quickly. I do not want to sound critical. I cannot place this in front of this committee without running the risk of being misunderstood, but I have provided in my major brief the biographical detail of all of the members of the board of trustees of the Museum of Civilization. I am sorry but I do not see anything in any of those biographical sketches which indicates that any of those people have any reason to have an interest in our military heritage, though they may have such an interest. We are simply suggesting that they are an excellent group of Canadian citizens. We provided their biographies. The governance of the War Museum requires at least a majority of members to be in a position to advise specifically on Canada's military heritage.
Let me reflect a moment on this belated announcement of an advisory committee. Claudette Roy was to be on that committee; she is a member of the board of the Museum of Civilization. Dr. MacDonald and Joe Geurts were to be on the committee. So the advisory committee would have people like General Charles Belzile who fought in Korea and who knows war, all right, but three prominent members of the Museum of Civilization would also sit on that advisory committee. What kind of advice could they get? I do not really know.
Further, on the Museum of Civilization, we have been studying what is behind it. It looks like they are after the spirit of moral relativism and the political side of it. That is fine. Tell the story, but do not mix it up with our military heritage.
Regarding funding, we have on tape Murray Johnson's statement that funding is one of reasons driving them to put in this Holocaust Gallery. If we must do that to get funding, that is deplorable.
The Defence Policy Review is a very prestigious quarterly which writes about defence policy. We must look very carefully at their findings. They say that veterans do have reason to fear the modern reinterpretation of their actions. They say that Ottawa seems to have little interest in perpetuating Canada's military heritage and that the same reasons used for adding a Holocaust exhibit would apply to many other 20th century events.
They cite 6.91 million victims of the Soviet Union, 20.9 million victims of the Nazis, including Jews, Ukrainians, Poles, et cetera.
Speaking of localities, Defence Policy Review brings out very strongly that we are not simply talking about Eastern Europe; that we are talking about events like the Spanish Civil War, places like Algeria, Uganda, Afghanistan. Those are the stories that children need to know about today.
You will be hearing from a group of children who have been subjected to our "Never Again" program. They wish to come before this committee. I had nothing to do with it, be assured of that. I think the Defence Policy Review people came up with this: Is the Holocaust more deserving than these others? Is it more relevant to Canadians?
As to our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, they can be found at the end of our document. Let me just refer to them briefly. One, retain the mandate for the Canadian War Museum, which displays matters of a purely military nature; two, that the War Museum be divorced from the Museum of Civilization and placed under the control of Veterans Affairs Canada; three, that plans to appoint an advisory committee reporting to the Museum of Civilization be cancelled; four, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in respect of his responsibilities for the War Museum, review the recommendations of the 1991 task force. Let us revisit them, let us call in other members of that task force and see whether they agree with what General Withers said yesterday. That would be very important. Five, that all the new exhibit space set out in the current expansion plan be devoted to subjects dealing with military heritage. Next, the role of Canada's military peace-keeping and peace-keeping organizations: That is the blueprint for the future. Forget about what we did in World War II, if you like. Do not forget about it entirely but leave enough space to talk about those peace-keepers. That might even include what they did in floods and in ice storms and everything else. I can tell you as a veteran and a man who wore a uniform for five years, nobody could be more proud of seeing what those people did. They are magnificent.
The next recommendations is that the government should consider the construction of a free-standing separate museum to remember the Holocaust and other acts of genocide. Next, having regard for the mandate of the Museum of Civilization, it stands clear that the proposed Holocaust Gallery, together with any other items of cultural interest which are essential to Canadian culture with special but not exclusive reference to Canada should definitely belong in the Museum of Civilization.
The next recommendation is that the Canadian government recognize that in respect of both a museum dedicated to commemorate war and dedicated to the Holocaust, two objectives remain separate and apart: Canada has no direct connection with the Holocaust; there is no direct relationship between the feats of arms carried out by the Canadian military and the horrendous suffering of the Holocaust victims.
It is also recommended that the Passing the Torch campaign remain in existence and include an advisory committee comprised of representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans Association, the Army, Navy and Air Force veterans, the Merchant Navy Coalition, and other veterans' groups. As well, it is recommended that the Passing the Torch campaign proceed strictly on the basis that the funds would be used to expand the Canadian War Museum under its current mandate.
I object to using John McCrae to raise funds for a Holocaust Gallery. I am sorry if that sounds anti-Semitic or redneckish or cultish, but I really object to it because, as you can probably tell from the way I am speaking, you are looking at a guy whose father fought all the way through World War One; you are looking at a guy who was brought up knowing what war was all about. You are looking at a guy who said to his mother -- and it is the toughest thing I ever said -- "Mother, I am going to join the army." She said, "There is no use in me talking to your father, he already did it once." That is the emotional side of this and we cannot eliminate that.
Finally, veterans and the Canadian public might respond favourably to a campaign devoted solely to raising funds to develop, enhance and expand our War Museum under its current mandate, and the Government of Canada might be requested to increase its financial contribution so that the mandate of the War Museum could be fulfilled without the necessity of including a large Holocaust Gallery.
The Chairman: There are a number of points of order to be raised. I am wondering whether, from a procedure viewpoint, we should not first deal with any questions to Mr. Chadderton and then we can deal with the points of order.
Senator Jessiman: On page 2, you say:
Non-military use of space for projects not recommended by Task Force...
Can you tell me where that is in this?
Mr. Chadderton: I will do that, sir.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: The chairman has asked me to take the chair for a few moments.
Senator Prud'homme: You must have been deeply affected -- since you repeated the accusation several times -- by the unfortunate, often repeated accusation of anti-Semitism. I will be very careful with my words. I will keep some tougher words for tomorrow morning. I have been subjected to that for 30 years just because I wanted to play a role in Middle East affairs.
I understand your feelings. I understand your hurt. It is sad. That is exactly what is taking place this week. I am well aware of that. That is one of the reasons I made an effort to come this week, because we are dealing with a hot potato where accusations fly all around. I am in extremely good company this time because I had the greatest affection for Minister Danson. I did things for him in the Middle East. I was even a messenger for him at one time, and that is the first time I reveal that. I am in good company. With Barbara Amiel, I am not sure; but certainly with Minister Danson.
I do not understand how this came about, and later on I will explain why I was so surprised yesterday to see that statement. I will be very open. We discussed what to do with that statement that came out. Very honestly -- and I am looking straight into your eyes, and the TV and everyone here, the press especially -- when I saw the paper, I said: "What is this? Is this part of the official document?"
My chairman, and rightly so, stopped me, and I stopped. We agonized over what to do with that paper. Then the press did a good job -- it is in the paper this morning. I will be frank. I resent very much, not that the press published it -- they did their work --
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Prud'homme, I will do the same thing to you that Senator Phillips did, only because I think Senator Phillips should be here when we go into this aspect of the discussion. I would ask you to hold on for another few minutes.
Senator Prud'homme: I will ask another question.
I think you have touched the point, you want something and not too many things at the same time, because one or the other will suffer. Is that your opinion? If there is to be a gallery devoted to the Holocaust per se, or to all world tragedies, is it your opinion that they would play second fiddle to the War Museum, or would they play a major role and the War Museum would play a comparatively minor one? Is that what you are afraid of if both are together?
Mr. Chadderton: When I first wrote to Senator Phillips, I made it very clear that the organizations I represent would accept the finding of this subcommittee. This was not our last resort, it was the resort of choice. If, in its wisdom, this committee makes a report which leads to the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery, then my organizations are committed to support that decision.
Having said that, we must look down the road and ask ourselves: Are we not creating something which might be described as "damaged goods"? I would refer to two experiences of this subcommittee. One dealt with the film on Billy Bishop and what this committee did which was not withdraw the film but insist that it be renamed. However, from that point on, the film was considered to be damaged goods. The same situation prevailed when this committee dealt with The Valour and the Horror. It was shown again on the History Channel a couple of weeks ago but, according to letters I have received from succeeding presidents, it will never again be shown on the CBC. No one who has been following the media exposure could ever come to the conclusion that The Valour and the Horror was what the producers originally said it was -- a true story.
If the plan proceeds and we include a Holocaust Gallery, although my organizations are committed to support it, I wonder if it would not always be linked with this controversial situation. We are not responsible for that. I am merely trying to answer your question. If it goes ahead, we will not oppose it publicly, but the idea has already been tarnished.
Senator Kelly: First, I wish to congratulate you on your presentation. It is difficult to think of any situation which has not been covered by your presentation.
To come at this from a different angle, in the perfect world, you would have the War Museum fitting precisely into its mandate because you agree with the mandate. We also agree with this very clear mandate. I believe we agree that it is difficult to envision a place for a Holocaust Gallery within that mandate. In a perfect world, would you agree that a Holocaust museum would be an important addition to what has been available in this city?
Mr. Chadderton: Yes.
Senator Kelly: From an educational standpoint, we agree that is important.
In this environment of scarce resources, if the expansion that is presently envisaged by the War Museum could not go ahead under any circumstances, and if the Holocaust museum were not part of it, would you be content with that situation? I am sure you would consider that to be unfortunate.
Mr. Chadderton: The veterans for whom I speak would be terribly disappointed. I raised the history of the Battle of Normandy Foundation for a specific reason. In tough times, we raised $1 million. One-half of that money came from Mr. Chrétien and his cabinet. Before we were briefed by Colonel Johnston, I polled most of the 33 organizations in NCVA and all of them were prepared to make a commitment and send out newsletters to their members. However, as I said, that was put on the back burner when we heard about the War Museum.
I do not believe for a minute that the Canadian public would not be prepared to raise funds, particularly for our military heritage. We only have to look at what happened in 1994, when we were talking about the anniversary of D-Day; and what happened in 1995 when we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. This country was very veteran conscious. I think that consciousness could be brought to the fore again.
I have always suggested -- and, I am sorry if I sound negative or challenging -- that it would be difficult to raise funds for the Holocaust Gallery because of the perception that already exists. Those we talk to now tell us that, if the funds are for the military, they will go along with it but, if it is for anything else, they will not. I would be terribly disappointed if it does not go ahead. I am an optimist. I do not think we have a lot of time, but I am optimistic that the Canadian public will support a campaign to raise funds for our War Museum.
Senator Kelly: I think you are correct.
A compelling point was made by some witnesses yesterday -- and this supports what you have agreed with -- that a Holocaust museum and a museum depicting similar horrible situations is important to our continued ability to attract young people to visit the museum. You and I, and others around this table, remember 50 years ago. It seems like yesterday, but it is over 50 years since that war took place.
Youngsters today are better informed than we were. They want reasons for things. As kids, we used to look at a canon or a gas mask and remember the stories about the first great war. That is not enough these days. Youngsters wants to know why wars break out. They will continue to be excited about our military history as long as we can explain why these wars were fought.
Would you agree that the existence of these two agencies is important?
Mr. Chadderton: Absolutely.
Senator Jessiman: In the event that the War Museum is expanded and the gallery is not contained in the expansion, is it your view that veterans' associations would contribute more funds to such a campaign than they might otherwise contribute?
Mr. Chadderton: It goes beyond that. Many of the letters I received were from ordinary citizens. There is no question that the Canadian public would support this if it is handled right.
Not only veterans, the Canadian public can piggy-back on that great rush of importance we attached to the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. This year, of course, is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I. The public is with us in these instances. However, they want to know where their money is going. Fund raising is not very difficult.
The Canadian Battle of Normandy Foundation was able to specifically commemorate the Battle of Normandy, not just the Canadian military history generally. Corporations could also get on board.
Senator Jessiman: Is there any truth to the media representations that some veterans associations have withheld $150,000 from the War Museum? That was also mentioned yesterday.
Mr. Chadderton: "Withhold" is a strong word. I told a reporter from The Ottawa Citizen that we had consulted our 33 organizations and they indicated that this is a project they would support. We talked about how much could be contributed by various organizations. When the reporter asked how much money would be involved, I said that it would certainly not be less than $150,000. The Ottawa Citizen reported that it had been withdrawn. It was not withdrawn but it was certainly withheld. The fund raising had been put on hold as far as NCVA was concerned.
Senator Cools: When we find out why people kill people, we will have answered the enigma of the human condition. If anyone can tell me why any government would embark on a campaign to annihilate an entire people I would be most grateful, as would all of humanity.
Mr. Chadderton, twice in your statements you referred to labouring under a fear of being accused of anti-Semitism. Whenever I hear that and enormous anxiety wells up in my heart. Prejudice and fear are two of the scourges of the human condition. Anyone who holds an opinion strongly should know that in this country, at least before this committee, they can express that opinion without fear of being accused of some "ism." However, your statements are well taken.
Perhaps we should study prejudice. I know a lot about that subject. That is the dreadful element involved in the division that has occurred, at least insofar as it relates to this debate. It is unnecessary and terrible.
As this debate and discussion has gone on about whether or not there should be a Holocaust Gallery within the museum, we seem to forget one or two essential things. The Jewish people in Germany were not in a state of armed conflict with the German government. The Holocaust was a slaughter of innocents. People could not believe that their own government could do that to them.
We should explore this subject at length. I have read accounts of how many people disbelieved that such a horrific thing could actually be happening.
Having said that, the Holocaust was a terrible act of aggression by the German government towards people who were not involved in an armed conflict with them. In a hideous kind of way it was not a war. It was a monstrosity. It was not a war between two armed sides who were fighting, either for scarce resources or principles or whatever people fight wars over.
You said that Colonel Murray Johnston, who was, I believe, chair of the Passing the Torch campaign, made some reference to the necessity for the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery as a mechanism for fundraising. That sounds pretty sinister. Could you amplify on that?
Mr. Chadderton: The annual general meeting of the national council was held in Toronto on November 4. There had been some preliminary discussions with Colonel Johnston. At that meeting he made the same presentation made by Mr. Glenney yesterday.
The question of the Holocaust was raised although I had wanted to keep it off the floor. The essence of Colonel Johnston's remarks were that they have considered the funding situation from every angle. They do not believe that they will be able to raise the $5 million needed. Although General Motors contributed $1 million, the remainder has been very hard to come by. Consequently, Ketchum and company has suggested to us that we could target the Jewish community. That is where the importance of the Holocaust Gallery will come in, in the question of fund raising. At that point there was an explosive discussion on the floor. As chairman, I closed the discussion and informed the participants that the matter should be dealt with in committee.
I share your sentiments, Senator Cools, that, if it is necessary to make that statement, it should not be a public statement. However, it was made publicly. It has been repeated to me a number of times by museum officials. That is certainly one of the specific reasons why the Holocaust Gallery is so important to fundraising.
Senator Cools: This particular issue is raised from time to time. I would like to have all the information available on it.
Mr. Brian Forbes, Honorary Secretary General, National Council of Veteran Associations: It was my understanding yesterday in listening to Colonel Johnston's testimony to the committee that he made it quite clear that there was a targeting in his mandate for fundraising on behalf of the Passing the Torch committee. You may recall that he mentioned Dutch Canadian groups, and he specifically mentioned the Jewish community. I believe it is on the record that it was part of the mission of Colonel Johnston to specifically select groups. In fact, I thought he made that point rather clear yesterday.
Quite frankly, I thought your response was rather insightful. I think you said that when truth is superseded by expediency, you have a problem. This is what Mr. Chadderton has been saying this morning. In effect, when fundraising becomes more important than the principle or the mandate of the museum, then I think there is a much bigger issue. I believe that that is something your committee will have to grapple with.
I thought I would make that point because it was late in the day yesterday; I happen to have stayed through the day, while Mr. Chadderton did not. I thought Colonel Johnston once again underlined his position on selective targeting of particular groups.
Senator Cools: As soon as the blues are available, I will refresh my memory of that.
The Holocaust was such a terrible thing, touching so many people who now live in this country, that it is easy to understand why people would be willing to contribute to such a memorial. In addition, if it is a people who have a tradition of civil response and very positive responses to causes that touch on their integrity as a people, then it begins to be something that we should be very concerned about.
I thank you for that, but I will revisit that testimony tomorrow.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Senator Prud'homme has asked permission to ask one brief question.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, I will raise my point of order at another time, even though I am still upset.
I share the opinion of the gentleman who said that people were going around yesterday with an announcement in hand, and then I see the announcement in the paper this morning. I object to that. I want that to be on the record, and I want to know who circulated that announcement. I will wait until tomorrow morning.
Senator Cools: I do not think the chairman said you must wait until tomorrow.
The Chairman: Order, please.
Senator Prud'homme: I agree with what the witness said about the memorial and the War Museum, but the war was not only in Europe. We must educate the young people.
You mentioned Hong Kong. One very astute witness yesterday said that the situation related to Hong Kong is vague. However, as soon as you touch upon Hong Kong, you have to enter the entire debate related to the World War in Asia and Japan. If you talk about Japan and Hong Kong, you must start talking about the monstrosity of the use of the atom bomb -- not only the first one, but the second one. The second time it was used was a monstrosity of immense proportions; the first one was debatable.
My point is that we also had Canadians involved in the other part of the world. Hong Kong is the example. That issue is still not solved today.
Mr. Chadderton: Yes. As a patron of the Hong Kong Veterans Association, I could not agree with you more.
The War Museum, incidentally, put on a wonderful display about the Hong Kong veterans two or three years ago. And that is fine; I think that is what the War Museum should do. However, if they carry it beyond that and try to tell the story of the atom bomb, for example, they are going beyond Canada's military heritage. The story of the atom bomb should be told over in the Museum of Civilization, or at some other site.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chadderton, for your brief and your discussion.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our next witness is Mr. Bob Tracy, Executive Director of the Air Force Association.
Please proceed, Mr. Tracy.
Mr. Bob Tracy, Executive Director, Air Force Association of Canada: Honourable senators, appearing with me today is Mr. Vic Johnston, who is a retired Master Warrant Officer from the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Forces. He is also the editor of our association's magazine entitled Airforce. I will be talking about that later in my brief. My presentation will not be a commercial. It will, however, be a statement on how we can help get the written history, particularly that of the air force, across in magazine form.
It is a great pleasure and honour for me to appear before the committee on behalf of the Air Force Association of Canada. The Air Force Association of Canada was formed in 1949. This is our 50th anniversary year. The association was formed at the instigation of the then Minister of National Defence, Brooke Claxton, and the chief of the air staff. In essence, officials within the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs saw a need to gather together, into one organization that could speak with one voice for the many small squadrons and units that were proliferating throughout Canada at war's end.
The Air Force Association of Canada today, with more than 15,000 regular and 5,000 associate members, endeavours to speak on behalf of the 350,000 WWII veterans of the RCAF, as well as the estimated 200,000 who, post-war, wore air force blue or air force green. At its World War II peak, the RCAF numbered more than 250,000. That is an astounding number. There were 250,000 people in air force blue at one point in 1944, out of a population, I believe, of 12 million or 13 million.
Primary among our aims and objectives is to perpetuate the proud traditions of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Another one of our objectives is to be an advocacy group for today's air force. We have 74 branches, or wings, coast to coast across Canada and about half a dozen in the western and south-western United States. I emphasize the primacy of our aims and objectives to perpetuate the traditions of the RCAF to seek your understanding of my brief from what you might consider to be a parochial or air force viewpoint.
My national president, Stewart Logan, has identified a sense of panic syndrome among ageing World War II air force veterans. Mr. Logan was a navigator in the starboard seat of a deHavilland Mosquito during the Second World War. Post-war, he served on in the RCAF and later became a successful entrepreneur in Canada's aerospace industry. He is an insightful individual and one I like to call a "people person."
Mr. Logan spoke to me about what he calls the sense of panic that he encounters among his war-time veteran peers. These people know that they do not have much time left, and they are worried that the story of their military accomplishments, their feats of arms, and, yes, even their defeats, might die with them. Of course, that is partly to do with the fact that Canada, probably alone among the western world, does not teach its war history in the schools. However, beyond that, there seems to be a disconnection between the veterans and the bureaucrats charged with perpetuating their endeavours, sacrifices, and accomplishments.
At yesterday's hearing it was mentioned by General Ramsey Withers that after he stepped down from the board of trustees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in 1995 there were no one left on that august body who had what I might loosely call "corporate military memory." Indeed, at best, there were never more than two military veterans on the board at any one time. Surely this demonstrates insensitivity to the mandate of the Canadian War Museum. I understand now of course that there is an advisory council being considered and that there is some scrambling to put this in place and make it effective.
Yesterday, Senator Phillips spoke about the television docu-drama entitled The Valour and the Horror, about its impact on the veteran community. In addition, there have been other insults and slights, and revisionist history. Although I am not a war veteran, I have had a lifetime career in Canada's air force, and I have served alongside the Second World War veteran. It has been my experience that most of the war veterans take the hit, get a little bit more discouraged, and get on with what is left of their lives. Even so, partly due to their frequency, these small hits cumulatively are niggling or vexing.
For example, in a letter yesterday's in The Ottawa Citizen -- that letter is attached to this briefing document -- the CEO of the Museum of Civilization opined that the RCAF did not need much display activity within the Canadian War Museum because RCAF aircraft were on display at the National Aviation Museum. Aviation Museum director Chris Terry makes the point most strongly that the National Aviation Museum displays only a collection of aircraft and aviation artefacts because, by mandate, they must tell only the story of Canadian aviation, pure and simple. Mr. Terry observes that there is really no conflict here because the mandate of the Canadian War Museum is straightforward. It is at the CWM that the story of Canada's air force in peace and war must be told, perhaps with the aid of artefacts on loan from time to time from the National Aviation Museum.
Senators, I warned you up front that some of my remarks would be parochial, and I must confess truthfully that this may seem a bit like picking nits, but after so many experiences, big and small, I truly believe that our national president's observations about a sense of panic are well founded.
Appearing before this committee yesterday, the Acting Director General for the Canadian War Museum waxed enthusiastic about the display of one of Adolph Hitler's staff cars. No doubt Hitler had many cars. The acting director claimed that this exhibit of a staff car was the most popular display and was a convenient ploy to direct visitors to a nearby small Holocaust display. He went on to say that the staff car had been captured by an American GI who brought it back to the United States. Eventually it was purchased by the CWM from a military collector. If that is truly the case, I recommend that Adolph's staff car be gifted either to the Museum of Civilization, along with the Holocaust Gallery, or to the Smithsonian, because the staff car has more to do with the Holocaust Gallery and the United States military history than ours.
Perhaps in its stead a display might be created to honour those RCAF occupation troops who, at war's end, had the foresight to bring to Canada a large representative sampling of German war-time aircraft. In fact, today those aircraft are the basis for the National Aeronautical Museum at Rockcliffe. I am told that these airmen commandeered POW work crews, rail cars, and shipping to get the German war birds to Canada. They did this with the unwitting cooperation of the British air forces of occupied Germany, BAFOG. In fact, if asked, the Air Force Association will help the Canadian War Museum track down these innovative scroungers. They have done a considerable amount to develop Canadian military history on display here in Canada.
In his overview of the 1991 task force, General Ramsey Withers yesterday mentioned that it was a strongly worded resolution emanating from the Legion convention in the late 1980s that sparked the formation of the task force. Sadly, the task force recommendations that called for a independent War Museum fell on deaf ears.
The Royal Canadian Legion, along with Cliff Chadderton of the National Council of Veteran Associations and Ian Inrig of the Army Navy Air Force Veterans, ANAFVets, preceded my presentation at this time on behalf of the Air Force Association of Canada. Great credit must go to this Senate committee for bringing all of these players into the same room at the same time, but why must it be a Senate committee that makes this happen? Surely there should be some kind of ongoing interface between veterans' groups and those people who are paid to run the Canadian War Museum.
Yesterday, it was mentioned that there were ad hoc consultations between the War Museum and veterans' groups. I hope that the experience of our association in this regard is not typical, for since I stepped into this job seven years ago, the consultations really took the form of a handful of invitations by the Canadian War Museum's hard-working and very perceptive publicist asking us to come and cover a specific event for Airforce magazine. We did that happily, but that is not enough.
I do not want to put any staff members of the Canadian War Museum on the hot seat, but I do want to make the point that the disconnection between the museum bureaucrats and the veterans' community is real, and it works to the disadvantage of us all. In fairness, I must confess much sympathy for the multiple predicaments of poor funding, two deteriorating and ageing buildings, and critical short staffing. I almost could not believe my ears. Did Mr. Glenney really say that he had only one person looking after a collection of 160 military vehicles, 30 of which can power up?
Overriding all of this is the fact that the Canadian War Museum, I feel, and my president feels, needs to be independent with its own board of trustees. As well, the day-to-day workings of the War Museum would benefit from the continuing presence on staff of some military, not necessarily war, veterans. After all, the War Museum must work doubly hard to portray Canada's military heritage if only because it is not part of our school curriculum here in Canada.
Personally, as a family supporter of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, I was delighted with the announcement when it was made that, after the expansion program, the War Museum might be able to double its display of artefacts and objets de guerre, most of which never see the light of day. However, even then, we are disserved. As I understand it, similar international war museums have a 5 per cent or greater capability to display their artefacts.
That brings me to the point that, when one of our association members passes on, frequently our national headquarters receive a call from the surviving spouse wondering what to do with the wartime or historic mementos which were owned by the deceased member. I have directed my staff to encourage the caller not to contribute those items to the Canadian War Museum as it is most unlikely that those artefacts or mementos will ever be displayed. Instead, we refer these people to other military or aviation museums where there might be a better chance that the items will enhance the museum milieu. Now that we might double the Canadian War Museum display space, we will re-examine that policy.
The presentation by the Passing the Torch chairman on November 4 at the meeting in Toronto indicated that the Holocaust Gallery might take 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the space. About a month later, that figure had grown to something close to 12 per cent in various letters to the editor and pronouncements from the Museum of Civilization. This morning I am astounded to learn the figure is 35 per cent. As a matter of fact, last night Don Lawson of CBC Midday called me to say, "The veterans have won." He told me that he had a media release indicating that the Museum of Civilization will not pursue the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum.
Senator Prud'homme: You were lucky to know about it.
Mr. Tracy: I was not lucky, senator. I dashed into the office and rewrote my brief to remove any mention of the Holocaust Gallery being in the Canadian War Museum. I acted in haste. I did not wait to see the actual words of the media release. When I saw the paper this morning, I was appalled. I had taken the bait.
On the subject of written history, the Air Force Association of Canada has, for two decades, published Airforce magazine. We will be distributing copies of that publication to you. About half the subject matter and photographs in that magazine deal with air force war history from 1914 to the present day. Most of the material submitted by our readers comes from a fast-diminishing number of World War II veterans but, in fact, we were swamped with submissions when we published a specific appeal asking subscriber members to tell us their war stories. We now have a wealth of stories backlogged about Canadian air men and women at war. Our first-class magazine does a superb job of perpetuating the accomplishments of Canada's air force at war.
On the magazine racks of Chapters bookstore you will discover Airforce magazine on sale. It sells well, but it is only one of 26 aviation magazines on sale. The others are from Britain, the United States and elsewhere. There is only one magazine devoted to aviation and air force history published in Canada, and it is ours. Fifteen years ago, of a total of 16 publications, there were five other Canadian aviation magazines sold on news-stands. Ours is the remaining Canadian magazine, and it competes with 25 others. It is a costly and frustrating struggle, but Airforce magazine proudly continues to perpetuate our air force history.
Our magazine is sold from news-stands across Canada and in the United States. I have been personally asked to send magazines to the Smithsonian aeronautical collection in Washington. Last September we began politely tapping on the doors -- and maybe we should have been beating on those doors -- of the Canadian War Museum trying to get our magazine on to the news-stand within their facility.
Polite telephone conversations have taken place between my staff and the staff of the Canadian War Museum. They have indicated that now, unfortunately, their gift shop and the one in the Museum of Civilization are being privatized. There will be further delays before approval comes, not from the people of the Canadian War Museum but from their overseers at the Museum of Civilization. My point is that both parties would benefit greatly if there were a veteran conduit into the bureaucracy that controls the day-to-day operation of the Canadian War Museum. The Canadian War Museum should be unfettered from what perhaps might be too close control from its absentee landlord at the Museum of Civilization. Perhaps if that were the case, our magazine might already be on the news-stand within the Canadian War Museum and it might be one more vehicle which perpetuates Canadian military history within that museum.
I suggest that the Canadian War Museum needs more people on the board and working in the museum who have an understanding of what one might call, loosely, the military ethos, acquired perhaps even almost subconsciously through many years of close association with Canada's military or veterans' organizations. We also need more than the occasional ad hoc interfaces between the veterans' organizations and our veterans' museum, the Canadian War Museum.
To summarize, Air Force Association National President A. Stewart Logan and our national executive council have carefully studied the brief presented by Mr. Cliff Chadderton of the National Council of Veteran Associations. Wholeheartedly and without reservation, the Air Force Association of Canada supports the recommendations put forward by the National Council of Veteran Associations. It is our opinion that implementation of these recommendations would point the way to a more cooperative and supportive relationship between Canada's veterans and the War Museum. Once in place, and only then, the new operating arrangement would, in our view, enhance the fund-raising initiatives of the Passing the Torch campaign.
I thank senators for their indulgence and for inviting participation by the Air Force Association of Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Tracy.
Senator Forest: Within the written history of the Canadian Air Force, is there something on the Commonwealth Air Training Plan? On a trip to Australia and New Zealand, many people of our vintage had much to say about that. However, I would be very surprised if many Canadians remember that. I think that is an important part of our history.
Mr. Tracy: We have published several articles on various aspects of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. The Air Force Association today, very quietly, raises funds to mark all of the many air training sites that were part of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan across Canada. I believe there were an astounding 300-plus air bases or training establishments, and we have marked almost 75 per cent of them over a 10-year period.
Senator Chalifoux: Were you consulted by any officials of the museum in the decision-making process regarding the expansion?
Mr. Tracy: No, but we are members of the National Council of Veteran Associations. We expect Cliff Chadderton to act on our behalf. When he is consulted, he briefs us completely very quickly after the fact.
On specific activities within the Canadian War Museum, for example, we have been invited to come and see various displays. I have to say that the cooperation of the Canadian War Museum was very quick and very efficient when I pointed out an oversight in their peace-keeping display. They had left out two peace-keeping activities which were done only by air force people in Yemen and New Guinea. There were no army people there and it sort of slid through the cracks. They very quickly redressed that situation and the display now is appropriate.
Senator Chalifoux: You state also that you took out your opinions on the Holocaust portion. What is that opinion?
Mr. Tracy: My opinion backs up the presentation of Cliff Chadderton on behalf of the National Council.
Captain Andrezj M. Garlicki (Retired), National Vice-President, The Polish Combatants' Association in Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to present our stand on the Holocaust. With me is Adam Bardach, Captain in the Polish Forces, officer of the Second Polish Corps. He is serving as an advisor to the Polish Combatants' Association in Canada as well as to the Polish Congress in Canada.
I am not as eloquent as Mr. Chadderton or Mr. Tracy, however, I will make my submission, and then I will read to you the submission of the executive of the Polish Combatants' Association submitted to this committee.
The Polish Combatants' Association in Canada represents Canadians of Polish origin who took active part in World War II as members of Allied forces. They fought side by side as comrades-in-arms with the Canadians and would also like to be represented in the Canadian War Museum.
The Polish Combatants' Association in Canada is a member organization of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada. As such, the Polish Combatants' Association in Canada supports the point of view and the NCVA's resolution.
I will now present the submission of the Executive of the Polish Combatants' Association.
The Polish Combatants' Association of Canada is an organization of Polish ex-servicemen who fought in World War II alongside the Allies, including Canadian troops, taking part in the liberation of Europe. Many of our members lost their families in concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Poland. The families of others perished in labour camps after the Soviet invasion of Poland and the subsequent deportation of close to 2 million Poles to Siberia and Kazakhistan. Our members are proud of their contribution to the Allied victory and wish to ensure that the Canadian contribution to that victory is well documented and remembered.
The Canadian War Museum is the most suitable site to honour the contribution of Canadian soldiers to the defeat of Nazism. At present, there are thousands of military artefacts which, for lack of space, cannot be displayed at the museum. It is hoped that with the completion of the new addition to the Canadian War Museum many of them will find permanent homes there.
Our organization supports the position of the National Council of Veteran Associations and the Royal Canadian Legion which states that the Canadian War Museum be preserved as a venue for exhibits purely of a military nature. The museum should also house military exhibits of military formations which took part in the defeat of Nazism, such as the Polish II Corps, Polish fighter squadrons which fought in the Battle of Britain, the Polish navy which fought in the Battle of the Atlantic, and also a Jewish unit which participated in the Italian campaign, and others.
The genocide against the Jews of Europe is undeniably one of the greatest crimes of this century. As horrendous as it, it nevertheless was not a military action but rather a civilian one perpetrated by Death's Heads SS squads and a civilian administration which operated outside the military structure of the German High Command. While the conquest of Europe in search of Lebensraum was a military solution, the extermination and/or subjugation of nationalities was a political solution implemented to fulfil the ideological precepts of the superiority of the Aryan race.
The 20th century is replete with examples of man's inhumanity to man, of which the Holocaust is but one example. To do justice to the enormity of the crime perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe and other minorities, a permanent display at the Canadian Museum of Civilization should be established. While the museum documents mankind's achievements, it should also document the darker side of human nature.
Therefore, our organization supports the establishment of the Holocaust Gallery at the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
I heard you, Senator Cools, during Mr. Chadderton's presentation, asking why people kill people. The Romans had a saying: How sweet it is to die for one's country.
In the defence of one's country, we can kill our enemies. Would you agree?
Senator Cools: I believe that if one is tyrannized by armed aggression, yes, a government has a duty to defend itself.
Mr. Garlicki: Our resources are limited because we are not in our own country. Besides that, only after 1990 was the big seal of the office of the president of Poland transferred to Lech Walesa. However, there is a Polish museum in London, England, the so-called Sikorski Museum, where there are on display artefacts of the Polish forces fighting in the west. There were approximately 200,000 men and women fighting on the side of the Allies.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Senator Forest: Do you support the recommendations made by Mr. Chadderton on behalf of all the veterans respecting the autonomy of the War Museum -- that the War Museum should have its own administration?
Mr. Garlicki: We certainly do.
Senator Forest: Would it also be your preference that a Holocaust museum should be located at another site?
Mr. Garlicki: Yes.
I believe there was a Jewish brigade in Italy. During the action many units were under different commands from time to time. In this way, some British units were under the command of the Second Polish Corps, and vice versa. For example, the Italian brigade was part of the Second Corps during certain periods of our action there. I believe there was a Jewish brigade in a regular unit which belonged to the British Eighth Army and, in my opinion, there should be a place in the War Museum for that.
The Chairman: You mentioned, and Dr. Chadderton mentioned this in his brief, that the Polish people were included in the Nazi slaughter in Europe. Almost 21 million people were eliminated in the genocide. Are the Polish people remembered in a museum anywhere in the world other than Poland?
Captain Adam J. Bardach, Second Polish Corps: There is a museum in London which features the Polish war effort, and I believe there are sections of other war museums devoted to it also. However, I have no details.
The Chairman: Is the genocide of the Polish people commemorated in that museum?
Mr. Bardach: Not the genocide. It is in recognition of the military participation.
Mr. Garlicki: Mr. Chairman, during the war we lost approximately 3 million Poles and, needless to say, the infamous Auschwitz-Buchenwald Concentration Camp, which was established right after the German's commenced the occupation of our territory, was primarily designed for Poles. Only when the final solution was put into force, did it include other nations.
In 1973 there was a two-week exhibit in the Canadian War Museum showing the cooperation between the Canadian and Polish Armed Forces during the war. However, I believe all of those artefacts have been removed. Many items were borrowed from other museums such as the Sikorski Museum in London, England.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
The committee adjourned.