Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence - Afternoon 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 1:40 p.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, yesterday, reference was made to a document that had been received. After the session began yesterday, I received a fax from a prominent member of the Jewish community. However, the fax was not signed, and the committee was unwilling to accept it unless it were signed.
Last evening we asked the individual, a prominent rabbi, if he would care to appear this morning and read the brief. He was unwilling, and suggested that Dr. George MacDonald read the brief this morning.
Today, The Ottawa Citizen and other newspapers carry an account of the article. I would point out that The Ottawa Citizen makes no reference to any member of the committee having released the brief, but it does refer to the vice-president of the museum corporation.
Senator Jessiman: I understood that not only was the rabbi contacted, but he said that we should talk to Dr. MacDonald. George MacDonald had been contacted, and he was to have appeared before us this morning at 9 o'clock but, through some confusion in administration, he did not appear. Is that not correct?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: To clarify this situation, the chairman will now read that document for the record.
The Chairman: After I do so, extra copies will be distributed to the press. Again, I emphasize that this document is not signed by anyone. It states:
The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada, and B'nai Brith Canada would like to make a joint statement in response to the controversy that the Canadian War Museum expansion plans have engendered.
The concept for an expansion to the Canadian War Museum's facility at 330 Sussex Drive which included a Holocaust Gallery was put forward by the Corporation as the approach that could be achieved within the current budget of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
We feel at this time that an alternative solution can be proposed that, given the goodwill of all parties, could satisfy the needs of all parties. Whilst we have not abandoned our original proposal, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation is prepared to pursue other options to house the Holocaust Gallery which everyone agrees warrants a permanent exhibition.
We reaffirm the importance of highlighting the vital contribution of our veterans to our Canadian Military history, and it is our firm intention to make the Canadian War Museum a centre for national commemoration and interpretation.
We have made extra copies of this fax, if any member of the press desires to have one.
We will now proceed to one of the most important briefs you will receive in this hearing, namely, the brief from Bomber Command. Please come forward and take the witness chair.
Senator Prud'homme: For the benefit of the many thousands who will read this testimony, you should qualify why you said that this is "one of the most important briefs." When you are reading the testimony, it is not the same as when you are hearing it.
The Chairman: I was assuming that no one would ever read it! However, in case anyone does, I was a member of Bomber Command.
Mr. Derek Farthing, President, Bomber Command Association of Canada: I think it is self-evident, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and distinguished guests, as president and CEO of Bomber Command Association Canada, and on behalf of its members, I am honoured to be invited to attend and to present our views at this august gathering.
Having received our invitation, and upon convening a general meeting of the national body, our main concern was that of repetition. After some discussion, however, it was conceded that the nature of these presentations is such that repetition is not only inevitable but also necessary if all presenting groups are to get similar points across. Having heard five excellent presentations this morning, you will have heard all of the following: First, Canada had no direct connection with the Holocaust, a statement with which we agree entirely; second, that a Holocaust museum should be housed in a completely separate building -- we wholly subscribe to this principle; and, third, that the planned and publicized emphasis on the anti-Jewish policies of the Canadian government before, during and after World War II has no remote connection with the Canadian military. This concern is equally ours. These statements, and a dozen others opposing the present Holocaust Gallery, have our full Bomber Command support.
At this point, let me dwell for a moment on a matter giving rise to some thought, which we hope will be a little less repetitious; namely, the situation with respect to child visitors. We are sure that all Canadians wish to allow all children, regardless of age, to visit the Canadian War Museum to learn as much as possible about the proud history of the accomplishments of the Canadian military over the past 200 years. We want them to climb over the tanks and see the kinds of helmets their great grandfathers had to wear. We want to give them complete freedom to satisfy their innate curiosity about Canada at war.
We do not know the exact, planned location of the proposed Holocaust Gallery, but wherever it is we are sure that Ms Clarkson will not allow five- and six-year-old children to wander through it at will. There is no need to discuss here the psychological and psychiatric effects of such an exhibition on children of any age. I am in possession of photographs of Belsen that are so horrible that I have never dared show them to my own 33-year-old daughter.
What does it all mean? It means that someone qualified in mental reactions to horrifying stimuli must decide at exactly what age we will allow children to be subjected to these sights. Is it age 11? Is it age 14? Should they be supervised or not supervised? Should they be in groups or classes? Should they be accompanied by a teacher? Perhaps the children should be of drinking age before we allow them to view the exhibits by themselves.
Having decided which children we will allow to enter the proposed Holocaust Gallery, we must set up a foolproof system to guard against any breaking of the rules, to prevent lawsuits from the angry parents of children with nightmares. Does this mean a cadre of six commissionaires to man the door at all times? Will we check non-existent ID cards for every child who approaches the door? Will 9-year-old Johnny's mother be able to explain to him why his 14-year-old brother is allowed to go in, but he cannot? What does it all mean? It means that the proposed Holocaust Gallery or museum must be in a separate building. Yes, the problem of control will still be with us, but it will not manifest itself in the midst of a busy War Museum hallway.
Having proved conclusively that the Holocaust museum must be in a separate building, let us now examine the practical aspects of the situation. There are those who will say that a Holocaust exhibit should become part of the Museum of Man. Others say it should be part of the Museum of Civilization. Neither of these suggestions is right because one institution is purely Canadian and the other is too civilized.
Therefore, we must erect a new building. Certainly not, however, one of only 4,000 square feet, which is impractical. One more like the one in Washington that, according to reports, cost $240 million U.S. to construct, which in today's financial atmosphere would cost about $348 million Canadian. This amount is a far cry from the $12 million available to Ms Clarkson, and would probably even exceed Mr. Johnston's fund-raising abilities. We must find a new solution.
Museums concern themselves with history, so let us look at history for our solution. In attempting to defeat an enemy or adversary, there is one irrefutable principle which says that you must always leave your adversary with an escape route, for if you do not, you force him to fight harder and to the end. As we are all aware, that was exactly what happened at the end of World War II, when the Allies declared that they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from Germany. With no escape route, the Germans fought to the end, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The second principle is found in our own history: that of compromise. Canadians, by their modest, self-effacing nature, are better at compromising than anybody in the world. This was proven in 1956 when, in the midst of the serious Suez Crisis, our own much revered Lester Pearson stepped up and offered a most natural solution: A middle-of-the-road compromise for which, of course, he won the Nobel Prize.
Therefore, in our view, if those organizations which are against the present plan remain obstinately firm, and continue to state merely that the Holocaust Gallery must be removed from the Canadian War Museum, we feel that Ms Clarkson and her board of trustees will have no choice but to fight to the inevitable end.
We have an uncomfortable feeling that the announced decision is the final one: that no major changes will be allowed. We, at the Bomber Command Association of Canada, wish to offer a solution which embraces both of these principles quoted above. The escape route and the compromise can be implemented with three strokes of the architect's pen; it can be easily accomplished within the $12-million limit, and will still satisfy the fears and concerns of most World War II veterans.
Mr. Chairman, please consider our suggestion that the Holocaust Gallery remain in the newly-renovated Canadian War Museum, but be sealed and walled off from the main museum and provided with a separate entrance.
Senator Chalifoux: It is nice to hear of a possible solution, but a number of the presenters have stated that 35 per cent of the proposed additional space will be earmarked for the Holocaust Gallery. There are now many thousands of military artefacts that are not on display. What is your opinion regarding the display of artefacts, and the fact that 35 per cent of the new, proposed space will be denied the War Museum?
Mr. Farthing: I can only respond to that as a member of the military museum in my own community. We have far too many artefacts stored in basements, attics and outbuildings. At the moment, we are trying to raise $100,000 to put up an addition to our museum. I assure you that our group certainly does not plan to designate any part of it to a Holocaust museum.
I do not feel that 35 per cent of the expansion should go toward a Holocaust exhibit. What they have now, if they can segregate it from the military museum as it exists -- and I am talking here about the amount of space that is already there and being utilized as a German and Holocaust exhibit -- should be maintained, and the rest of the space should go towards displaying military artefacts.
Senator Prud'homme: Your suggestion of having a sealed and walled off museum does not seem to meet the needs of a museum. It is like having a forbidden city. Personally, I would rather see you stick to your first statement and say that the War Museum is the War Museum, and that we should not downgrade or upgrade.
Mr. Farthing: There should be two distinct entities. However, as a matter of expediency, and particularly in the matter of finances, if this is the only way we can go, then let us put the separate entrance there.
Senator Prud'homme: Surely you agree that Canadians are bright and intelligent enough to find another solution than to seal off a museum. I understand your feelings: You do not want to turn down a possibility but you would much prefer to have the two presented as completely separate.
Mr. Farthing: I was hoping to incite people into thinking.
Senator Prud'homme: You did provoke some reaction.
The Chairman: You referred to attempting to raise funds for your own museum. Where is that located?
Mr. Farthing: In St. Thomas, Ontario.
The Chairman: There used to be an airforce base there.
Mr. Farthing: Yes, Aylmer and Fingal, and also someone mentioned today the Commonwealth Air Training Plant. It was one of the largest in St. Thomas.
The Chairman: Have you been in the War Museum lately, Mr. Farthing?
Mr. Farthing: No, unfortunately I have not.
The Chairman: I was about to ask you if were you happy with the treatment awarded to the Bomber Command in that place. I suggest that you go down and have a look at the model of a Halifax bomber.
Mr. Farthing: I was in there four years ago.
The Chairman: It has not changed. You have seen the same one to which I referred. I was not very flattered by some of the comments behind it.
Mr. Farthing: Nor the history of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the military museum.
Once again, it was said this morning that someone keeps passing the buck from one to the other.
The Chairman: They say the air force is represented at the museum in Rockcliffe. No one mentions that the museum is out there.
If there is no further questions, we thank you very much for your brief and your suggestions. I want everyone to remember that this presentation came from a most important association.
Senator Cools: For anyone reading the transcript of these proceedings or watching it on CPAC, they may not understand the jokes we are making. However, we should clarify that our chairman, Senator Orville Phillips, served with Bomber Command in World War II.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses represent the Korea Veterans Association of Canada, Mr. Les Peate and Mr. Dan Bordeleau.
Mr. Les Peate, National President, Korea Veterans Association of Canada: Honourable senators, for the benefit of the senator who objected because Cliff Chadderton was not wearing his medals yesterday, yes, I do have medals. My friend Dan Bordeleau has more, so I am not wearing mine.
I would like to introduce as our first speaker Mr. Dan Bordeleau. He knows whereof he speaks. He is a merchant navy veteran of the Second World War. In fact, he was torpedoed. He spent a career as an infantryman with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and has served for quite a few years in the regular forces. He has been associated with many veterans groups. At present, he is National Treasurer of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada. He is also President of Unit 7 here in Ottawa, which has almost 300 members now and is the largest unit in Canada.
Mr. Dan Bordeleau, National Treasurer, Korea Veterans Association of Canada: Honourable senators, Ms Adrienne Clarkson and her board of directors may be doing an excellent job at the Museum of Civilization, but the veterans organization I represent believes that they do not understand the role of the Canadian War Museum, at least within the context of the current debate over the proposed Holocaust display.
I hasten to say at the beginning that neither I nor the KVA deny the truth of the Holocaust or condone hatred or persecution against any ethnic group. We are veterans, after all, and need no persuasion to acknowledge the horror of war. We have lived it. It is because we have lived it that we feel so strongly about the purpose of the Canadian War Museum and its responsibility to the people of Canada.
We, too, believe that the work of the Canadian War Museum is far from complete, but before large new installations are planned, we believe it is the responsibility of the museum to restore, preserve and renovate its current holdings. The War Museum needs more space to display its existing collection and cannot afford to devote more room for new exhibits. The Sussex Drive location is simply too small, and Vimy House, though proudly named, is nothing more than a third-rate storage warehouse whose artefacts and public facilities are sadly inadequate. Both buildings have an air of stagnation. Some of the displays have not altered since I arrived in Ottawa in 1972. Yet, despite these concerns, we acknowledge that the War Museum must evolve and reflect the beliefs and expectations of the people it serves. Perhaps we would be more supportive of a new gallery commemorating the Holocaust if the existing displays were a more accurate and more reflective representation of the World Wars and Korea.
Consider the museum's commemoration of World War I. As veterans, we have a high regard for medals and wear our own with great pride, but we know that Canadian children will never be made to understand Mons, Ypres, Frezenberg or Arras by looking at them. It takes imagination, commitment and professional skill to convey the nature and meaning of a battle to people who have never seen one, but anyone who has ever seen the memorial at Vimy Ridge knows that it is possible.
The Second World War is also treated in an unimaginative fashion. Despite its early controversy and continual shock value, the display showing the treatment of our Hong Kong prisoners of war by the Japanese is, in our opinion, shabby and amateurish. The Merchant Navy is also treated very briefly. During the Second World War, Canada had the third largest merchant fleet in the world. Ships that were built in Canada were called Park ships, and ships that sailed under the British flag were called Fort ships. The Merchant Navy display in the War Museum consists of a plaque presented in 1995 and a model freighter -- with a Fort name. We wonder whether this is the result of lack of knowledge, lack of research or whether the prevailing attitude is that it is just "good enough."
The space allocated to the Korean War is similarly inadequate. It is apparently assumed that the equipment used in Korea was the same as in World War II -- it was not. As Korea veterans, we can take our families on a tour of the museum and describe missing details, but surely this defeats the purpose. A museum is supposed to record the past for the people who did not experience the event themselves. It should not have to rely on the memory of those who did. Otherwise, what happens when the event passes out of living memory, which has essentially already happened to the First World War and will happen to World War II and Korea veterans all too soon?
As veterans who are the source of these living memories, we believe in the vital importance of the Canadian War Museum and its obligation to the Canadian people. We support the report made in 1991 which recommended that the War Museum should be separately administered from the Museum of Civilization and its dreamers.
To this end, we propose the following: Appoint a cabinet minister responsible for the War Museum; find the necessary space to house a War Museum that Canadians can be proud of; give the museum a realistic budget and ensure that the museum's design staff consult with veterans.
To return to the proposal for a Holocaust exhibit, we would like to offer an example. The Imperial War Museum in London has a very impressive Holocaust Gallery. It is widely considered to be a powerful and effective commemoration of the genocide of the Second World War, and it too is a relatively recent addition. It was added only after there was a hue and cry about the lack of good representation in the museum and after it had been thoroughly renovated.
Mr. Peate: I would like to make it clear that this Holocaust discussion, to my mind, is not an end in itself. I think it is a symptom of something that is very wrong with the setup of our War Museum -- that is, of course, that the War Museum is controlled by the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
There has been much confusion over the Holocaust museum. You all have my speaking notes, so I will not read them. I will just touch a few highlights.
There have been a number of inconsistencies ever since this subject first hit the press. First, spokesperson Eva Schacherl said in The Ottawa Citizen that the proposed Holocaust Gallery has nothing to do with fund raising concerns. The Friends of the Canadian War Museum Newsletter, the spring issue of 1996, reports that a national Jewish committee was being formed to raise $2 million for the expansion; a fund-raising campaign in recognition of which the planned gallery would be designated the Canadian Jewish War Veterans/Holocaust Memorial Gallery.
I might add that one of the speakers yesterday, the President of the Friends of the War Museum, Gerry Holtzhauer, has been contacting some of the members and saying, "Look, drop this Holocaust thing or the fund-raising will go bottoms up."
Dr. MacDonald claims that visitors are asking for more Holocaust displays. I would call your attention to the final attachment to my notes, which indicates the questions that were asked in this poll. One such question reads:
What kind of exhibits would you most like to see at the Museum? Select as many as you wish:
stories and exhibits associated with Canada's military leaders stories and exhibits on Canada's war heroes stories and exhibits on the experience of ordinary people at war stories and exhibits on the Holocaust stories and exhibits on life on the "home front" in wartime stories and exhibits on peace-keeping
There were no other specific questions asked about specific aspects of the war. I am sure if there were a question, for instance, on U-boats in the St. Lawrence, or on Canada's Merchant Navy, you would probably have had a 63 per cent response rate on those. Incidentally, that 63 per cent is a figure which is considerably higher than I have received from other members or people involved in the process.
I have here the results of a poll conducted in 1966, the previous year. It is rather interesting that a poll was conducted in June, in which 40 per cent of the visitors responding said that they would like to see more on the Holocaust. Thereafter, the Holocaust became an issue, and surprisingly, despite the fact that there was very little change in the rate of response on other items, that item had jumped to an 85 per cent response rate in August. One wonders.
On the exhibit space, the figures vary between 6 per cent and 35 per cent approval of that space being dedicated to the Holocaust. The general feeling seems to be that there will be precious little, if any, exhibit space left for military exhibits. However, the interpretation of those figures depends on how you count them. For example, when the War Museum counts the new exhibit space they might have, they are including the courtyard, which is getting a roof, with grateful thanks to General Motors. However, anyone who has been around the War Museum in the summer and fall knows that that courtyard is being used very effectively for exhibits. It probably drew more people than the stuff hidden behind a facade would ever do.
The original, planned expansion was a $5-million addition, which would probably have given more exhibit space than this $12-million addition which is now under discussion, and we are wondering how this situation came about. In fact, we have a few requests for information on some of the documentation that is involved with that.
It was mentioned that the Holocaust Gallery will deal with Nazi racism. I quote from Fred Gaffen, the War Museum historian, in an article in The Ottawa Citizen of February 1, 1997:
...evidence of widespread anti-Semitism in Canada, and offer an unflinching examination of the racism of former prime minister Mackenzie King and some of his top bureaucrats.
Is this a War Museum topic?
There has been some discussion about consultation. Duane Daly, the Dominion Secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion, is a director of the Friends of the War Museum. I think you have heard from a number of other veterans groups, including members of the Legion, who have never been consulted on this matter. Certainly, one of the largest Legions in Canada is situated right across the road from the Legion's headquarters, and these people actually wrote a letter to Sheila Copps protesting against the Holocaust Gallery when the matter first arose. I think this says all that can be said about consultation with veterans.
Finally, at a briefing session by Acting Director General Don Glenney and Colonel Holtzhauer, we suggested that a Holocaust Gallery belonged more properly in the Museum of Civilization, and we were told that in no way would Dr. MacDonald consider a Holocaust exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. One of the excuses we heard was that there was no room. However, they are managing to find 930 square meters for something as relative to Canadian history as an Egyptian exhibit, which incidentally is costing almost twice as much to put on as the War Museum is getting all year. I will let you sort that one out.
The future of Canada's military heritage is determined by the trustees and officers of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, and not one of these in their biography lays claim to as much as one day's military service, not even in the reserves. One wonders.
We hear then of a consultation committee. Perhaps we are getting somewhere at last. Let us look at that. The Chair is a lady named Charlotte Roy. Her impartiality is shown by the fact that she is an educator, and takes her students on field trips to annual Holocaust symposia. Two more members are ex officio members, Dr. Macdonald and Joe Geurts, the two top men from the CMCC. Another member is Colonel Holtzhauer, and we heard from him yesterday. Two other members are generals.
Incidentally, we asked someone who was ostensibly in charge of public affairs for the CMCC, during the meeting, just who was on this consultation committee, and also whether they were getting paid. Surprisingly enough, despite his position and despite the fact that three of the people on the committee were his bosses, he did not know who they were. He also did not know whether they were getting paid. They are. They are getting a per diem of an undisclosed amount.
We are talking here about the crumbs from the table: At the War Museum, that is what we have been living on over the years. Everyone is saying what a lot of money the CMCC is suddenly giving us now, but what about the other 10 years they housed us, when we got zilch? You have seen the figures on how much we got from the CMCC, and I think it gives a very good indication of just how much these people think of Canada's military heritage.
Members of the staff were being told not to talk to us. They have been warned that if they speak to us they will be in trouble, so they simply refuse to speak, and they are saying that these are the directions they have received.
I will not go into the matter of the Vimy House right now. You have heard about that.
Honourable senators, we feel that the future of Canada's proud military heritage may well lie in your hands, and we are sure that you will not let us down.
The Chairman: I should point out, Mr. Peate, that you act as a guide at the museum, and you were kind enough to take myself and the staff on a tour of the War Museum before the hearings. I point out that you are a guide because I think the other members of the committee will find it very interesting to know that you are speaking from experience.
Mr. Peate: I might add that I also showed you the Halifax bomber.
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Prud'homme: We have heard reference to the phrase "corporate military memory."
As an independent senator, I am sometimes called the corporate memory of the Liberal Party of Canada for the last 45 years. Are you saying that what is missing is what is called the corporate military memory? You seem to be uncertain who, under this corporate umbrella, is speaking out on behalf of the War Museum. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Peate: Yes. Coincidentally, this week we reached what I might call a compromise with another level of government. We met with the Ontario Department of Highways this week and they have finally agreed to dedicate Highway 416 to Canada's veterans. That was a two-year battle.
We also involved in the education system. It is pathetic how little our young Canadians, even university students, know about Canada's military history. Americans know more about Canadian military history than our own people.
Mr. Bordeleau: Last year I lectured to five classes. This year, so far, I have only lectured to one. We have selected two different schools and awarded $750 for education on Korea and the Korean War. Two awards will be granted to the most worthy students in those classes. The youngest Korea veteran we have is 64 years old. In fact, he is sitting here. The museum should take a lead in this kind of education.
I saw a very impressive painting of a battle area near a river in Korea. However, if we could build an actual trench into which people could climb and we could synthesize night vision and artillery fire, that would really fire up people's imagination.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know the committee would also like to thank you for your volunteer work as guides at the museum and for the excellent work you are doing explaining Canada's military history to children. We very much appreciate the time you have both taken in that regard.
Before introducing the next group, I would point out that Mr. Eric Spicer, the former librarian of Parliament and himself a veteran of World War II, has joined us. It would welcome him to our new new committee room.
The next group of witnesses are representatives of the Canadian Fighter Pilots Association.
Brigadier-General M.F. Doyle (Retired), Canadian Fighter Pilots Association: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, without any in any way wishing to offend the chair, I do hope the subcommittee will consider this brief to be equally as important as the Bomber Command brief.
The Chairman: We will consider it important.
Mr. Doyle: I was born in Montreal in 1924. I joined the Royal Canadian Air Force on my eighteenth birthday and did one tour on Hurricanes in Eastern Air Command before going overseas to England where I did one tour of operations on Spitfires in Second Tactical Air Force. I am currently the president of the Canadian Fighter Pilots Association, a group of World War II and/or Korean War veterans who flew in combat in either one or, in some cases, both of those wars, and on whose behalf I am here today to state the association's position on the controversial subject you are examining.
With me is Mr. Lloyd Hunt, a past president of our association. He is a fighter pilot who flew two tours of operations against the enemy in Europe during World War II.
As veterans of World War II and/or Korea who flew on combat operations in a theatre of war, members of our association are well aware that armed conflict is an horrific and gruesome act. We are also aware that the Holocaust was outrageously evil, although I think it is fair to say that most of us -- and for me that means everyone I knew during the war -- were unaware of its existence at the time. We believe that the military aspects of World War II and the consequences of that war to the civilian populations should be remembered separately. The recognition in the War Museum of the patriotism, loyalty and sacrifices made by Canadians, many of whom died and are buried abroad or have no known graves, deserves, in our opinion, to stand on its own. It should not be mixed with others who are subject to man's inhumanity to man. On the other hand, those millions who were destroyed by Hitler's desire to rid the world of Jews equally do not deserve to have any memorial to this vile act combined with any other feature of World War II.
Our association's belief -- and I want to state it simply and unequivocally -- is that the Holocaust should be memorialized, but not at or in the Canadian War Museum; nor should it in any way be associated with the military endeavours of Canadians during World War II, Korea, or any war in which Canadians fought and died.
By all means, a memorial of some kind dedicated to the Holocaust, in which visitors to it can see what a terrible thing it meant to civilization, should be displayed in our national capital.
Let us not commit what we would consider to be the consummate sacrilege of watering down Canada's glorious heritage and honourable history in war by merging the historical aspects of the Canadian pursuit of arms with the tragic consequences of a madman's mania to eliminate a cultural and religious entity in Europe.
Mr. Chairman and senators, that is the position of the Canadian Fighter Pilots Association and it concludes my brief to you this afternoon.
The Chairman: I would point out to you that the Senate, at one time, was honoured to have Senator Molson, who was one of our very distinguished Spitfire pilots.
Mr. Doyle: He was a member of our organization, sir.
The Chairman: Perhaps you will be surprised to know that he is also honorary colonel of the RCR.
Senator Cools: Chairman, can we clarify, did Senator Molson fly a Spitfire or a Hurricane?
Mr. Doyle: I believe he flew a Hurricane, senator.
Senator Cools: Senator Phillips is still saying it is a Spitfire.
Senator Prud'homme: I will call him, because I replaced him in the Senate as an independent so it is my duty.
Mr. Doyle: I do know that Senator Molson recently autographed some Hurricane prints in Britain and he delivered the proceeds to the Canadian Fighter Pilots Association.
Senator Cools: That speaks to a tradition of serving the country that is still alive and well in this committee.
Senator Forest: I would compliment you on a very concise brief. If we seem to be running out of questions, it is because many of our veterans have made the same points.
Just to clarify, and I think you made it clear, you would not only prefer, but you believe that the only answer is to have two separate venues for the Holocaust Museum and the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Doyle: We would certainly support that position, yes.
Senator Forest: Mr. Chadderton had mentioned earlier today that he would accept the recommendations of the committee, if it were not possible to have two separate entities, to have it combined. At least I think that is what he said, he would accept the recommendations of the committee. I think everyone has made it clear that the preference is to have the two entities separate and not have one walled off within another building.
Mr. Doyle: Our position is that we just do not want a Holocaust Museum or memorial in the Canadian War Museum.
Senator Forest: I appreciate that.
Senator Cools: Let us be sure to get a copy of Mr. Gaffen's letter into the record.
Senator Chalifoux: I have one comment. We must not forget depot No. 3, Currie Barrack's Fighter Pilot Training Depot.
The Chairman: I wish to assure you, General Doyle, that we in Bomber Command do appreciate the efforts that you people made. I do not think that any greater tribute can be paid to your efforts than what Winston Churchill has already paid. I will not attempt to dilute his remarks any more than I would want to see your service and your contribution to the war effort diluted in any way.
Our next witnesses are from the Nursing Sisters Association of Canada, Mrs. Dorothy Jean-Gogan.
Honourable senators, my clerk has advised me that this may be the last presentation made by the nursing sisters and I therefore hope that you will give Mrs. Jean-Gogan your full attention.
Mrs. Dorothy Jean-Gogan, National President, Nursing Sisters Association of Canada: Mr. Chairman and senators, you are a little bit premature for the wake. I am still on duty.
I am honoured and pleased to be able to represent the Nursing Sisters of Canada here today. It is true that we look like we are going out of business. We have a convention coming up in Charlottetown in June and nobody wants to host another one. However, everybody wants to remain under the general umbrella of NCVA and be protected by the benefits that flow therefrom, and we wish to have the opportunity to participate in the annual pilgrimages. Somehow, without meeting regularly, it looks like we will stay as an association, at least temporarily.
In getting ready for this talk, I looked at the names of all of the people who are with NCVA and I thought, by the time I got here, you would have heard all the arguments, that everybody probably would have had the same thing to say, and we agree with everything that we heard, read and understand.
In doing this preparation, I was given a great deal of help by the previous national chairman, who resides here in Ottawa, Halley Sloan. She is one of our most decorated wartime nursing sisters and she feels very strongly about this, but she is leaving it to us to voice the sentiments.
Today we have 11 units, we have about 800 members, and that number goes down every year. Three years ago, we had 930. In the last week, I have talked to the presidents of the units across the country. There are four in this province; Ottawa, Toronto, London and Windsor. There are two in two provinces, Vancouver and Victoria, Edmonton and Calgary, and three provinces have one unit only; Winnipeg, Halifax, and Charlottetown. Nobody supports amalgamation of the existing Canadian War Museum with a pilgrimage pavilion or a holocaust; nobody, not one person.
Each of these people who spoke on behalf of their own unit has been familiar with what has been said, at least they all read Maclean's, and everybody has read the well-stated but strong comments of Barbara Amiel. No one was unfamiliar with the controversy. We do not have one unit that wants to see the two amalgamated, under any circumstance. We have two reasons, one of which you have already heard, namely, that we should not present the opportunity for anyone to come in and downplay what we now have as a testimonial to Canada and war. It should stand alone.
Our second reason relates to the mission statement. What is the mission statement of the Canadian War Museum? In looking at it from that point of view, as nurses, we all work under the umbrella of a mission statement for the institution or the department, wherever we work. From that mission statement, we understand the objective of that institution. With that as a premise, I went to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown, our major hospital, to get a copy of their mission statement. The mission statement of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is twofold: to provide an appropriate range of acute care hospital services for the residents of the Queen's region; and to serve as the major referral centre for specialized hospital services in an integrated health care system for Prince Edward Island. It is very simple. It is basic and it is what the hospital is all about. From that flow nursing goals and ideals.
Next, I went to the head office of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, where I have worked in the past. I retired from the military after 28 years, from 1953 to 1981. I retired as a lieutenant-colonel, having been the career manager for the military nursing sisters at my last posting. When I went to Veterans Affairs, I was appointed as a member of the board of the Canadian Pension Commission. It was a 10-year appointment, but it only lasted four years because I was promoted to another 10-year appointment as deputy chairman. That finished before I had completed my 10 years of service because my clock ran out, and I reached that magic age. You cannot tell that by looking at me, though.
The Chairman: No, you cannot. I agree with you.
Ms Jean-Gogan: I quit almost two years ago.
Veterans Affairs has a definite mission statement. The organization's broad-based objectives are captured in its mission statement. Its first objective is to provide veterans, qualified civilians and their families with the benefits and services to which they are entitled. In other words, if they deserve a pension, it will be paid to them. If they require services, they will be provided.
The second objective is to promote their well being as participating members of their community. In other words: keep them happy, keep them home and keep them well.
The third objective is to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians.
Those are three simple, broad objectives.
What is the mission statement of the Canadian War Museum? How can we weave into that the intent of a Holocaust Gallery? Perhaps you have heard this, but I will read it. The statement reads:
The current mandate of the Canadian War Museum is:
To share in the remembrance of, and serve as a memorial to, those Canadians lost in, or as a result of, war;
You cannot fit the Holocaust Museum gallery into that mandate. It goes on to state:
To examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians;
We see no way to embroider into that part a Holocaust Gallery. Finally, the mission states:
To document Canada's continuing commitment to peace-keeping and the maintenance of international security.
That does not fit.
Most of our members today are overseas nurses. Most of the nurses who served overseas were with the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps. Approximately 3,600 were commissioned during the war, and 2,600 served overseas. Those with overseas service with whom I spoke said that, as nurses serving overseas, they knew nothing about it. How can we include that as a memory of our time overseas?
That is the view of our membership today. I have nothing to add to that except to say that I am pleased that I came early to hear the other witnesses who share this view.
My father served in two wars and he would be very proud of me today.
Senator Cools: What was the first war that he served in?
Ms Jean-Gogan: He served in WWI, the big one. He was overseas doing the same kind of work talked about in Flanders Fields. He was a horse trainer and a trick rider. He served with the Fifth Canadian Mounted Rifles, with Colonel John McCrae.
Senator Forest: I am delighted that the nursing sisters sent a representative. You made a tremendous contribution to the war effort.
What has your association done to commemorate the memory of the wars? Have you collected artefacts?
Ms Jean-Gogan: Yes, we continually do that. When I left Ottawa, I gave many of my personal artefacts to the Canadian War Museum and I was surprised to receive a tax receipt in return.
We also have a museum in Charlottetown which is part of the armouries at the moment.
Senator Forest: Would most of the artefacts from your organization be housed in this museum or across the country?
Ms Jean-Gogan: When I presented my own, I spoke with the people in the museum and was under the impression that some of them would be "farmed out," as it were.
Senator Forest: Yes, to other museums as travelling exhibits, and so on.
Senator Cools: We all know who the nursing sisters are or were. I am very much aware that these proceedings are being recorded and televised. For the sake of those watching, perhaps you could spend 30 seconds and tell the committee, with an eye to the viewers out there, who the nursing sisters were.
Ms Jean-Gogan: Our Canadian army is structured on the British system. In England, even in civilian hospitals, the most important nurse in the hospital is called "sister"; just as in a British hospital the most important doctor leaves his title "doctor" and he becomes "mister." The term "nursing sister" is used because we are fashioned on the British system. It started with the army and then went to the other two services, the navy and the air force. There has been a move afoot in recent years to change that.
Lester Pearson appointed a woman to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. We were challenged about refusing to accept male nurses in the military. We opened the door and they stayed for a while, but it was not a fast enough promotion system for them, so they did not stay very long.
When we celebrated our last biennial, we passed a resolution which many people did not understood. We voted to change the name to "The Nursing Officers Association of Canada". Although Dr. Salem was to ensure that we abided by the Roberts Rules of Order, we forgot to change the constitution. When I became the national president, I went to the legal people in Veterans Affairs who were working with the Department of Justice and they informed that, our name was not official. However, we will not change it now. There would be no point in doing that at this late date.
Senator Prud'homme: In other words, leave it as is.
Ms Jean-Gogan: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I want you to know how admirative we are for the work you've accomplished and for the one you still accomplish now.
[English]
In a nutshell, I wish to be, as they say in the Bible, a living witness to what you do and what you have done. I thank you warmly for that.
Senator Jessiman: Would your representation be equally divided among the three services?
Ms Jean-Gogan: In wartime?
Senator Jessiman: No, in the association now.
Ms Jean-Gogan: Most of our members today are wartime service only. We have very few who, like me, are regular force.
Senator Jessiman: Would they be nursing sisters from the navy or the army? Did they have nursing sisters in the air force?
Ms Jean-Gogan: We did, yes.
Senator Jessiman: Is your association made up equally of all three?
Ms Jean-Gogan: No. It has a preponderance of army nurses.
Senator Jessiman: The navy must run it, though.
Ms Jean-Gogan: Well, not when I am around. There were 3,656 army nursing sisters commissioned during the war. Of those, 2,625 served overseas. There were only 482 in the air force during wartime. Only a few of those experienced overseas service. There were only 345 in your branch.
Senator Forest: Perhaps they never got sick.
Senator Jessiman: I saw a number of them overseas.
Ms Jean-Gogan: Our organization is principally army.
The Chairman: Your organization has probably seen more human suffering experienced by Canadian servicemen than any other. You bring a unique touch and a unique understanding to this presentation. We thank you very much. You said that your father would be proud of you. We would also be proud of him.
Ms Jean-Gogan: A few years ago, we said good-bye to Evelyn Pepper as she was retiring. She is not well today, but she is probably the most decorated nursing sister still alive in this country. When we were preparing a tribute for her, one of the people with whom she worked in emergency health services reminded me that Evelyn Pepper is one of the people responsible for the fact that field hospitals around the country today have beds that can be raised to waist level so that you do not have to minister to sick people from your knees. As she used to say, she went up one side of Italy and down the other on her hands and knees. I pay special tribute to her today.
Senator Prud'homme: Has she been given the Order of Canada?
Ms Jean-Gogan: I believe that she was a few years ago.
The Chairman: Before Christmas, this committee did a study on health care for veterans and we visited Sunnybrook Hospital. One of the patients was a 102-year-old nursing sister. She asked that we visit her. After we did, one of the doctors told us that she was phoning her friends and saying that she had the senators in to see her and "boy, did I straighten those fellows out." So I think nurses keep on going.
Ms Jean-Gogan: She learned well. If you need any more straightening out, I will be back in Charlottetown.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr. Harold Leduc, Vice-president, Canadian Peace-keeping Veterans Association: Honourable senators, we should like to express our appreciation at this opportunity to appear before this committee. We are hopeful that our evidence today will be of benefit to this committee.
As a small note, I will point out that I am not wearing my medals. I have five, one of them being the Order of Military Merit. I am doing that as a protest against the thankless government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs who are putting Canadian veterans through this test. I personally believe they should be more supportive.
In the veterans community, we are kind of the new kids on the block. We should not be. We have been at this game for 50 years. The Canadian Peace-keeping Veterans Association is a proactive, registered, national non-profit association mandated to speak out on behalf of peace-keepers, their families and survivors in all matters of interest. We have also come to the assistance of other veterans as well as assisted survivors of servicemen who died during training.
The following is a list of our accomplishments. We are the technical advisors and the driving force behind the new medal that will soon be instituted, the Canadian Peace-keeping Service Medal. It took five years and five private members bills and we have finally succeeded.
We do outreach for education through the Internet. Every November 11, we run a service in the Victoria Youth Detention Centre where we teach young offenders about war and about Canada's participation from the formation of Canada right up to today's peace-keeping activities.
No member of our association executive is paid. All of our service is voluntary and this is a necessary labour of love. I am taking time off today from work to be here.
I should first like to say that we support the National Council of Veterans on this issue. Our belief is that the administration operations of the Canadian War Museum should not be in the hands of people who do not have the slightest interest in Canadian military heritage.
The Canadian War Museum should come under and be funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, run by a committee or a coalition of veterans associations. This way, veterans will never have to be tested on such a fundamental issue as is before this committee today.
The Holocaust display, in our opinion, has ample representation in the context of the Second World War display in the museum as well as with supplementary displays such as the present reflections of the Holocaust.
The Holocaust, although an important social event in civilization, as a stand-alone display has no place within the walls, let alone the mandate of the Canadian War Museum. The Holocaust speaks to only one act of genocide; there are many.
Canadian soldiers, through the course of Canadian military history, have witnessed the effects of numerous acts of genocide. We strongly believe that any display, regardless of space, other than that of Canadian military heritage, in the Canadian War Museum would be an absolute insult to the Canadian soldiers who participated in making that very history.
The Canadian Peace-keeping Veterans Association strongly believes that those responsible for testing the veterans movement on this fundamental issue should be held accountable, and their positions of responsibility for the Canadian War Museum should be in jeopardy. However, this behaviour is consistent with the lack of respect shown toward veterans by the Canadian government and Canadian society in general. This, we believe, is because of a lack of education.
Allowing a stand-alone Holocaust display in our Canadian War Museum would be increasing the potential for it to be used as a political pawn, as we have seen in recent developments with the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. When Yasser Arafat wanted to visit in an act of good faith, it became a political issue. We should never allow our museum to be placed in that position for something that does not speak to its mandate.
On a more personal note, through my own interest in Canadian military history, I have compiled data on more than 350 Leduc military men who served in Canada from the year 1691 to the present. I am an English-speaking French-Canadian. To this day there has been a Leduc soldier participating in every major and minor action on and off Canadian soil since my ancestor, Pierre Leduc's arrival in 1691. My great uncle was killed in the Battle of the Somme. My grandfather served in World War I and II. My uncle served in World War II. One of my uncles died of wounds received in Italy and two of his younger brothers served in the peacetime army. My father served in Korea. I served in Cyprus. My younger brother is a veteran of multiple United Nations tours, having just returned from Haiti prior to Christmas.
This is a snapshot of family history. I am very sure that there are many similar histories in Canada held in private collections. This is also Canadian military heritage at the grassroots level. How many other Canadian soldiers or veterans have similar legacies?
I know I should like to display my family's history; however, I have no place to do that. In my opinion, the Canadian War Museum would be the place. We have heard of other suggestions for use of space in the Canadian War Museum: the plight of the Hong Kong veterans, the story of our soldiers' gallantry and bravery on peace-keeping missions. Not to make one more important than another, but an area that is constantly overlooked is the government's disgusting manner in the way they treated the Canadian Airborne Regiment after their humanitarian tour in Somalia. Not every Canadian paratrooper acted badly.
On another note, individual veterans, although well meaning, cannot speak for a veterans' movement. We have heard testimony yesterday and today of individuals. Their input is valuable. However, we would strongly urge that departments ask and seek advice from veterans' organizations or associations who are mandated to represent their membership rather than their personal goals.
Our association is prepared to act in any advisory capacity to anyone who wishes. We do not get asked very often, because it seems that the line of communication going over the Rocky Mountains has been cut. We often rely on the efforts of Mr. Chadderton to send us news.
I do not wish to minimize the Holocaust, it was an horrific act. We must remember that, absolutely. However, while we are looking over our shoulder remembering that, today and in the future, there are other acts of genocide, and genocide will probably occur again. I have listed some here, the murder of 500,000 Zairian Tutsis in Rwanda; 2.5 million to 3 million people have died in the killing fields of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam over a 20-year period; in Beirut, 2,500 Palestinian refugees were murdered while under the care of Israeli soldiers. It goes on and on. We see pictures of Yugoslavia.
Yesterday, a witness asked how their children are supposed to remember the Holocaust and genocide. All we need to do is look at the news. It is happening as we speak. We have not learned from the past.
Genocide is condemned by the civilized world. To illustrate that, on December 9, 1948, 42 countries signed the United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. By 1996, 142 countries had signed the same agreement. I have provided a copy. This agreement condemns genocide by the civilized world.
With the above examples, it is very clear that Canada, as a whole, would be remiss to continue to assign more value to one past incident of genocide while overlooking other examples happening today. We are a multinational and multicultural country; we should remember that.
Ms Sadako Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said it best in her speech at the Holocaust Memorial Museum on April 30, 1997, in Washington, D.C. Her last paragraph stated:
...from my perspective this museum bears witness to the failure of preventing repression and genocide. Today, we have an opportunity to learn from the past, and save lives that will be lost if we do not act. It is critical that you speak out. I welcome your attention and your concern. Victims are calling out -- no more genocide."
With that, Canadian peace-keeping veterans believe that we are not living up to our 1948 agreement.
The Holocaust is important; so is the murder of Rwandans; and so are other acts of genocide. They should be in a stand-alone museum that illustrates and gives due respect to those acts. They should not be cramped into a Canadian military heritage history museum.
One final note on genocide -- the genocide of poor, unfortunate souls in Third World countries must not be overshadowed by stories of genocide in more affluent societies.
I want to say a little bit about Canadian peace-keeping veterans. We are the new kids on the block. We have been peace-keeping for over 50 years. The first phase of peace-keeping was more as observers.
There were three UN missions in Korea. The first one started in 1947. There was the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea. Then there was the war. After the cessation of hostilities in 1953, another commission was started called the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission. That commission is ongoing today.
The next phase of peace-keeping was what we have come to understand as the more traditional role of peace-keepers with the peace-keeping forces. By way of illustration, there is the United Nations Emergency Force in Egypt, the United Nations Forces in Cyprus, and our operations in the Congo. This period lasted from 1956 to the late 1980s.
I heard it mentioned that the "peace" theme may be added to the War Museum. We do not believe that should be added because we are soldiers. We do not go overseas to be peace activists. We are called upon to perform a duty that only soldiers can perform. The notion that peace-keepers go to a foreign land in the middle of a war to give everyone a group hug to make things better is not a good notion.
From the late 1980s to the present, traditional peace-keeping changed. We see what happened in Yugoslavia. We look at "peace-making", "peace-enforcement" and "peace-building". No matter which way you cut them up, these are all euphemisms for war.
Canadians have been working in this environment as peace-keepers for over 50 years. Our peace-keepers serve in war zones. We may not have declared war, but we are put in the middle of a war zone. We are like the referee in the middle of a football field -- we are still on the field.
We endure hardships. We get hungry, thirsty and are sometimes wounded. Yes, some of us are even killed. Believe it or not, we are killed with the same weapons of destruction used by people who participate in declared wars. These thoughts were taken from the book Bullets, Bombs and Blue Berets by Jim MacMillan-Murphy, National President of the CPVA.
In general, we have seen the plight of our forefathers -- if I can use that term -- when we look at the other veterans associations as they tried for recognition. It took the Hong Kong vets and the Korean vets 35 years to be remembered and to finally get their place in history. We are trying to stop that process, although we are just finally trying to get some recognition. We have been peace-keeping for a long time.
Again, we feel that this is an education issue, but it all comes out as a lack of respect. We are continually tested. One of the most important tests to peace-keepers is that they will not put our book of remembrance in the Peace Tower. One hundred fifty-two Canadians have died peace-keeping. We tried for five years to get a book of remembrance in the Peace Tower, and it has been refused every time. It is shameful.
The areas we participate in are called special duty areas. Soldiers wounded on foreign battle fields and special duties areas do not get the same benefits as veterans who have sustained wounds on foreign battle fields in a declared war.
In 1988, Canada and our peace-keeping forces shared in winning the Nobel Peace Prize. When we were pushing for this medal, one of the things we wanted was a bar for the Nobel Peace Prize for individual recognition. That was denied. Why? Canada should not be ashamed of our achievements.
I have already talked about the Canadian Airborne Regiment. That was a sad statement. Those stories should be told in a museum.
Our belief is that the Canadian honours and awards system is lacking. With the advent of peace-keeping, we now have mounted police receiving military decorations, and that is unprecedented. When we bring that forward, it falls on deaf ears.
Being the new kid on the block, there are always growing pains. One of the members of our executive died recently. He was a veteran of the ICCS in Vietnam and Cyprus. He was also a long standing member of the Legion. He lived in Legion housing. When he died, they served his widow with two eviction notices, citing that he was not a veteran.
Honourable senators, we have earned our status as veterans. Our story must be told as well. The Canadian War Museum, as well as outreach, is the forum for that.
The Canadian Peace-keeping Veterans Association does not feel that peace-keeping veterans are owed anything for their service, except for a little respect. We know in time that will come, and our story should be told proudly.
In conclusion, a space at the Canadian War Museum is not adequate. It is not adequate to display Canadian military heritage. The administration and operation of the Canadian War Museum must be placed under the umbrella of the Department of Veterans Affairs and run by a committee of veterans.
Canada is a multicultural country and a charter member of the United Nations. We must remember the obligations of our commitments. We must educate our society -- and be aggressive about it -- with respect to all acts of genocide in an effort to stop it.
We feel strongly that we have made our mark and we deserve the respect as veterans as well. We are the Canadian military heritage for future generations. The Canadian veterans movement must never again be tested by thankless Canadians as it is being tested on this fundamental issue today.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Leduc. We appreciate the fact that you came a long way to give us the benefit of your views.
Senator Jessiman: Is your veterans association recognized as such under the Department of Veterans Affairs? Do you have all of the rights of veterans? Do you have the same problems as the Merchant Navy? They are now recognized as veterans.
Mr. Leduc: We do, but only under the clause regarding the special duty area. When Major Henwood's legs were blown off in Yugoslavia, there was a toss-up between departments as to which would provide a wheelchair, because no one really knew where this sort of item fit in. However, there is no difference between the mine that blew off his legs and the mine that eventually killed my uncle.
Senator Jessiman: Compared to veterans from the First World War, or the Korean War, or whatever other wars, do you have the same rights under Veterans Affairs?
Mr. Leduc: As they pertain to special duty areas, which is a little different. It boils down to what happens with respect to benefits.
Senator Jessiman: Are there areas where it does not pertain? I am not clear. Are you only there for a limited time, then you are off again and doing something on your own? Do you go on these peace-keeping tours for a certain period of time such as three months or a year? Is that how it works?
Mr. Leduc: It is usually for six months.
Senator Jessiman: During that period, while you are active, you are covered?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: I understand.
Mr. Leduc: You are given the same benefit, and because it is a special duty area, the time counts double towards your pensionable time. There are many benefits.
Senator Jessiman: Is it calculated from the time you sign up in Canada, or from the time when you arrive at the location where you are to serve your special duty?
Mr. Leduc: It is from the time that your unit is given their orders, generally.
Senator Jessiman: You could be located in Canada at that time?
Mr. Leduc: Yes. Many times, the units are small, undermanned and under-equipped, and that is a good place to get money to fund expansions to the museum. Oftentimes they will have reservists come from all parts of Canada, or from other sub-units, to come and augment that force. There usually is a staging base, and it is from the time that you are on the manifest at that place.
Senator Jessiman: I understand.
Senator Prud'homme: I must say that for the first time in my 34 years of hearing from witnesses, I am almost speechless. All those who have said that the spirit of the forces is dying off with our veterans should be here to listen to you. Those who are coming after are making the older soldiers proud. I did my military training at Shilo for three years. I am very proud. That was my only military contribution.
Canada takes pride in its activities with the United Nations, and it annoys me when I see people using and not doing. That is, in essence, what you are talking about. I like people. I teach students that when they see a blue beret anywhere, they should say "Thank you." I have done that myself, in all parts of the world. They do not know who I am, but I thank them for what they are doing for Canada. Just the phrase "Thank you" has so much meaning. I am sure you share the sentiment.
Do you feel that you are consulted as an association representing your colleagues? Do you feel that you are part of the decision-making process? You have immediate experience serving in the Middle East, in Cyprus, and around the world. Are you consulted? Do you feel that you are part of the decision-making process for the future?
Mr. Leduc: Absolutely not. We are based in Victoria, and that is one drawback. We are a national organization, but we are based there. Peace-keeping is not new. Many people have served on missions over the years, and there are many experts, because we have sent people to many different places. There are many "multi-tour" veterans. They are usually consulted first.
Senator Prud'homme: You say the Canadian government refused to allow a peace-keeping Book of Remembrance. I sit now as an independent, but I sat as a member of a political party for 40 years, 30 of those years in the House of Commons. I like to de-politicize things, and I could bring forward a bill in the Senate, but it would be the voice of just one member. I am sure there are people today who will listen, and once we get the answer to "why not," we can work on drafting an all-party bill for introduction in the Senate.
I do not understand this. I have seen such books, which I have explained to students for the last 35 years. Recently, we had an additional book on Merchant Navy veterans. What was the reason? Because they need to terminate? Why?
Mr. Leduc: We have received a number of answers, including the fact that there is no declared war, and therefore there is no end date. It is an ongoing book. We say "Yes, but that is the reality." Another reason we have been given is that there is no more space in the chapel. That is not our problem. Quit sending us, then, if you do not want to add more books. We are getting those types of reasons, and we have been making this request for over five years now. We even volunteered our time to design such a book.
Senator Prud'homme: You should not need to do that.
Mr. Leduc: I know, but we are trying to do everything. As well, no one can agree on the numbers of dead. Yesterday, we heard that it was 111. It is, in fact, 152. Three members from the Department of Foreign Affairs on missions died in the service of peace. A civilian pilot died in Yugoslavia. He is a Canadian; he is no different. The rest were in the military.
Senator Prud'homme: What is the rationale for saying no on the Peace Prize?
Mr. Leduc: We were told initially that that they were building the monument here in Ottawa. We asked about the situation with respect to the veteran in Newfoundland or in British Columbia. They told us that it does not matter; that that is what they were doing to recognize our service. It makes absolutely no sense. Although we did not individually win the prize, we were part of a force that won the prize. I am a Nobel Laureate, but if I tell someone that, they will not believe me. There is no difference between me and Lester Pearson. We still won the same prize. Of course, there are other differences.
Senator Prud'homme: Would that bar be worn by all peace-keepers?
Mr. Leduc: The original plan was to fashion a bar for that peace-keeping medal, and that would be awarded to every Canadian peace-keeper who served on or before December 10, 1988. That is the date on which the certificate was signed. We are in the process right now -- and we will do it at our own expense, if we have to -- of negotiating with the Norwegian Nobel committee to acquire the right to reproduce that certificate and to send it out to all peace-keeping veterans who are qualified, because the government will not do it. It is shameful.
Senator Prud'homme: As to the Canadian government's unprecedented and disgusting handling of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, I will hold my tongue, because I think to punish a group of fine, tough men for the mistakes of a few was reacting very politically. That is my personal opinion.
Mr. Leduc: I served for nine years under the colours of the Airborne Regiment, and that was a time in my life when I would have laid my life on the line for any of those people. That is the way they operate. It may be a little too aggressive for some people, but that is a reality of life. Not only did it tarnish the good names of the members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment of today, it tarnished the names of our forefathers, and that is horrible because the regiment was born out of valour.
Senator Prud'homme: I raised this yesterday, and I raise it again today: the matter of the collective memory, the corporate military memory. There is no one to represent that, of course, on the board. That is one of your annoyances; a rightful annoyance.
Senator Kelly: Thank you for your presentation. You certainly have a head of steam up, I might say, about your views, and you express them very well. To qualify myself, I am a veteran of the Second World War. I do not carry my medals today, nor do you, but I am qualified to talk to you about some of these things.
What we are here to try to work through is whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to have the Holocaust wing as part of the museum. You feel that it should not be a part of that museum. You feel that the present museum does not adequately describe the history of the military wartime and peacetime service, so you support an expansion.
Mr. Leduc: Absolutely.
Senator Kelly: Do you accept the fact that the suggestion with respect to the Holocaust is exclusive? You do not really believe, do you, that the fact that the Holocaust is being discussed means that these other genocidal situations will not be discussed in the future? They are not shut out. That is not your feeling, surely?
Mr. Leduc: No, but my feeling is that they should all be given equal weight, in terms of importance.
Senator Kelly: I am sure you will accept the fact that, as time goes on, there will be new ones, and that we cannot wait until they are all together. We have to do them in whatever order they occurred. The situation will not end with what we have now.
Senator Prud'homme: In that event, then, you must start with the Armenians.
Senator Kelly: It is an ongoing river, and it is to be hoped that it will end someday.
Mr. Leduc: That is why such exhibits would be better in a stand-alone museum. They could then make their own additions.
Senator Kelly: That is fine. It pains me to hear you imply that there is no pride in Canada's wartime and peacetime efforts. You are dead wrong if that is how you feel. Surely that is not how you feel.
Mr. Leduc: Not no pride whatsoever, but very little.
Senator Kelly: With great respect, you are given to grand statements. I think there is much more than very little, through all ages of Canadians, really. I hope you will test that opinion again, because the more you sell that argument, the more it can affect things both positively and negatively. You can lead people who have pride in themselves for what they did to believe that people do not recognize their deeds, and that hurts. I do not think that is true. Things can always be better.
Mr. Leduc: May I cite an example? When I worked at the officer candidate school in Chilliwack, British Columbia, we would stand at the airport waiting to collect all the candidates as they came in. We were in uniform. I was an infantry senior NCO. I had a red sash. I had a pace-stick. I did not look like a porter, but all of the questions I was asked were such things as, "Where do I get a cab? Where do I catch this plane?" I am serious when I say that. We did an exercise and jumped into Northern Ontario, at a time when there was a problem there, to show the flag. Although there was a lot of press behind it, people were asking, "Are you American soldiers?" I am serious. This is what happens.
Senator Kelly: I am an honorary colonel of an engineering regiment. I was once asked to get two drinks for someone because of my uniform. I got the drinks and I did not feel badly at all.
Mr. Leduc: Our role is to educate.
Senator Kelly: Sure it is. I think you are in support of it, and I think your efforts will be very beneficial, whatever happens.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kelly. If we see you in uniform, we will ask for drinks.
Senator Cools: I have a lot of sympathy for what you feel is the diminution of things military and people military in this country. Even the language has been disappearing.
You made an aside regarding accountability and responsibility. You said that these museum officials or someone should be held accountable for this situation, or for what they have done. Could you amplify on that a little, please?
Mr. Leduc: I think that is mentioned on page 5 of my text. The announcement about the Holocaust Gallery is being discussed now, but it is obviously a preconceived item. They have already gone to the bodies, and the feeling they are putting forth is "Let us collect the money and build it." In other words, we are discussing this matter after the fact. The powers that be have strayed from the mandate of the museum, which is to protect our Canadian military heritage. I feel that those who are responsible -- not the volunteers but the paid staff, the directors; start from there and work your way up -- should be held accountable for that. The Canadian veterans community should never be tested on such simple issues.
Senator Cools: The reason I put my question to you is that we exist in this country in a state of ministerial responsibility. Bureaucrats are not the ones who are responsible in the long run; ministers are. However, where there is a bit of a grey area, such as with Crown corporations, Parliament has an additional interest, because sometimes the lines are not clear-cut.
At the outset of these hearings, we were fascinated when we heard at great length from departmental officials about what they described as arm's length relationships between the executive, including the minister, and these Crown corporations. To my mind, one really must review the concept of ministerial responsibility as it has worked in this instance, and as it has worked or not worked in the case of this particular Crown corporation. I just wanted to make sure that I understood you to say what I thought you said.
The second question that I have for you is a bit more philosophical. I was very touched and struck by your use of the word "valour," and being of British heritage I spell it V-A-L-O-U-R, of course. I was reminded of one particular committee hearing when we had General de Chastelain before us, and even he, as a general at the time, in response to a particular question from a senator, responded, "Senator, I am a soldier. My job is to take orders."
As you said a few minutes ago, you would have laid down your life. You were speaking of valour. I think somewhere this entire issue turns on the issue of valour. As I listened to you, and as I listened to the nursing sister just a few minutes ago and came to terms with the additional suffering that they would have seen as they would have been comforting the sick, the wounded and the dying, I was reminded of the concept of valour.
Perhaps that is what is wrong with this concept of housing the Holocaust Gallery alongside the military museum. In the long run, soldiering is about valour. Military operations are about bravery and courage, not about cowardly attacks on thousands of unarmed, helpless Jews, as the Holocaust represented. As you were restating that principle and the principle of valour, it reminded me that that is where the issue is turning. A good soldier fights for his cause; he fights for God, for Queen and for country. He does not kill innocents.
I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps that is what the issue is turning on, and perhaps that is why the veteran community, almost to a person, is unanimous in opposing the housing of the two museums in one. It must be, because there must be a reason why the veteran community is reacting so unanimously and so very strongly.
That is a bit of a lengthy comment, but perhaps you could comment on the military aspect, which is valour, and the extermination aspect of the Holocaust, which is cowardly attacks on innocents.
Mr. Leduc: I am only speaking to my own experiences and to what I know. I do not think valour through the course of history has changed. I do not think soldiering as an honourable calling has changed. When you call upon people to do the unspeakable -- which is, potentially, to kill another person -- you must have bonds; you must have a cause. When those causes go awry, when people start putting their own ideals into those causes, that is where you find your turning point.
I grew up in Montreal, which city is totally multicultural. Whenever I go back, I still like the fact that I can speak in a group of people, in English, with an Italian or a French person present. We will all have a conversation, everyone speaking in their own language, but we will all know what we are talking about. If I were to make myself superior over them, then we have a problem.
Senator Chalifoux: You bring back many memories. My children's father was in the first 11 members of the PPCLI to ever take his jumps at the beginning of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. That is a very proud history. I worked in the Salvation Army canteen throughout the Second World War, and I managed the army canteen in Currie Barracks for a number of years. My children were army brats, and always very proud until that Somalia affair. Because of that scandal, my children's pride in what their father did was tarnished. They are all grown up now. Some of them are even older than you, I presume.
It makes me wonder what has happened to the pride. I live near Namao and the army is coming back into Edmonton because there is now a super base there. They shut down Currie Barracks. Nobody has ever mentioned the families, the wives and the children who were left behind. It has not been mentioned that we lived on next to nothing, that we lived in emergency married quarters with grey blankets between the walls. That is part of military history.
I would like to ask you about the space that is used for history in this museum. They will be using 35 per cent for the Holocaust. I would like to know your reaction to that percentage in comparison to the amount to be used to house Canadian history.
Mr. Leduc: That is a good question, senator. You raise a number of good points. I could fill up that 35 per cent with my own family history. Many displays could be put in there of Canadian military heritage. If I am interested in a certain aspect that others may not be, I go and find that out. I go and look it up. I think this Holocaust Gallery is totally out of context. Again, it should be stand-alone. It is too big, too important to just squash into a space. When we are fighting for our own space, we should not need to do that.
As far as the wives go, my wife and I are the only ones together to this day for over 25 years of military service, and I know many people in the military. I tell you, it is simply because of the way that, essentially, she raised our son by herself. When I was in the Airborne Regiment, out of perhaps five years I was only home during two of those years. It takes very strong women to carry out that role, and they are never praised enough.
Senator Chalifoux: I raised my family alone. I was a single parent, thanks to the army.
Mr. Leduc: It is tough.
Senator Chalifoux: That must be considered when the veterans organizations are talking and negotiating; you must not forget the suffering of the wives and the children. I had to go and tell my girlfriend, because the padre could not do it, that her husband had been killed in Korea. That is part of our history, how the families have suffered. I would remind everyone that that should be part of the deliberations in this discussion about the War Museum because that is part of our history.
The Chairman: After your presentation today, Mr. Leduc, I am sure we will have you back before us often.
Senator Forest: I second what Senator Kelly has said. I understand your hurt and concern, but many Canadians respect the armed forces.
Mr. Leduc: We still have to reach out, though.
Senator Forest: Yes we do, especially to the children.
The Chairman: Our next scheduled witness was unable to attend. Mr. Cliff Chadderton, as chair of the umbrella organization, will present the brief on behalf of the Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded.
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, Honorary President, Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded: The Sir Arthur Pearson Association of the War Blinded was formed after World War I by the famous Colonel Eddie Baker. It has looked after the interests of the war blinded ever since.
Bill Mayne, who was supposed to appear with me as his reader, suffered a heart attack the night before last. He is in Sunnybrook Hospital and is doing well. He asked me to raise three points in particular:
The first point arose from the discussions yesterday concerning Mr. Fred Gaffen. We have in the archives the clipping which will tell you what you want to know. It has been distributed by the clerk of the committee. This is an article which appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on February 1, 1997. I will read a bit of it. It is quite startling. Mr. Gaffen said that it looked as if the Holocaust Gallery was to be a reality, and that it will examine the role of Canadian soldiers, especially Jewish soldiers. The article goes on to say:
But its focus will not be narrowly military, promises Gaffen. It will conclude evidence of widespread anti-Semitism in Canada, and offer an unflinching examination of the racism of former prime minister Mackenzie King and some of his top bureaucrats.
The articles goes on to quote Irving Abella, author of None is Too Many:
You either tell the story as it was, or you don't bother telling it.
That is clearly Gaffen's goal. Canada, he says, "had the worst record of any western country" when it came to accepting Jews, and one of the most forgiving when it came to accepting Nazi war criminals.
The article goes on:
Anti-Semitism is a particularly sensitive issue in Quebec, as the recent uproar over former lieutenant governor Jean Roux proves. Gaffen and Abella agree that anti-Jewish feeling was particularly virulent there (among anglophones as well as francophone Quebecers...)
I think this is what the committee was seeking. Mr. Gaffen told us back in February that the Holocaust Gallery would not be the type of thing you would normally see in a war museum. It would be more of a political exposition, if you like, of Canada's anti-Semitic role.
I will now refer to the brief by the Sir Arthur Pearson Association. I had a hand in writing it because I am their national president.
Of importance to your committee, at the bottom of page 1 are some views from Adrienne Clarkson. This is the first time we have been able to get statements from Adrienne Clarkson on what this is all about. I realize that she will be appearing before this committee. The Sir Arthur Pearson Association wants to provide her statements and their comment in response.
First, she states that the original idea of the Holocaust Gallery was conceived as conforming to the mandate of the Canadian War Museum, and she goes on to state that mandate. Ms Clarkson believes that the Holocaust Gallery conforms to the mandate.
The Sir Arthur Pearson Association finds it necessary to challenge that opinion, for reasons that have already been indicated.
Ms Clarkson states that the Museum of Civilization Board:
...came to the conclusion that not only was the (war) museum the best place to house a commemoration of an event that was central to the Second World War, but also that it would be in the interests of the museum itself if it were to broaden the scope of its appeal to Canadians...
We have difficulty agreeing with the conclusion that the War Museum is the best place to house a commemoration. We also have difficulty with the suggestion that the Holocaust was central to the Second World War. The membership of the Sir Arthur Pearson Association, all war blinded persons, saw a great deal of war until they lost their sight, but they wish to make it clear that they knew little or nothing about the Holocaust. They also challenge the statement that the Holocaust was "central to the Second World War."
They also ask the committee to consider the participation of Canadians in the opposition to the armed aggression of the Japanese. They say that Ms Clarkson's statement that the Holocaust was central to the Second World War detracts from the battles in which these wounded veterans participated, including North Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, and many more.
Ms Clarkson says that the desire was to broaden the scope. She says:
...the Holocaust Gallery will be part of an overall expansion of the (war) museum, which will better ensure the display of its very important collection.
We challenge that. As far as we know, there is no important collection of Holocaust material in the hands of the War Museum. That will all be provided by the scholars who will work on this Holocaust Gallery.
We believe that that statement should be challenged. We certainly challenge it here.
Further, Ms Clarkson states that "the museum is an important national institution." Of course, we do not argue with that. She states further:
...the present Board is determined that it be used to its fullest potential so that the contribution of our servicemen to our country continues to be recognized and serve as an inspiration to future generations.
This, apparently, must be read in the context of the fact that they want the Holocaust Gallery. We cannot accept these statements as an explanation of how creating the Holocaust Gallery will lead to any improvement in the War Museum.
Adrienne Clarkson goes on to state that there are:
...extremely important exhibits which are in storage and cannot be put on display, either because of financial or place constraints.
I have been in Vimy House many times. Outside of Aba Bayefsky's paintings and a few done by Coleville of Bergen-Belsen, I do not know that there are any artefacts concerning the Holocaust in storage or in the hands of the War Museum.
Ms Clarkson said:
The decision to add a Holocaust Gallery is only one step in making the (war) museum an important destination for a wide public, who will be attracted not only by that exhibit but by the additional and refurbished items that the influx of new revenues will make possible.
We must challenge this statement as well. We are not suggesting that the Holocaust Gallery would not attract new visitors. However, should the Holocaust Gallery be the destination for a wide public who would be attracted there? Finally, in making our war museum an attractive destination for the public who would visit that institution primarily to find out what Canadians have done in their past military endeavours, that is what we feel would be the attraction, not the Holocaust.
The next item, which is totally different, concerns the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. The Sir Arthur Pearson Association wants this committee to take note of a letter from Colonel Holtzhauer, who appeared before you yesterday. He says that the organization, Friends of the Canadian War Museum, supports the status quo. They are suggesting that this could hardly have been a decision arrived at by so-called democratic means. This is important.
I have here the letterhead of the Passing the Torch campaign. The second name on the list of patrons happens to be Cliff Chadderton. You know that I do not agree with the position of the Friends of the War Museum. The fourth name listed is Barnett Danson. We know from records that your committee has in its possession that Mr. Danson does not support this move. Another name which appears on that list is Mr. Hugh Green of the Royal Canadian Legion. He does not support this move. In light of the foregoing, how the Friends of the War Museum have the right to appear before this committee and say that they unanimously support the Holocaust exhibit is very puzzling.
Finally, it has been asked earlier: Where does the Department of Veterans Affairs stand on this issue? We have a letter that we can show you which will indicate just where the Department of Veterans Affairs stands. Mr. Holtzhauer wrote to Mr. Don Ives at the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked if he would come before this committee and declare his department's support for the position of the Friends of the War Museum. Mr. Ives wrote back and said that one of the motivations behind the pursuit of the Holocaust Gallery issue by the veterans organizations was the issue of control of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This is the first time that I have ever seen a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs on this whole issue. That is why we raise it here. The representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs stated that they could not advance any opinion which must be either impliedly critical of the probable aim of a principal veterans organization or of the management of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
The Sir Arthur Pearson Association suggests that these views are of great interest and value to your committee. We first suggest that the subcommittee should be careful in accepting the views of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. I will file this letter with your committee if you desire. At least three of the five or six patrons are not in favour of the position taken by the Friends of the Canadian War Museum in support of the Holocaust Gallery.
We believe it is important as well for your committee to know that there is a letter in existence from Veterans Affairs Canada which states implicitly that, at least at the time when it was written, the official of DVA was unable to express an opinion which would be critical of the probable aim of any principal veterans organization.
The concerns of the Sir Arthur Pearson Association are: First, we wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of the statements of Mr. Fred Gaffen. Second, we wanted you to see, in writing, some statements of Adrienne Clarkson, because we had difficulty determining what exactly she was saying. She makes the point that the idea was originally conceived as being within the mandate. She also makes the point that the Holocaust Gallery will add immeasurably to the attractiveness of this War Museum.
Third, the Friends of the Canadian War Museum did appear before this committee. When we became aware of that, it was felt necessary within the Sir Arthur Pearson Association, who are also strong financial supporters of the Friends, that we ensure that this committee realize that the views of Colonel Holtzhauer are not necessarily the views of a number of the patrons.
The Chairman: The Mr. Ives, to whom you referred, is in the commemorative section of DVA in Ottawa; is that correct?
Mr. Chadderton: Yes, Don Ives.
Senator Jessiman: Veterans Affairs Canada does not take your side, though. Are they not sitting on the fence?
Mr. Chadderton: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: They say that they cannot advance any opinion which must be either impliedly critical of the probable aim of the principal veterans organizations -- namely yourselves -- or the management of CMCC. They are saying that they will not take sides. As much as I should like to be able to use that angle, I cannot. I think Veterans Affairs Canada is saying that they will not get in the middle of this argument at this point in time.
Mr. Chadderton: The history of this situation is that Colonel Holtzhauer wrote to Don Ives and asked if they would support their stand, and he did not get that support. That is the point we are making.
Senator Forest: Mr. Chadderton, I wanted to clarify something with you. On page 4, you state that it is indicated in this letter from Mr. Don Ives that the Friends of the Canadian War Museum will support the status quo. I understand the status quo to be what has already taken place.
Mr. Chadderton: No. The meaning in the letter was quite clear. I do not think there is any argument about that. The Friends of the Canadian War Museum, as expressed in the statements by Colonel Holtzhauer and Murray Johnston, were to support the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery. That was the status quo to which they were referring.
I apologize if that it is not exactly clear; however, I can only quote from what is in the letter.
Senator Forest: Do we have a copy of this letter?
Senator Cools: Perhaps we should get a copy of it. If you have a copy, Mr. Chadderton, perhaps you could table it with us.
Mr. Chadderton: I will file it first thing tomorrow morning. Mr. Mayne had all those documents with him, and I did not bother bringing them. I only just found out that he was not appearing.
Senator Cools: I have a comment concerning the newspaper clipping from which you read. You were quoting from Mr. Fred Gaffen. The particular quotation is from The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, February 1, 1997.
Gaffen's gallery will look at other victims of the Nazis, too -- gays, Slavs and gypsies -- and at Bosnia, Rwanda and contemporary examples of war fueled by ethnic hatred. He hopes the exhibit inspires visitors to look at the banal, daily prejudices that still surround us -- prejudices that we hold but cannot see; attitudes that sow the seed of future holocausts.
I understand from Mr. Chadderton, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps we should renew our discussion about bringing Mr. Gaffen before us? Mr. Chadderton is filling in some of the gaps for us. We should review our arrangements with respect to bringing this information before the committee.
The Chairman: I would point out that we are having an in camera meeting at nine o'clock.
Senator Cools: Very well. Do you have any more information? Basically, what we are discussing here is not a museum; it is a political exchange forum. Whatever it would be, it would not be a museum; it would be something else. Whatever it would turn out to be might be valid, but it would not be a museum. Do you have any information on that particular aspect that you can give to us?
Mr. Chadderton: Yes, I do. I was out of the country when this letter appeared. I came back about March 10. I telephoned Mr. Gaffen. I told him I had noticed the headline, "Holocaust museum planned for Ottawa." I had heard that there was to be a holocaust museum. I asked him specifically to explain further what was meant by the anti-Semitism of the Mackenzie King government, for example, and was that to be included? Mr. Gaffen said that he was the curator and that, as far as he was concerned, he was working with Irving Abella and these people, and that is what they wanted to put in.
Specifically, at that time, I did not raise the question of what we might call the other genocides. I was really only interested in the main thrust of the story which was the Holocaust. Mr. Gaffen certainly stated that a person by the name of "Fuzzy" Teitelbaum was chairing a local group that would provide all of the information. She is, perhaps, a scholar on the Holocaust.
He also expressed to me the feeling that, after the publishing of this article, he got his wings clipped. I cannot certify that as his exact statement, but he said to me that he could not discuss it with me any further. That would be about six weeks after the appearance of the article.
Senator Cools: The article makes reference to the same person to whom you referred, a Ms Teitelbaum, who is interviewing survivors as part of the massive Shoah project of Hollywood director Steven Spielberg. Honourable senators, there is a difference between museum work and entertainment. However, that is another matter.
Mr. Chadderton: All we are attempting to do is to provide this document because it was raised yesterday. Apparently no one knew where it was, but we did.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from the first Canadian Parachute Battalion Association.
Mr. Jan De Vries, President, First Canadian Parachute Battalion Association: Honourable senators, on behalf of our members from all across Canada, thank you for allowing our association to appear before you today.
The First Canadian Parachute Battalion was formed in August 1942, and was the only formation of Canadian paratroopers in World War II. We began our training at Fort Benning, U.S.A. In May 1943 we moved to Shilo, Manitoba.
The battalion arrived in England in July 1943 where it became part of the Third Brigade, British Sixth Airborne Division, until June of 1945 when the battalion returned home to Canada.
During those two years, the battalion trained and fought with the Sixth Airborne Division, parachuting into Normandy in the first hour of D-day on June 6, 1944, fighting off German attacks, denying them the opportunity to attack the Allied invasion flank. The battalion continued to fight as infantry until reaching the Seine River in Normandy three months later.
On Christmas Day 1944, the battalion was trucked into the Belgian Ardennes to help stop the German advance in the Battle of the Bulge. Then they were taken to Holland to relieve another unit along the Maas River. From there, the battalion returned to the U.K., regrouped, and then parachuted into Germany over the Rhine on March 24, 1945. That was 53 years ago. A most unpleasant reception was prepared for us. On May 2, 1945, the battalion was the first of the Canadians and the British to meet the Russians in Germany. With the cessation of hostilities in Japan, the battalion was disbanded in September 1945.
No other Canadian unit that I am aware of was involved in the liberation of concentration camps. There is no display of this unique unit in the war museum.
Our association supports the NCVA brief. I should like to emphasize that we are totally opposed to the current proposed plan to include a Holocaust Gallery as part of the Canadian War Museum. Let me assure you, we are not opposed to a Holocaust memorial, but let it be where it is appropriate.
We had men of the Jewish faith in our battalion, but many more aboriginals and Métis. We do not support compartmentalizing the War Museum for any one group of people. We support the concept of Canadians as one. We fought as one.
The War Museum is a memorial to Canada's military, and it must be preserved. It is no less a memorial than the monuments where wreaths are placed across the country. The difference is that the museum also exists to show how and where Canadians fought, and the equipment that they and their enemies used. As has been said, when the museum is enlarged, it will still be too small.
It must also be remembered that, with the closing of bases across Canada and their adjoining museums, there is a huge number of artefacts now looking for a home.
The only connection the Holocaust has with Canada's war effort is that, in the dying days of World War II, Canadians liberated some of the concentration camps. Some photos exist of Canadians at the gates of these camps, or helping the prisoners. These could be shown as similar to that of the liberation of towns and villages, in the order of advance as Canadians moved across Europe.
From what I have heard, the present museum board rationalizes in every possible way the placement of the Holocaust exhibit into the war museum. Why is that necessary? Is it to obscure the truth that it does not belong? If the Holocaust is such a good draw to increase attendance, why is it not in the Museum of Civilization? Attendance is down there, I understand.
Your former colleague the late Senator Stan Waters was not only a distinguished member of the Senate but also one of the patrons of our association and a company commander of our battalion in Germany during the war. He would no doubt agree with our position.
When I joined up in early 1943, I was one of the younger ones. I am 74 now. I heard about Poles being slaughtered all over, about the bombing of London and of civilians, about losses everywhere, but I heard no such word as "Holocaust" until after the war. One should keep in mind, too, that if we are to do something for any other unit or people, we should remember that the Poles fought under Canadian men. The Polish fought at Arnhem. If you are to honour anyone outside of the context of Canadian veterans, you should include the Poles and their efforts on our side.
Regarding the display of Hitler's car and the neat Nazi uniforms, would it not have been more appropriate to show the murder of 132 Canadian PoWs as the other face of Nazism? You may recall that some of those 132 Canadians were slaughtered or shot unarmed in the Ardennes.
Many words spoken recently refer to the Holocaust as one of the reasons we fought. I have already said that I do not recall any of that, nor do any veterans that I have ever spoken to.
We should remember that Hitler hated Jews. It was greed that provided the solution about how to confiscate their valuables. This came to light after the war.
Mr. Glenney mentioned displays put on last summer in the courtyard by the air force and the navy that drew many additional visitors. I was informed that the displays were paid for by those services out of their own funding. We wonder why veterans and knowledgeable tour guides were replaced by the Museum of Civilization guides.
I will also mention that museum funds were required to pay for putting war-time vehicles in operating order. I should like it to be known that a number of those vehicles were rebuilt by volunteers and donated by the Ontario regiment.
To put the size of the Holocaust display or area into perspective, 560 meters is 6,028 square feet, or close to double the size of this room. Take a look at this room, double it, and you will have a good idea of the size of the display that they are intending to put in there. That is a major part of the new addition. It is immaterial now with all of the numbers that are floating around, but the actual increase in the size of the display is 22.5 per cent.
The Holocaust museum in Israel is separate from their war museum. The Holocaust is not needed to raise attendance at our museum, to improve displays and to create a desire to know more about Canada's war efforts. The members of this Senate committee are our last hope that the future of the War Museum will be dedicated to Canadians at war for not just our grandchildren but for generations to come.
The Chairman: When you were giving the history of your battalion, it should be pointed out that you were all volunteers for this new type of warfare. You went through a very rigorous medical exam, plus a lot of rigorous training. You are respected for that today.
Senator Kelly: In the latter part of your presentation, I believe you said that they are trying to put the Holocaust Gallery in with the War Museum. Are you not aware that the people sponsoring the Holocaust Gallery accept an option for a stand-alone installation, and that they consider becoming part of the War Museum a second best option? That is my understanding, from what we have heard. In other words, it was not initiated by those who would be putting together the Holocaust exhibition. The idea was that as the building could draw more crowds, it would be useful to have it there. That seems to be the surrounding motive. Is that not your understanding?
It is important to accept the importance of both. That is what I am saying. I think you do accept the importance of both; you just do not believe they should be put into one enterprise.
Mr. De Vries: Absolutely.
Senator Kelly: Good. I think that is the case.
Mr. Roland Anderson, Past President, First Canadian Parachute Battalion Association: We take a very strong position. We are in concert and on target with the NCVA, Mr. Chadderton's brief, and the resolution passed last November at the meeting in Toronto. You have all the motions that were passed. We have no disagreement with that. In fact, I suspect we were one of the first to endorse that brief. It is incorporated in our brief as well.
We have concerns. Mr. Chadderton mentioned this morning that the idea of piggybacking a Holocaust exhibit into the national War Museum in short order would tend to dominate. Make no mistake about it; that is our fear, whether it is 25 per cent or 35 per cent.
I understand the point you are making, and I think Mr. Chadderton has already responded to that.
Senator Kelly: I did not want the witness to be misunderstood. I am sure he is not, having had this conversation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your views. We also appreciate your contribution in Normandy and the other areas in which you fought.
Our next witnesses are representatives from Operation Legacy. Please proceed.
Ms Raquel Chisholm, President, Operation Legacy: Throughout the deliberations today, we have heard reference to the words "youth," "children," "teenagers" and the phrase "younger generation.". It is an interesting way to end the day hearing from a youth delegation. It is also quite an honour for us to appear on the same day as many distinguished veterans.
I submit this report as President of Operation Legacy, an organization consisting of graduates from the child amputee or CHAMP program of the War Amputations of Canada. I myself had amputation surgery when I was a year and a half. I had my right foot removed due to a birth defect. My colleague Jane Peterson has been missing her left arm since birth. We have been involved in the program for many years.
I am also a graduate of Bishop's University, where I received an honours degree in history.
Through the CHAMP program, our members have developed strong relationships with war amputee veterans, which began in 1975 when the CHAMP program was initiated. From the beginning, the bond formed between war amputees and the children in the CHAMP program was a special one. I have images in my head of 77-year-old men and seven-year-old boys comparing artificial legs. The boys have the Senators printed on their legs, and some of the veterans have 50-year-old legs. They have many things to talk about.
Through the veterans' efforts, CHAMPS and their families receive the financial and emotional support required to live productive and fulfilling lives. Jane and I represent that aspect. The winner's circle philosophy, conceived and proven by the war amputee veterans themselves, has encouraged all members of CHAMP to succeed at whatever we have chosen to accomplish.
From 1975 to now, almost 25 years later, graduates of the CHAMP program have come together to form Operation Legacy. We have been given the opportunity to learn about Canada's military history in an exciting and unique way. Members have attended as many as seven seminars dealing with all aspects of war throughout the 20th century. We learn about Canada's role in these wars, not from books but from the veterans themselves. With their frank and open discussions about the realities of war, it is safe to say that the members of Operation Legacy are well versed in practically all aspects of Canada's military heritage, and we have many questions about the things we do not know.
From what began as an off-shoot of the war amps CHAMP program for child amputees, Operation Legacy has developed into a strong, independent and dedicated group of young Canadians committed to commemorating and preserving Canada's military heritage. The members of Operation Legacy are men and women from all across Canada. Some are still university students working on degrees, while others are already beginning their careers in the construction industry, engineering, law, education, and so on. We really do represent a cross-section of Canada's young adult population.
Because our mission statement is to commemorate and preserve Canada's military heritage, we feel that our voices should be heard concerning the future of the Canadian War Museum. After all, the future of this museum is our future. When the veterans from the Second World War and the Korean War are no longer with us, how will we continue to learn what happened in the trenches at Vimy or on the beaches of Normandy, and who will teach our children about Canada's participation in the Korean conflict?
The current controversy concerning the proposal to house a Holocaust Gallery within the Canadian War Museum has proven to be very divisive, unfortunately. We want to make it perfectly clear that we do not oppose the idea of a Holocaust Gallery per se; we do object to the proposed location. Canada's veterans deserve an expanded museum to house all the artefacts currently in storage. They deserve a museum that is dedicated to telling their stories to the questions we ask them: Why did they join the military? What did they experience as soldiers? How much do Canadians owe them for our freedom? The Holocaust Gallery is a worthwhile endeavor, but it should not be in the Canadian War Museum.
This brief first provides you with aims and objectives which I would like to read to you and expand upon, and then I have the views of our members, which pretty much speak for themselves.
Our mission statement is to commemorate and preserve Canada's military heritage.
Our first aim and objective is to gain an understanding about the realities of the horrors of war through personal contact with Canada's veterans. Mrs. Peterson and I and 20 of our members were in a room smaller than this and had the privilege of listening to Roger Seer, a Hong Kong veteran, explain how it was for him, from the time he joined the military forces, to the time he left on the ships, to the time he got to Hong Kong, to the time on Christmas Day when he was captured, and 44 months later when he was finally liberated. That was a powerful experience that we still talk about when we are together.
To document firsthand accounts of veterans' war-time experiences. This is the age of television. One of our members is a video editor and works to create videos which document these stories.
To act as liaison between veterans and Canada's youth. I see us acting as a conduit, because we have such a close connection with veterans and are able to pass that on to people of our own generation and younger people.
To educate Canada's present and future generations about the realities of war. Every November, our members go out into the community, to schools, to community groups, to Cub groups, and to the media, and talk about the realities of war and what they have learned from veterans firsthand.
To pay tribute to all those who served Canada during war-time, and to ensure that their sacrifices are not forgotten. An important fact of Operation Legacy is that this is a year-round program and commitment. We have a push at Remembrance Day, but it is something to which we are committed all year round.
To challenge revisionism to ensure an accurate and unbiased account of Canada's military history. Recently, the History channel, one of the new specialty channels, showed The Valour and the Horror. Our members were part of an E-mail campaign telling them that we disagree with the fact that they showed that film.
On a personal note, again I mention that I have a history degree. I distinctly remember my professor telling me, "When you work on the 19th century feminist movement, do not do it as a 1990s woman. You cannot use your biases and hindsight. You must be objective." That is what we want to bring forward.
To work with present and future generations to outline global conflict, understanding that a military deterrent may be necessary. We are strong supporters of the War Amps Never Again program which states that we, as I am sure do all veterans, do not want to see our generation go through what they did. As much as we admire what they did, I do not think we want that repeated. One of our members has a way of explaining it, saying that we do not want to throw all the weapons into the ocean. We do want a military deterrent, but we do not want to go through that again.
To foster a message of hope for the future. Our generation is the first generation to grow up with no understanding of the kind of global conflict that my Mom heard about when her father came home from the war, for example. It was 50 years ago. We have not had World War III, and we should like to continue that circumstance.
Finally, to preserve the War Amps, its programs for amputees and its commitment to protect Canada's military history well into the future. Already written into the Constitution of the War Amps is that those of us who grow up in the CHAMP program will take over and ensure that the CHAMP program for child amputees will continue, but also that the military history that they have worked so hard to protect continues to be protected by us.
That is, in a nutshell, who we are, what we believe, and what we are all about. The video that I have been permitted to show you gives you a better idea, because it is history from the mouths of our members. This is us, not just one person talking to you. Perhaps we could play that at this time.
(Video presentation)
(Following Video Presentation)
Ms Chisholm: That pretty much explains what we are all about. This video was made a few years ago, and it does not mention the War Museum controversy.
I will now ask Jane Peterson to read one of the letters in our brief, which summarizes our thoughts on this issue. You have before you the rest of the statements in our brief, and they speak for themselves, but this letter wraps it up.
Ms Jane Peterson, Secretary, Operation Legacy: The letter is from one of our Manitoba representatives and it reads as follows:
There has been quite a stir in the national media lately regarding the proposal by the Board of Directors of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to build a Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum, which is controlled by the same board.
On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable, if not overdue, proposal. What is at issue here, however, is the chosen location for the Gallery.
The Canadian War Museum's mandate is to "preserve Canada's military heritage" and, presumably, to honour the veterans of Canadian military service. In this context, a Gallery commemorating the victims of the Holocaust seems a strange fit.
In serving their country, Canada's veterans also made great sacrifices and lost friends and relatives. It seems to me that taking away space from one worthy group to honour another is an injustice to both of their memories. It would perhaps be more appropriate that a monument to an event that has so widely affected Canadian society be located within the Canadian Museum of Civilization itself.
It is for this reason that Canadian veterans' associations have opposed the CMC's proposal. While wholeheartedly supporting the establishment of a Holocaust Gallery, they do not believe it should be at the expense of the commemoration of their accomplishments and sacrifices. As a member of Operation Legacy, and someone who has heard the veterans' stories first hand, I would also agree that the history of Canada's veterans should not take a back seat to anyone.
Ms Chisholm: You will notice that within our brief we do not make any specific recommendations as to what you should decide. We will leave that for the veterans. For now, I have underlined here that 10, 20, 30 years from now, it will be us coming to a Senate subcommittee protecting Canada's military heritage. For now, we will leave that up to the veterans to make the recommendations, and I sincerely hope you take them into account.
Our generation has often been called "Generation X" in the media. We have been accused of being slackers; people who do not care about, or believe in, anything. As you can see from that video and from our brief, we are a group of productive, young Canadians who care deeply about Canada's military heritage, and we believe strongly in what you are doing this week.
However, we are also quite media-savvy, growing up in the generation that we did. A lot of the talk today has been about what the museum can do to entice us to come in and see the collection. I will conclude with a story that has touched me deeply. It is so simple that it tells it all.
I was speaking with one of the war amps at a function. He and I were quietly talking and I asked him a simple question: "Where did you lose your arm?" He said, "Several miles outside of Berlin." I stopped and said, "Wow, you almost made it. You almost got out of there." That story has stuck with me for years. It is very simple but, to me, that is a big part of Canada's military heritage.
I do not need a lot of bells and whistles, and I do not believe our generation does, either.
Thank you for allowing Operation Legacy to appear. Please help us commemorate and preserve Canada's military heritage. The veterans deserve it, and so do the future generations of Canadians who will visit the museum for decades to come.
The Chairman: Thank you for a most interesting and encouraging brief.
Senator Jessiman: How many members do you have in total?
Ms Chisholm: We have probably 100 members.
Senator Jessiman: Where are they located?
Ms Chisholm: Across the country, from Saint John's to Victoria. However, we have thousands of children in the CHAMP program, and they are recruits for the future.
Senator Jessiman: Where is your head office?
Ms Chisholm: The War Amps organization gives us some space.
Senator Jessiman: Is that in Ottawa?
Ms Chisholm: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: And you are located in every province?
Ms Chisholm: Yes, in every province.
Senator Forest: I heard about Operation Legacy a number of years ago when a search committee with which I was involved gave a prestigious award to Mr. Chadderton. I have great respect for the work that War Amps have done, and still do. I have had a key chain identification for a number of years. Their work is important. The focus of these hearings has been on preserving the history for the next generation. There is no better way to do that than through the next generation.
Senator Chalifoux: You have given us a lot of hope.
Senator Kelly: I do not want to miss an opportunity, either, to say that it has been marvellous. We have heard some excellent presentations here today. Yours is by far the best, and by far the most reassuring.
The Chairman: I concur. It was a refreshing brief. It is encouraging to the veterans.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Because of what is said about youth, seeing people like you gives me hope. You are the living proof that reproaches levelled at youths are not all justified.
[English]
The Chairman: I wish to remind honourable senators that there is an in camera meeting at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned.