Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 1:30 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, our first witnesses this afternoon are from the Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association.
Mr. John Gregorovich, Chairman, Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Thank you. Appearing with me this afternoon is Mr. Steve Petylycky, a survivor of the German death camps. A few details of his story are in our submission which I believe was received by you on Monday of this week. There are two articles by him which detail some of his background.
Both of us have a personal interest in the narrow topic of the Holocaust or the deaths in Europe during the Second World War. In my case, I lost three relatives during that war from the foothills of Carpathian Mountains. These three young men were killed because they were Ukrainian patriots. Two were killed by Soviet Russia and the third was tortured to death by the Gestapo.
The cover of our submission, Mr. Chairman, has a drawing, identified on the inside. The artist of that drawing was an inmate of the Auschwitz concentration camp and drew the drawings while he was in the camp. He survived the war and these were published in 1946.
The liberties and affluence that Canadians enjoy today are the result of the efforts of men and women who sacrificed themselves in Canada's wars. It is the moral duty of all of us to ensure that they are remembered.
Accordingly, we support the expansion of the Canadian War Museum to carry out its mandate in that regard. We also support a Holocaust exhibit within the Canadian Museum of Civilization. We agree with the position taken by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which is the umbrella group of Ukrainian Canadian organizations. I believe a fax was received from the congress yesterday which was intended for distribution to the committee. That one-page submission covers the issue of how the question of the remembering, commemorating and studying the Holocaust or deaths of all people during the Second World War in Europe, Asia and Africa should be pursued.
We support the position of the Royal Canadian Legion. We also support the submission of the National Council of Veterans Organizations. We do oppose the attachment of a Holocaust Gallery to the Canadian War Museum.
Our interest is narrowly focused at this point. We are focusing on the question of genocide. Approximately 14.5 million Ukrainians, including 600,000 Ukrainian Jews, were lost in the Second World War. The details include the fact that 459 villages were completely destroyed, in 27 villages the villages were destroyed and all the men, women and children in them were killed. For example, in the village of Kortelisy, 2,892 men, women and children were massacred and the village was destroyed.
Some other of the details of these losses include the following: 3,898,500 Ukrainians were killed by the German army on the territory of Ukraine; 1,366,699 Ukrainians were killed as war prisoners in concentration camps; in the period 1941-43, 2,244,000 Ukrainians were deported to work as slave labourers -- Gastarbeiter -- in German munitions factories and in Austria.
It is because of these horrendous figures that we submit and we believe that if Canada should have a genocide museum that it should include all losses and, in our submission to you, we have suggested why it should be called a "genocide" museum. Of course, because the term "Holocaust" is so intimately linked with Jewish losses in Europe during the Second World War, the term should probably be restricted to that, and the broader term "genocide" used to describe the other losses.
Mr. Steve Petylycky, Ukrainian Holocaust Survivor: Honourable senators, I am a survivor of three Nazi concentration camps. My number is 154,922. The people I met in the concentration camp were Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Yugoslavian, Czechoslovakian, Italian, German and French. I remember all of them, and they should never be forgotten. We must have justice for them.
Mr. Gregorovich: That is the end of our submission, Mr. Chairman, and we will now answer any specific questions.
The Chairman: I was rather intrigued to read your article about Corporal Konowal, and I recently had the pleasure of writing a letter of recommendation for one of his descendants who told me about him. I enjoyed reading this.
Senator Forest: Welcome gentlemen. I am an Edmontonian and very familiar with Vegreville and your family name. I appreciate you coming and reminding us of the sad history of the people of the Ukraine.
I would like to be very clear, however, on your recommendations. You are recommending that the War Museum remain as a War Museum?
Mr. Gregorovich: Yes.
Senator Forest: Should it be put into another museum, you are recommending the establishment of another museum which would demonstrate to the people the horrors of genocide, but you would not want that limited; is that correct? You would not want to call it a "Holocaust Museum" because you would want it to encompass the genocide which has occurred all over the world?
Mr. Gregorovich: Yes, that is our recommendation, senator. The difficulty lies on both sides. At least in my reading, a substantial part of the Jewish community feels that to apply the word "Holocaust," which has become intimately linked with the killing of Jews by Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1945, diminishes it. Obviously that is an arguable point, but the feeling appears to be there to a significant degree.
The other side of it is that, as far as the general public is concerned I think the same linkage occurs. When people see the name they have an impression of what they expect to see in it. That is why we felt that in a genocide museum, within the context of the museums -- and logically there are several ways to approach it -- the killing of the Jews in Europe in 1939 to 1945 could be a significant part of it. There could be a separate section or separate gallery for it if that is what the Jewish community feels would be most appropriate as a memorial to these victims.
That must be determined in reference to the feelings of the Jewish community because they have done a tremendous job in making the world aware of that, and I would think it would be unfair to detract from that by requiring them to be part of a genocide museum when they have worked so hard to familiarize us with the Holocaust.
Senator Forest: In a genocide museum, if we should call it that, you would be interested, no doubt, in depicting what has happened since World War II in Rwanda and so many other countries.
Mr. Gregorovich: Yes, of course. Actually, if the museum is to reflect and to be a study of what has happened and why we have genocide, it should depict history. For example, over 2,000 years ago when the Romans conquered Carthage, they slew all the inhabitants and they sewed the fields with salt so nothing would grow there again. That is genocide.
If you are to depict and study genocide, if you will, not just display a series of horrendous pictures, you must consider the past and try to determine from that or learn from that what happened.
I am afraid we have the same problem in Canada, in all fairness. We know that the Beothuks in Newfoundland were decimated and then destroyed by the settlers in Newfoundland. If we are to be honest with ourselves we must look at that part of our history as well.
It should include the present day. After the Second World War people said that this could not happen again, that it was an aberration. Yet, it is happening today. In fact, in Tibet, it has been happening since 1954. It has happened in Rwanda. It has happened in East Timor, where one-third of the population has been killed. Genocide is occurring today. I believe that we should memorialize the people who died; however if we are to do a fair job, we should consider what is happening today. In that sense, the museum can be a contemporary museum and not just a museum of the past.
Senator Forest: That is in addition to its historical context as an educational tool.
Mr. Gregorovich: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you. Has your suggestion for a genocide museum ever been passed on to anyone at the War Museum or at the Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Gregorovich: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Jessiman: Is there anywhere else in the world where there are such museums?
Mr. Gregorovich: To my knowledge, no. There are museums in the former Soviet Union or, I should say there are memorials and artefacts, but I am not aware of such a museum in the world. This suggestion would be a first and, in fact, Canada would be the leader in the world. That is not a bad thing. It would set an example to other countries if we take a serious look at this as a scholarly enterprise and as an educational tool.
Senator Prud'homme: It is not easy to question the Canadian-Ukrainian community because very often, and sadly so, you are in the middle of immense controversy on many issues. I do not intend to remain silent on those issues. I may have done badly this morning but it is only in preparation for a debate to come.
I am thankful to you for continuing our education as to the horror of the last world war. There were 25 million people killed in what used to be known as the Soviet Union. A film has been made about the 1 million or 1.5 million who died in one battle in Leningrad. I wish I could be more precise. We do not often hear about that. There is also the Asia front.
Some people feel we should concentrate on only one or two issues. As I said this morning, I very much resent being given lessons by the Americans who may have never joined in the fray if the Pearl Harbour attack had not taken place. They were latecomers, but today they want to be in the forefront. That is all very well, but they need not be teaching Canadians what to do in these matters.
We want to be clear that you feel the Canadian War Museum should receive the planned extension. They should not be punished for saying they do not want to house this specific exhibit. I do share your concern about that.
I am glad some Canadians of Jewish faith agree with me that we should not dilute the Holocaust memorial if it is to be built. I am even of the opinion that it should not be in the Museum of Civilization because one of the two will suffer. It may very quickly become known as the "Holocaust Museum". Genocide, though, is a responsibility of the Museum of Civilization. If there is something they could do for mankind it would be to tell us what genocide is all about, in addition to a Holocaust memorial being built elsewhere in Ottawa. No one seems to object. The question is the money, of course.
Do you agree that the Canadian government's first responsibility should be to build an this extension to the War Museum?
Mr. Gregorovich: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: The second responsibility is deciding what to do on the general question of a genocide exhibit. Most likely it should be in the Museum of Civilization.
I am of the issue of sensitivity. Mr. Trudeau taught me in caucus to always be careful not to pit communities against other communities. This is taking place in Western Canada on many issues, particularly the one with which you are concerned. If there is to be only a Holocaust museum, then others will ask why, if it is financed by the federal government, does the museum not cover other genocides. That is one of my concerns, and I believe it is a legitimate one.
The Chairman: I would like to question you concerning the genocide museum, but it would be rather unfair of me to do that in advance of the witness who is appearing tomorrow morning, Mr. Levine. He has a proposal which could be very easily developed into a genocide museum. I would appreciate it if you would review that and let us know what you think of his proposal.
I mentioned the particular building involved to someone on Monday and they said there would be some concern about air conditioning or environmental controls. On reflection, every building in Ottawa of that age needs remodelling.
I have a certain interest in a genocide museum also, so I would appreciate your review. If you do not receive tomorrow's testimony form Mr. Onu, the clerk, then remind us and we will make sure you receive it.
Mr. Gregorovich: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it is a very personal and difficult task for you.
Mr. Gregorovich: Thank you, senators.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Professor Terry Copp. Professor Copp has appeared before this committee before. He is a noted military historian but what I particularly remember about him is that before The Valour and The Horror he produced a number of documentary films on World War II with his own funding. He had no government support.
Please proceed with your presentation.
Professor Terry Copp, Sir Wilfrid Laurier University: Thank you for asking me to appear before this committee. I was also with you, you will recall, for the study of post-traumatic stress disorder. I thought that was a particularly important dialogue.
I sent to the committee a copy of a relatively short brief I was able to put together. I trust you received it. On balance, I would prefer not to read it but rather to make a series of quite specific points and then move to the last of the points that I made in the brief, because I believe that might engage the committee in a useful dialogue.
This discussion paper addresses three issues: the purpose of an exhibit gallery or museum focused on the Holocaust; the impact such a gallery might have on the Canadian War Museum; and lastly, a proposal that a gallery in the War Museum should focus not on the Holocaust in general but on a specific aspect related to Camp Westerbork in the Netherlands, the principal Nazi transit camp which was liberated by Canadian troops in April, 1945.
I then outline my opinions which I think I can summarize very briefly.
I believe that putting a gallery in the Canadian War Museum that dealt with the Holocaust would diminish both the significance of the Holocaust as an issue in the history of the 20th century and in the history of humanity, and would so seriously impact upon the present and future purpose of the War Museum that it, in my opinion, would call into question quite seriously whether it is something that should be done. I gather, from having followed you on CPAC and in the newspapers, that many other people have made that point. I would be happy to address it, but for the moment I would prefer to pass on and say, if we were to operate on the assumption that, after these hearings, the government, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation and the War Museum all agreed that the proper direction to go in was to establish a separate Holocaust museum in a separate building, linked perhaps geographically and otherwise with the Canadian War Museum, that, in my view, would be the proper course to pursue.
However, that really does not take us very far because what I think the mandate of your committee must address is the question of the future of the Canadian War Museum and what its purposes are as we head into the 21st century.
I flew into Ottawa early this morning and refreshed my memory of the War Museum. I had not been there since last summer when I went to see the new peacekeeping exhibit, and I confess, when I went to see the third floor last summer, I did not go back through the material on the First and Second World Wars.
I take students on battlefield tours to Europe every year with the Canadian Battle of Normandy Foundation and visit museums, for example, this incredible museum that all Canadians should know about in Otegem, Belgium, which was built by the goodwill of a single individual who built it in honour of the Canadian liberation of Belgium. It is called "The Canada Museum" in Otegem.They should also know about the new museum in Péronne, France called L'Historiale de la Première Guerre Mondiale, as well as museums in Normandy. I want to say this very carefully: I believe that the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the staff of the Canadian War Museum have done an extraordinary job of keeping alive the mission of telling the story of what Canada has attempted to do in the two great wars of this century and, indeed, in the broad issue of Canadian military history.
But in any kind of international comparison, the Canadian War Museum, to the visitor wandering in off the street, is a terrible disappointment. It is crowded, it is small, it is not in any way interactive. There is a brilliant collection of artefacts, one of the world's most extraordinary collections of war art. You only need to read a book that is published internationally to see how often British or French or American authors draw upon the Canadian war art collection because of the quality of what was done -- and not merely the quality in the sense of its technical expertise but the fact that artists like Alex Colville or Harris or others in the Second World War infused their work with meaning. They are not simply pictures that describe; they are paintings that draw out what was in fact happening in the war. This morning in my tour at the War Museum it was possible to see some of those paintings under conditions that are, let us be honest, far less ideal than most of us would hope for.
I hope that the result of the committee's activities and of the publicity, discussion and activities that are underway in the country will address the question of the future of the Canadian War Museum in the 21st century and will provide additional funds so that the war art collection and the artefact collection can be better displayed to the public.
However, I must say that I am unhappy with the way in which the War Museum fails to address the questions of what the great struggles of the 20th century were about. It seems to me that if a young person can see a series of artefacts, and if their teacher or grandfather or someone knowledgeable has told them what these artefacts mean, then the possibility exists that it can be a good educational experience. This is not a criticism of the War Museum staff, it is a criticism of the way in which we as a country have consistently failed to pay attention to our past. We are a people who seem to think the country gets reinvented every two or three years and our connection with the past is something we do not seem to hold in very high esteem.
There is no discussion of the causes of the Second World War, and anyone who is unfamiliar with it would not know why Canada went to war in 1939. There is certainly no discussion of the nature of the First World War. There is no discussion of issues that would give meaning to what it is that we are wishing to learn.
I now turn to the question of the Holocaust, its impact on the Second World War, and its impact upon Canadians.
It seems to me that a War Museum that deals with the great conflicts of the 20th century and which has a specific and significant body of information about the Second World War and which does not address the Holocaust in some way or another, is simply a War Museum which is staying away from one of the central issues of the 20th century. Therefore, in my brief I suggest one step that the War Museum should take in the context of the development of a separate Holocaust museum which addresses the broad issue of the origins of Nazi racial policies, the question of the gradual development of the Nuremberg laws, the introduction of other measures against the Jews of Germany, the introduction of course through to the Wansee Conference of 1942 of what we call the Final Solution -- issues so monumental that they ought to be dealt with in a quite separate museum, in my view. In the War Museum the necessity of attaching the significance of the events we call the Holocaust to the war efforts seems to me to not have been one wit diminished by the existence of a separate Holocaust museum. Therefore, I suggested that the War Museum should have, in its new configuration and with its new gallery space, a gallery that, for example, might specifically focus on those days in April, 1945 when the First Canadian Army was ordered to proceed north to carry out the liberation of Holland, and when the Second Canadian Infantry Division, tasked with the particular responsibility of pushing north from Arnum towards the Dutch city of Groningen, came across Westerbork.
Camp Westerbork was established in 1938 by the Dutch government and by the Jewish community of the Netherlands to provide a place for refugees from Nazi Germany who had fled across the border from Germany into Holland in the aftermath of the kristall nacht, or night of broken glass, in November, 1938. Initially, it was a camp for refugees. After the fall of Holland in 1940, the camp was transformed into, first, what one might call a concentration camp or a holding camp for both German Jews and Dutch Jews who were gradually brought to Westerbork. After the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, the implementation of the Final Solution and the construction of the death camps in Poland, the camp became a place where the Jewish communities of the Netherlands were gathered together. In the course of the next years, 1942, 1943, and on to September 1944, approximately 63 train loads of men, women and children were shipped from Westerbork mainly to Auschwitz. They were also shipped to other death camps.
The last train that left Camp Westerbork before the Canadians arrived to liberate the camp contained Anne Frank and her family who had been rounded up in Amsterdam. Anne Frank and her family eventually ended up in Bergen-Belsen, which I will come to in a moment. Only one member of that family survived, which is why we were able to obtain the diaries from the house in Amsterdam that have become such a central part of our story of the Second World War.
Recently, a Canadian veteran, Mr. Law, a retired professor emeritus of Queen's University, wrote a book about the Camp Westerbork story. It is a typical comment on Canada that Mr. Law has had an enormously difficult time in finding a publisher and the book will probably be published in such a way that will almost guarantee that it does not get broad circulation in bookstores. Those of us in the business of writing Canadian history are used to that, so we are not terribly surprised.
The Camp Westerbork story is of particular importance to Mr. Law because, as a young lieutenant in command of the scout platoon of the South Saskatchewan regiment, he was one of the first Canadians to enter Camp Westerbork to find the remaining groups of Jewish Dutch citizens who had not yet been transported to the death camps. It was discovered that the Germans, who had withdrawn from Camp Westerbork north towards the city of Groningen, had taken over 200 from the camp with them. Fortunately, resistance was collapsing so quickly that the 200 who were taken were rescued. In addition to those in Camp Westerbork, the additional 200 who had been removed were rescued by the Canadians as they advanced towards the city of Groningen.
Mr. Law tells the story as a good historian should. I have spent the last 15 years of my life talking to veterans and trying to get their story clear. The second division had fought a battle in the Rheinland that lasted from February 8 to roughly March 10. The Canadians then had to cross the Rhein to engage in the liberation of Holland. The collection of BBC broadcasts tell about how the war was almost over, how the Russians were on the suburbs of Berlin and how the Americans and British were racing forward. Yet, each day, we asked our young men to go back into battle, a battle in which many of them would be killed. We lost people in the last three days of the war, never mind in that spring of liberation in Holland.
Part of that process included the liberation of Camp Westerbork and the beginning of a glimmering of understanding of what it is that the Nazis had done. It is true -- and Mr. Law documents this -- that the people left in Camp Westerbork themselves did not believe in the Final Solution. They could not let themselves believe that their friends who had been deported from the camp had actually been sent to death camps. Therefore, they continued to believe that they were being resettled.
The Canadians barely had time to pause. They did some basic relief work and handed it over to the next group, but the city of Groningen was being defended and all of the second division was drawn into a battle that lasted five days in the streets of that Dutch city, where you were not allowed to fight in the manner that you would fight elsewhere. You could not use artillery against the Dutch people. You had to fight in a way that put a particular burden upon the ordinary soldier. As they were doing that, the news of Bergen-Belsen -- and, this was the first occasion upon which photographs of a concentration camp that had been converted into a death camp became available -- broke. Canadians were held for a time in Bergen-Belsen. A Canadian photographer arrived there. In our series No Price Too High we used film footage from the Canadian discovery of what was going on in Bergen-Belsen. In my book version of No Price Too High, I have used those photographs and some of the letters to document this.
As the War Museum heads into the 21st century, it should address the question of the origins of wars, the meaning of Canadian participation, and the meaning of the Holocaust and its interception. It could not possibly undertake to tell the entire story of the Holocaust or the entire story of genocide as a practice in the 20th century, but it could ensure that the visitor understands that the Second World War was about tremendously important issues, and that the young Canadians who went off to fight for the freedom of people in Europe -- including, for example, the very large number of Ukrainian Canadians and Jewish Canadians who joined the Canadian Armed Forces -- were engaged in a struggle that has real and continuing meaning.
Whatever we decide, it is time for this country to make up its mind about the way in which it wants to remember its past and the way it wants to teach it to younger generations. If it thinks these matters are serious and Canada's involvement in the history of the modern world is serious, then the notion that the museum may not be able to expand because people cannot find $2 million is absolutely extraordinary. I find myself stunned by the experience of the last three or four years.
I will stop there. I could take up all your time, but I must not do that.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor Copp. As usual, your remarks were most interesting and your delivery was at its very best.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you, professor. You have given us a different slant from that presented by other witnesses.
We were told that there are now some items in our present museum that refer to the Holocaust. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Copp: Yes. The War Museum has struggled repeatedly to put on exhibits that try to bring this sense of meaning to the war. The paintings of A. Bayefsky on display on the third floor at the moment are extraordinary. You probably know that the journal we publish at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University is published in association with the War Museum. In our most recent issue, we placed the very dramatic painting that is symbolic of Bayefsky's experience of the Holocaust, and which has haunted him through the rest of his career. We also included in it an article on the exhibit which Laura Brandon, the outstanding art curator of the War Museum, wrote. She writes an article in every issue of our journal. Our association with the War Museum in trying to bring this kind of scholarly attention to these important issues is a positive association.
Yes, there is also other reference to the Holocaust in the War Museum, but the War Museum, in general --
Senator Jessiman: You say, "in general", so it does not specify the Camp at Westerbrok.
Mr. Copp: I do not think there is a reference to that, no.
Senator Jessiman: Have you ever been consulted by the War Museum or the Museum of Civilization in the last few years in respect of the War Museum?
Mr. Copp: No.
Senator Jessiman: Is this suggestion something new to the persons at the War Museum or the Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Copp: I do not want for a moment to suggest that the people at the War Museum do not understand that, under the right circumstances, these problems should be addressed; however, the specific suggestion of linking it to Camp Westerbork is not one they have had under active consideration.
Senator Jessiman: I confess my ignorance, because many other things happened during that war. There was Dieppe, Dunkirk, Normandy, Sicily, Italy and the Far East. Your suggestion is a good one and may be a small compromise. I would think, and you might tell me if I am wrong, that your suggestion would cost much less than what has been visualized before.
Mr. Copp: It would cost much less. My great concern about a Holocaust Gallery on the scale that was originally planned in the War Museum -- and I am not the first one to say this -- is that if it is well done, it would be so powerful, so evocative, and so central that it would overpower the War Museum. If it is badly done, then we would be dreadfully unhappy with the results of a kind of partial exhibit. On the other hand, I do not accept the view that is sometimes argued that Canadian participation in the Second World War can be detached from the history of the 20th century.
Senator Jessiman: Are you familiar with the British Imperial War Museum and its location?
Mr. Copp: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Is that in Hyde Park?
Mr. Copp: No. It is located on the south bank of the Thames.
Senator Jessiman: I have a map showing Kensington on one side.
Mr. Copp: The tube stop is Lambeth North and the Elephant and Castle. If you walk from the other direction, it is south of the Thames, in fact, in the old Bedlam Asylum.
Senator Jessiman: It is Kensington Road, Lambeth Road, Brook Drive, but it is to the right side of a park, and I was wondering what park that was. It would appear to be in a much larger space.
Mr. Copp: It is enormously larger. If I may, in the Imperial War Museum, until a substantial investment to finance a massive rebuilding program and major renovation, firstly, there was not a Holocaust gallery, and, secondly, it was in many ways a slightly larger version of our War Museum. I think the British decided that this would not do, and substantial funds were invested in new galleries. For instance, their art collection is in a superb new gallery in part of the building, as are their large artefacts. The decision to attach a Holocaust Gallery to the Imperial War Museum came after a major expansion that dealt with most of the existing problems. I do not want to revisit the British decision to attach a Holocaust Gallery to the Imperial War Museum, but the context was completely different.
Senator Jessiman: It is so substantially larger, as I can see. They have the lower ground floor, the ground floor, the first floor, the second floor, and they will spend the equivalent of $25 million for the Holocaust museum. The military were all for it because, I assume, they were satisfied with what was already devoted to their section.
Our problem is that the military, the veterans, are very dissatisfied with how we are presenting, for the future, what happened in the wars of the past. If we could satisfy those concerns and be in the position the British are in now, I believe the military would support this. Perhaps we can do both, but surely the War Museum should be increased in size. The money should be spent. They are only talking of $12 million. That probably will not be enough, but at least it will be a start. If we can arrange some further funds and the government gets into a surplus position, as we might hear very soon, perhaps they can help with a Holocaust Gallery, or if not a Holocaust Gallery as such, a genocide museum or whatever. That is very important as well. Thank you very much.
Senator Prud'homme: I have a comment, but no questions. I believe that, at times it is good to reflect. I know you have appeared before this committee before. I have a bad habit of reading almost everything that falls in my hands, including sad press communiqués, and I am always open to being persuaded to another view. I have no reached a definite opinion, but I am inclined to believe that the War Museum should stand on its own.
[Translation]
If you dilute the Holocaust tragedy, someone loses somewhere. I don't want there to be any losers. By putting them together, there will be a loser.
For the War Museum not to talk about the Holocaust would be unthinkable. There were those Anne Frank Days. The Museum of Civilization occasionally organizes big exhibits. There is nothing to keep them from saying that, in such and such a month, something will be held.
We could talk about the Armenian genocide, or this one or that one, while hoping that you will get this monument dedicated specifically to the Holocaust. You cannot have one without the other. We cannot ignore the other one. It seems incredible to me that the War Museum does not talk about Hong Kong. A link must be made for young people when we talk about Hong Kong. What were we doing in Hong Kong? It is tied in with a whole series of events, that is another thing. We always talk about Europe, but millions of people suffered in Asia. The Commonwealth and Canada were involved. When you talk about neglecting Hong Kong, you open other doors by mentioning that Hong Kong was related to what the Japanese were doing, to certain atrocities and God knows how many there were for someone like yourself. You probably know history better than I do. I am very interested in these questions. We cannot talk about Japan without talking about atomic weapons. I understand the first bomb, I do not agree with it. I have always noticed that it was not in Europe that an atomic bomb was dropped. Perhaps it was easier to drop it on Asians. It scares me to say so. I am no doubt going to have problems. But I have more difficulty understanding the second atomic bomb. We cannot ignore those events. What takes priority at this point?
It seems unthinkable to me that the Canadian Jewish communities, which are so well organized -- they can do it with a great deal of intelligence, tact and know-how -- should not have an auditorium where they could talk about the Holocaust. They would be very pleased to tie that all in together.
One of the good presentations that surprised everyone yesterday was by some young girls who came in the name of Operation Legacy. They were the only ones to present a real video. It had a strong effect on everyone, even the people in the audience. The community is capable of doing videos that break your heart. When you want to make people understand the horror of the Holocaust, and I am saying this for my friends from B'nai Brith who are still here, you have to touch people's hearts. You need to touch their hearts.
[English]
Once people are made aware of what happened, then they will recognize that it was a monstrosity and that it should never happen again. We should not try to intimidate those who may not agree, we should educate those who are unaware. I cannot say that I disagree or agree with you. We all want the same thing but we may want to go about it in a different way.
I am glad the Honourable Mr. Danson, who is a friend of mine, has been appointed. At long last they will have someone in that position who knows about military matters. That is why he was appointed. I delivered messages for him in the Middle East. I say it publicly and I am sure that he will not deny that. I did my work anonymously.
What is the best scenario that can come out of this?
Mr. Copp: I will be very brief in my comment. I thought what you said was most interesting and we are in very close agreement.
I do not think that the War Museum would need to choose between explaining to people who came in about Hong Kong, for example, or the Holocaust. My position is quite simple: I think there should be a separate Holocaust museum, but I do not think the existence of a separate Holocaust museum removes the necessity of explaining to people the meaning of the Great War and of the Second World War, and intrinsic to the meaning of that war is the Holocaust. Therefore, I am just suggesting a way of doing it, as I would hope to do in trying to explain what happened in Hong Kong in 1941. You would make a genuine attempt to enter into the minds of the decision makers and try to understand the dilemma they were facing when making the decision to send Canadian troops to Hong Kong.
Senator Prud'homme: As well as the meaning of "peacekeeping".
Mr. Copp: Exactly.
Senator Prud'homme: We brag about it, but we do not explain it adequately.
Mr. Copp: We are in agreement.
Senator Cools: Dr. Copp, you said something profound. You talked about the need for a country, as a nation, to make decisions about whether or not it holds its history dear, and whether it wants to relate that history, and the kind and quantity, not quality, of resources that it makes available to the relating of that history. You talked about the extraordinary requirement of $2 million which we, as members of this committee, realize is not a lot of money.
I hear you clearly saying that both of these stories, the story of the wars and the story of the Holocaust, are so large that any one museum is insufficient to the task, and that the War Museum should include some aspects of the Holocaust but that the Holocaust deserves its own museum. Am I correct in my understanding?
Mr. Copp: Yes.
Senator Cools: I want to be clear on that because I shall be repeating what you have said.
Senator Forest: I also appreciate what you have said about the interconnectedness and the relevance of the Holocaust to the war. If we are to make all our museums the educational tools that will help us to avoid such confrontations, I feel very strongly, as you do, that there must be some exhibit and some in-depth explanation in the War Museum about the Holocaust. That is very important.
Being in the field of education, I believe that our museums must be geared to the young people of today and that they are interesting enough, relevant enough, and get the message across, because there is no point in learning about wars if we do not learn how to avoid them in the future.
I am an alumni of Waterloo University, so I appreciate the work being done there.
Mr. Copp: I think it is equally important that we tell the story of the experience of our veterans. If the particular example I give of Westerbork is part of our story, so too, for example, is the Battle of the Schelde, which is one of the major achievements that the Canadians forces contributed to in the Second World War. People ought to be able to have an explanation for what went on in October 1944 and how it relates Canada in terms of the conscription crisis.
We need young people to understand and to be involved in our history, not to gloss over it. It is a history that we can work with, we can explain we were not perfect, but we are a society that tried very hard to be better. We can do that.
Senator Forest: We had an example of that yesterday, sir, when young people who had been involved with Champs told us how they had learned the history of the war from the veterans who assisted them. It really came alive through them. That is the kind of living message that we need to perpetrate in both the museums.
The Chairman: Professor Copp, I wish you success in writing up the causes of World War I, and particularly World War II. You will need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with causes that various groups of Canadians will accept, and I wish you well in that.
I want to point out that in the museum plans, the expansion you see in the model, World War I and World War II do not receive additional display space. While I am intrigued with your idea of connecting Westerbork to the campaign and thereby devoting some space to the Holocaust, I wonder how we will do it within the same space. Something would have to be removed from the present display.
Mr. Copp: The new proposal in terms of the total amount of square footage is, in my judgment, inadequate, but if that is what we get, let us work with it as best we can. I was shown the space that was proposed in the original plan for the Holocaust part of the new space and it seems to me that I could make two suggestions. Again, I am not suggesting they are in any way original or have not been thought of by Mr. Glenney and his staff.
One thing clearly lacking in the museum is audio-visual material that introduces, in a powerful and meaningful way, some of the issues you want to discuss. You look at the space available in the plan. Let us imagine my solution. If we identify the connection between Westerbork and Auschwitz and the Canadian army, and if we identify that as an important part of the larger story, then there is also more room for the meaning of the Normandy invasion or the meaning of Dieppe or the meaning of Hong Kong. In other words, it is possible, but it is not possible without being willing to recognize that this kind of activity costs money beyond the capital investment. How serious are Canadians about the significance of these memorials?
Remember that the War Museum has excellent material now on the third floor on peacekeeping and on a whole host of other questions. If Canadians want to see themselves and the role that they have played in the larger world of the 20th century, then the War Museum is a very good place to start.
I know everyone talks money, but without an increase in operating funds to follow the increase in capital funds, the War Museum will do its best but it will not be able to achieve all that can reasonably be done.
With the space that is allotted in the new program, we should see a substantial improvement in the ability to communicate some of the central issues of the Second World War.
The Chairman: I agree with your comments regarding audio-visual use. In fact, I made that suggestion to one of the witnesses. I also admonished them not to bring in the McKennas.
Before the hearings began, I received many requests for press interviews. I direct this next question because I feel this item will be built up in the press as time goes on: What right do veterans have to think they should be controlling the war museum and dictating how they should be remembered?
When I was asked that question, my reply was to the effect that they put their lives on the line; others did not do that. That certainly did not satisfy the interviewer. He disagreed with me that veterans had a right to have some say in how they should be remembered. I would like you to comment on that question.
He did say he would be very interested in hearing what the historians had to say.
Mr. Copp: In the case of the War Museum, there is a particular issue in that its mandate includes being a memorial to sacrifices and achievements. In that sense, it does give veterans a particular role in the War Museum. I would not accept that veterans are trying to dictate but rather to advise and consult and to provide feedback and information. Veterans have told me that they do not like feeling that they are out of the loop, as if they are not being consulted and are not part of a process.
I agree that veterans ought to be intimately involved in discussions about the way the various wars should be remembered. I would not, however, give them the right to dictate. In free discussion, the opinions and arguments of veterans would carry enormous weight among sensible people.
No one can own the past. I do agree with that cliché. A generation will, in fact, reinterpret the past. We try to ensure that, in reinterpreting past, we are willing to respect the people who lived that past and undertook those actions. We should not use the kind of cheap, second-guessing and cynical hindsight that passes for so much commentary on issues like the Second World War.
The Chairman: I have difficulty, professor, with your use of the word "reinterpreting." I do not find a great deal of difference in the meaning of that word and "revision." Having had one experience with revision, I am not too anxious to have another. I would ask you then as a historian: Where do historians get the right and the authority to reinterpret the past, including World War I and World War II?
Mr. Copp: I am not sure we have enough time for this but I will try to answer your question very briefly. When we talk about notions of freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and freedom to ask different questions and to provide different interpretations, we ought to be distinguishing very clearly between the fact that we are not allowed to reinvent the past in the sense of what happened. What we are allowed to do is ask different questions about the past to which we provide different answers because we have come from a different starting point.
We know and indeed most historians can agree easily on the events that constitute the Holocaust. There is, however, a complex, historical debate over how exactly the Holocaust evolved, or how exactly policies in Europe evolved to lead to the Holocaust. There is a significant debate among historians on it, but among serious historians there is no debate about the existence of the Holocaust. That is for the fringe, for the kook.
Similarly, on almost any issue that you and I could discuss such as, was Montgomery's strategy the correct one when he proposed a single, knife-like thrust towards Berlin to end the war in 1944, it is a fact that he proposed it and it is a fact that Eisenhower turned him down. What historians do is discuss who was right; how the differing points of view were brought forward; and why British and American opinion differed so sharply on strategy.
Reinterpretation is really asking new questions about the past, hopefully respecting the rule that the job of the historian is to try understand the past on its own terms and not to impose a presentist, superficial perspective on the past in order to serve a present-day political position.
The Chairman: Yes. I agree with you that the idea of debating whether Montgomery's plan was correct or not is quite proper. I am expressing my opinion about revisionism and not accusing you of it. When you start talking about revisionism, you are also open to manipulation. If you start manipulating, then you go back to a tool used by many dictators to rise to power -- manipulation. I have a fear of that happening. That is why I am always speaking out against revisionism in history. To me, history has to be an accurate account of events, and that is not open to change.
Senator Prud'homme: I would refer to the article, "Holocaust museum planned for Ottawa," written by Susan Riley, Citizen national arts writer, on February 1, 1997. It says that Mr. Gaffen said that we would examine the role of Mackenzie King and anti-Semitism, particularly in Quebec. Now, I understand that some people ask: "What is this museum going to be all about?" I do not mind if there is a place to explain history. There is enough information and memorabilia to make cause this country to explode. That is probably what Trudeau had in mind when he talked about pitting communities against communities. I never recovered from my shock of seeing Jean-Louis Roux thrown to the wolves. What he did on TV was grand theatre. There is a man who had the respect of Quebec, but then he became a laughing stock by going too far. Anyone who sat with Jean-Louis Roux would say he was the most refined gentleman you could be with, and it is terrible to imply that that man could have been motivated by these terrible black thoughts when he was a young man. The man has never recovered. He was naive.
Mr. Copp: In my brief I specifically said that, if we wish to study the question of Canadian racism and Canadian immigration policy, we should. However, we should not confuse it with the Holocaust. I say that adamantly, in the firmest possible terms.
Senator Prud'homme: I need you as my advisor because you say in very few words what I say in so many.
[Translation]
Enough is enough! I am not going to get angry, but I am fed up seeing my French-Canadian people continually accused of all the sins of Israel. I am a French-Canadian, and proud of Quebec. I am fed up with these continual and insidious accusations and this intimidation. I am fed up with it, do you hear me? I am going to smile to show that I am not angry.
[English]
There comes a time when you say enough is enough, unless we want to pit, to use Trudeau's famous expression, communities against communities instead of teaching them the horror of racism, of anti-Semitism, the horror of Islamophobia, which is now the latest trend. That is the stand I have taken all of my life, and I was misunderstood by some people. I kept quiet for 30 years because I did not want to be used by the Zundels of this world. But now I want to build a great country with your help, but not by pitting people against each other.
[Translation]
It is important to not destroy one another. What is the significance of the Holocaust? What horrors are we talking about? Every time television shows us the horrors in Rwanda or elsewhere, we see people rising up and United Nations troops going to their rescue. Nobody can make me believe that people would have stood by and done nothing if we had had television to show us the ovens of Dachau in 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941. I do not believe that is the case; people would have reacted.
[English]
The Chairman: You have used the expression that Trudeau did not like pitting people against one another. I rather thought Mr. Trudeau enjoyed pitting me as a Conservative against you as a Grit.
Senator Prud'homme: So I became confused and ended my life as an independent.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee I would like to thank Professor Copp.
Our next witness is Dr. Roy. Dr. Roy is another one of our well-known historians.
We have had the pleasure of your presence before this committee on another occasion that I can remember. We are glad to have you back again.
Dr. R.H. Roy: Honourable senators, it was some years ago when I was asked to appear before the Senate committee. At that time, you may remember, there was a considerable protest over a film called The Valour and The Horror. The protest came from thousands of veterans across Canada who were annoyed at what they considered to be a biased, prejudiced and warped vision of what had occurred on the battlefield and in the air during the Second World War.
I had spent four years researching and writing a book called The Canadians in Normandy, so when the film's segment on the Normandy campaign was shown, I was able to criticize it chapter and verse. In a word, I could quote documents, war diaries, battle reports, and so forth to justify my claim that the version of events presented by the film producers left much to be desired.
Today I find myself in a very different position. I am here to express an opinion, not only my opinion, but one held by many of my friends. It was about two weeks ago that I was asked to appear before you. It was the day before I left for a weekend conference in Winnipeg. The conference was held at an air force base, so while I was there I took the opportunity to sound out a number of people about the proposal of a Holocaust Gallery or what have you in the War Museum. Most of the people I questioned were servicemen. A few, like myself were war veterans of the Second World War. When I returned to Victoria, I began to question other friends -- this time mostly veterans. The oldest of these was Lieutenant General Clark, a former Chief of General Staff.
I have talked to numerous others, some of whom held equally high rank but most of whom were young officers in the three services during the war and resumed civilian careers when the war ended. These were not career officers, and one cannot attribute to them any sort of knee-jerk military mindset that might oppose anything in the War Museum except muskets and bayonets.
When I questioned them about the matter, I did so without revealing my own opinion. That came later. I must admit that I was surprised to find that they were unanimously against the concept. The reasons varied, but the general theme was that a Holocaust gallery should not be part of the expanded museum.
On the day following my return from Winnipeg, I telephoned a couple of academic friends. One has recently retired from Royal Roads Military College and the other from RMC in Queens. Both served in Bomber Command and both could be termed military historians like myself. As with the others to whom I spoke, they considered it inappropriate to have a Holocaust gallery in the War Museum. Having rendered that opinion, they went into the history of the relationship between the Holocaust and the Canadian war effort. Their arguments parallel my own. Perhaps at this point I could elaborate on them.
It is generally agreed that the Holocaust began in 1933, with the first assaults against the German Jews beginning within a few weeks of Hitler's ascension to power. As months passed and as the Nazi's gained more power, the Jews were more systematically persecuted. Jewish-owned businesses were boycotted, Jews were dismissed from the civil service advance, denied admission to the bar, and were soon treated as outcasts in the towns and cities throughout Germany.
While this was going on, the first of many concentration camps was being built and a series of special forces such as the Gestapo and the SS were established to tighten Hitler's grip on the German population. These forces would be the dictator's instrument to enforce Nazi ideology, particularly the concept of racial superiority and racial purity.
The Jews, in particular, were seen as an inferior race, and Nazi propagandists blamed them for everything from being responsible for Germany's defeat in 1918 to causing the economic depression which struck Germany in the post-1918 era.
In the mid-1930s, further laws imposed greater burdens on the Jews. They were stripped of their citizenship. They were defined as Jews by the blood of their grandparents. They could not go to public schools or theatres or reside in certain areas. Later, they were punished in more damaging ways. Their properties were seized or they were forced to sell their homes or businesses far below their value.
Late in 1938, in both Germany and Austria, the Nazis used physical force to destroy synagogues, Jewish homes and stores. Many were killed and imprisoned, such as homosexuals, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others who were considered to be a threat either to the state or to the purity of the German race.
In November 1938, during the infamous krystal nacht, anti-Jewish riots took place in which almost 200 synagogues were destroyed, 7,500 shops were looted, and 3,500 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps. And this was only the beginning.
What had all of this to do with Canada? At about the time Hitler came to Canada there were, at a rough estimate, about 160,000 Jews in Canada. It would also be fair to say that there was a decided element of anti-Semitism in this country as well. For years, Canadian immigration authorities had sought immigrants from Great Britain and northern Europe in preference to any other source. Although there was some relaxation of this attitude between the two world wars, the application by thousands of German Jews to come to Canada to escape the increasing Nazi oppression fell on deaf ears in Ottawa.
A book entitled None is Too Many gives a graphic view of the situation in the 1930s. Owing to their limited numbers, the Jewish community did not have any major impact in shaping Canada's opinion respecting the events in Germany, which had such a severe impact on the Jewish population. It was not until the war was well under way, and particularly in the post-war period, that Jewish writers began to publish accounts about the Holocaust, the concentration camps, and so on.
That is quite understandable. There was a post-war wave of Jewish immigrants, many of them survivors or children of survivors of the concentration camps. Moreover, Canadians saw, for the first time, films of the atrocities that occurred in the camps: pictures of bulldozers pushing hundreds of bodies into the pits, of gas ovens, and of starving survivors being liberated by troops. The whole ghastly scene came as a shock not only to the Canadian public but also to Canadian servicemen.
This was a post-war revelation not too dissimilar to the revelation of what went on in the Russian Gulags after Soviet archives were open. It was in the post-1945 decades that Canada eased its immigration policies and in time began to promote itself as a multicultural country.
During the 1930s, however, such policies would never have been accepted by Canadian voters. No one in Ottawa was more keenly attuned to public opinion than Prime Minister Mackenzie King. King had been re-elected Prime Minister in October 1935, roughly two years after Hitler had declared the Nazi party to be the only legal political party in Germany. During this decade, Canada had been hard hit by the world depression. Aside from the country's financial woes, King had to deal with an international situation which worsened year by year during the decade. The Japanese were clawing their way into China, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, German troops invaded the land of the Czar, the Spanish civil war had started, and Austria was invaded and absorbed by Germany. Hitler had started to re-arm at a rapid pace and, as the decade wore on, the possibility of war became apparent to many people.
As Prime Minister, King had a great many worries. The plight of the Jews in Germany was not high on his list. I think it is fair to say that the same held true of the average Canadian. He or she was mainly concerned with getting or keeping a job in an era of massive unemployment. Canadians felt fortunate to be living beside a friendly country and to have oceans separating them from continents where the drums of war were beating louder.
King's attitude towards Hitler was similar to that held by Neville Chamberlain, who became the British Prime Minister in 1937. Both wanted to avoid war; both thought that Hitler could be appeased.
In 1937, King crossed the Atlantic to attend the coronation of George VI. King decided to visit Germany and arranged to meet Adolf Hitler. He was politely received. King wrote in his diary that "Hitler impressed me as a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot". Reflecting about this meeting a year later, King wrote, "I am sure he is a spiritualist who will rank some day with Joan of Arc among the deliverers of his people and, if he is only careful, may yet be the deliverer of Europe." King added that there was much he could not abide in Nazism, "the regimentation, cruelty, oppression of the Jews."
If he thought cautioning the German leader that the British empire would fight together to preserve its liberties, that this would moderate Hitler's demands, King, like Chamberlain, was sadly mistaken. As Colonel Stacey put it, "Hitler might well have said to himself: "How many divisions has Mackenzie King?"
In 1901, President Roosevelt said that it was his policy to "speak softly and carry a big stick". In 1937, Mackenzie King spoke softly to Hitler but he certainly did not carry a big stick. In fact, he hardly carried a twig.
In that same year, Canada would pay $1.41 per capita on defence as opposed to $4.44 for Australia and $14 for Great Britain. As a result, when Canada did declare war in 1939, the nation was almost criminally unprepared for conflict.
I can well remember when I joined up in September 1939 that I was issued with a kilt, a sporran, white spats, red and white stockings, a First World War tunic, First World War webbing, and the same for the rifle and bayonet -- but that is an aside.
The point I am trying to make is that those of us joining the army in 1939 and 1940, and later, did so for a variety of reasons, none of which involved a direct desire to stop the Holocaust.
A British military historian once wrote that the First World War had causes but no objectives. I would think that the same could be applied to Canada. We had a cause for joining the army, but no particular objective, unless it was to win.
Most servicemen joined to preserve their democratic way of life, in my opinion. They had a passionate objection to dictatorship of any type, and there was a general realization that, if Britain failed, Canada would be in mortal danger.
In a word, I do not see the Holocaust as a factor in either our pre-war or war-time military policy. I looked at the four volumes of the official history of the Canadian army written by Colonel Stacey and found no mention of the Holocaust. I looked at the official history of the RCAF, and there was no mention there. I looked at some of the biographies of our generals, and no mention is made there. I looked at the Canadian Encyclopedia, and again no mention, although there was an article on immigration which did condemn Canada for its refusal to accept German Jewish refugees in the 1930s.
Unlike the British army fighting in the Mediterranean, Canada did not recruit any all-Jewish military units to fight the Germans and Italians. Young Canadian Jews joined the three services and were absorbed into the mainstream of all Canadian servicemen. Their motivation to join the service was probably coloured by what they had heard of the atrocities going on in Germany. The same can probably be said of recent immigrants who saw their homelands invaded by the Germans and wanted to see them liberated.
Canadian men and women joined the armed forces to secure their freedom and to protect their country. The fact that, for most of them, their fighting took place in Europe was an advantage, one that spared Canada from the destruction war brings with it. In helping to destroy Hitler and his wicked, cruel regime, Canadians helped to liberate all of those who suffered under his murderous dictatorship. If Canada had a cause, it was that. That in pursuing this cause we played a role in bringing the Holocaust to an end, so much the better.
Heaven knows the Jews and others who died by the millions suffered beyond our comprehension. From a military point of view, to my mind, Canadian servicemen would have fought just as hard to destroy Hitler's Nazi Germany had there been no Holocaust, and this is why, among other reasons, I feel a special gallery in our War Museum is not particularly appropriate.
I should not want it thought that I or any of the people with whom I spoke oppose the idea of a Holocaust exhibit. Thousands of Canadian Jews fought in the armed forces in numbers proportional to non-Jewish servicemen. Their casualty rates were equally proportional. There was no shirking on their part in any quarter. One can imagine their hate for Germans had an understandably higher level than the norm.
Given this, can one say that their contribution merits special attention? Is there some special connection? What about the sons of British immigrants in Canada who joined up when they saw films of London being hammered by the Luftwaffe and wanted revenge for the thousands of British people killed in the air raids? Should there be a special gallery for the victims of the blitz? Modern war is total war, with nations pitted against nations. One can talk about the causes and results of the war for years. If we try to display all of these aspects in the museum, where would we stop?
A Holocaust Gallery or exhibit, to my mind, would be more suitably sited in the Canadian Museum of Civilization, or perhaps it should standby itself. A Holocaust memorial similar to the one in Ottawa's Confederation Square might be an alternative to a gallery. In any event, I cannot support the present plan for an exhibit of this nature in the War Museum. Thank you.
Senator Jessiman: Dr. Roy, that was very enlightening. Thank you. Are you familiar with the Canadian Museum of Civilization; and do you know that there is no separate Canadian military museum but that it is under the auspices of the Canadian Museum of Civilization? Are you familiar with those two bodies?
Mr. Roy: I have seen it, but from this side of the river.
Senator Jessiman: There was a task force in 1991 with respect to what we should do about the Canadian War Museum. A group of 11 outstanding Canadians spent seven months studying this, and I will read part of one of the recommendations. The task force report, at page 32, says:
Almost without exception, we were told that the answer lies in the CWM's subordination to the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Then it goes on:
... since the CMC's mandate is to preserve and display the panorama of Canadian civilization, along with material from other civilizations, we believe that it could rarely if ever give our military heritage adequate treatment in context, setting and interpretation.
Their final recommendation was that the Minister of Communications introduce legislation in 1991 to establish the CWM as a separate museum within his portfolio.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Roy: I would.
Senator Jessiman: I have had a connection with this committee for almost five years. Veterans have been under the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they are well served. The other veteran organizations would like this museum to be put under the Minister of Veterans Affairs. They support that. I would support that. What would your thoughts be?
Mr. Roy: I would support it, but I wonder in the long run about the financial backing for it. I can see the Department of Veterans Affairs getting less and less funding and the Museum of Man or the Museum of Civilization maintaining a fairly high level of funding or perhaps going increasing slightly. I would put it under the direction of Veterans Affairs, but financially I would like to keep it under the wing, shall we say, of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, if that is a possibility. I have no idea.
Senator Chalifoux: I should like to thank you very much for giving one of the most accurate depictions of the war that I have heard in a long time. Am I correct in saying that you firmly support a stand-alone Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Roy: Yes, I would, absolutely.
Senator Forest: Dr. Roy, I certainly enjoyed your illustration of the history of the war. The veteran associations have voiced the opinion that the Canadian War Museum should remain the Canadian War Museum; that it should have autonomy from the Museum of Civilization. Others have suggested that that would be fine, providing there remained in the War Museum an exhibit that reflects the part Canadians played in the Holocaust of releasing prisoners, et cetera, in order that visitors to the museum would get a sense of the meaning of the war, perhaps one of the causes of it and so on. It seems to be acceptable to many people that that be a small component of the War Museum and that there be an independent Holocaust or genocide museum quite apart from that to tell the story of the Holocaust and perhaps of other incidents of genocide in the world.
Could you support that view?
Mr. Roy: I could support that. I have watched on television portions of the preceding days of these hearings. The witness who is in charge of the War Museum spoke about having to educate, in particular, the children who visit the museum, and perhaps the adults as well. If there is going to be a Holocaust Gallery to show what happened -- which would turn anyone's stomach -- perhaps it should include a sign which reads: "Don't let this happen to you." In other words, for heaven's sake, look to your defences.
When I joined up, and even more so upon later reflection, I was greatly impressed by how unprepared we were for that war and how close we came to losing it. When I joined up I was only 16 and was paid 70 cents a day. When I turned 18, I was promoted and my pay nearly doubled, to $1.30. That never happened again. That was the only time my pay was doubled. I did not know if the government could afford it. When I joined up, we were issued with white spats, kilts and all the rest. We did not have a single vehicle in our battalion. We did not have any two- or three-inch mortars, anti-tank guns, or anything modern. It was incredible how unprepared we were.
For a nation that lowered its defences as we did, the Holocaust must be a lesson. A great many people say that it cannot happen here. It damn well can happen here. We may not be able to conceive of it, but if we do not keep our defences up to at least a moderate level, we have a problem.
Could the Holocaust Gallery not be used to show people that we need at least a modicum of defence for our own borders and our own skies? That is turning it around somewhat, but that is an idea for the education of children and adults.
Senator Forest: Your remarks reminded me of when we were in Victoria for the launching of HMCS Edmonton. My husband was in the navy. It was a brand-new ship with the latest equipment. One of the middle-aged officers said, "Goodness, I remember when we had diesel-burning ships." My husband remarked that when he went out at the beginning of the war it was on a coal-burning ship. They did tours between Esquimalt and Courtenay on coal-burning ships. That is incredible.
Mr. Roy: There is an old saying that at that time Canada had a two-ocean navy with a ship in either ocean.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your presentation. I think education is the name of the game with museums. Museums must attract young people and give them a sense of what can happen if we are not vigilant. The fact that this has continued to happen in Rwanda, Cambodia and other places shows how vulnerable we still are.
The Chairman: Dr. Roy, you expressed some concern about funding for Veterans Affairs Canada decreasing. That is a possibility, but I think that as the number of peacekeepers increases the drop will not be as great as we may anticipate.
You seem to think that having the museum under Veterans Affairs Canada would affect the funding. With regard to present funding, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation receives $45 million from the federal government and earns approximately $9 million from fees at the museum, for a total of about $54 million. The Canadian War Museum receives $ 7 million. On Monday, reference was made to the number of visitors to each museum; there is not that much of a difference between them.
One ladder bought by the Canadian Museum of Civilization to paint the ceiling cost more than the entire acquisition budget of the War Museum last year. Do you believe that that is a fair distribution?
Mr. Roy: The short answer is no, I do not, particularly now when time is running out for veterans. I suspect that for the next ten years more military artefacts will come onto the market, if you want to put it that way, with veterans going to a better battle field, than have in the previous 50 years.
The Chairman: I agree with you; there will be more artefacts coming on all the time.
One thing that I find rather puzzling about the planned expansion is that there must be a public donation; that is, Friends of the Museum and other people are trying to raise money for the War Museum expansion. When I look at all the other buildings that are being built with federal funding, it rather rankles me as a veteran that there must be so much private money raised before the government is prepared to go ahead with the expansion of the museum. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Roy: One would think that as a result of the continual downsizing of the armed forces <#0107> from a high, shall we say, of about 125,000 in the early 1960s to about 60,000 now -- and with a cut in the size of the DND budget of about 25 to 30 per cent in the last four years there might be a few million dollars there for the War Museum. I would hope.
The Chairman: I share that hope. When you consider that the Department of Heritage was able to make an announcement recently of $100 million to support the development of sports in Canada, maybe we could have siphoned off $2 million from that. Would you support that view?
Mr. Roy: I would indeed; I most certainly would.
The Chairman: Have you studied the expansion plan for the museum?
Mr. Roy: No, unfortunately, I have not. One of the very small problems of living in Canada's banana-belt is that one does not get to Ottawa as frequently as one would like; I have not seen any plans for the new museum.
The Chairman: As Senator Chalifoux pointed out earlier today, the proposed Holocaust museum would take up 25 per cent of the display space in the new museum. Is that a fair proportion in relation to World War I, World War II, Korea, peacekeeping and so on?
Mr. Roy: Again, when I made my presentation I was speaking not only on behalf of myself but also on behalf of a great many other voices on the West Coast. My personal preference, if there is going to be a gallery, an exhibit or a monument to the Holocaust, is that it should be separate.
It might take the form of a building, it might take the form of a moment, as I say in my paper, such as the one they have in Confederation Square. It could take various shapes.
The concept about the need to educate the children and the non-veterans coming into the War Museum was made earlier this week -- I think it was on Monday or Tuesday. The idea of using a Holocaust exhibit, not a gallery, but an exhibit, something perhaps the size of this room, could be very useful. It would need to be done with great care.
One of the people I was speaking to, a non-veteran, was rather shocked by the idea, because he said that if you take a young child into a gallery such as the one we are discussing here and expose them to the horrific scenes that existed in the extermination camps -- how in the name of heavens can a young tad of seven or eight or nine years old relate to that? -- it would almost explode his mind.
Speaking of behalf of myself, when I see films of the masses of emaciated corpses dumped into huge pits, I find it surreal. God knows I have seen bodies, and bits of bodies and legs and arms and heads, all over the battle field. I can relate to that, no problem; but to see it on such a massive scale, if it can make me throw up, what will it do to the children? That thought was presented to me just this morning.
The Chairman: That same thought has been expressed to me. As well, it has been expressed before this committee.
Something that concerns me, should we commemorate the Holocaust in the War Museum, is that there are Canadians of other ethnic origins; for example, the Armenians and the Ukrainians. On the West Coast, the Chinese population is rapidly expanding. I would anticipate that we will hear from the Chinese population that the Asian problem be commemorated somewhere. Can we find the solution to commemorate these other genocides?
I use the word "genocide" and keep the word "Holocaust" for the Jewish extermination under the Nazis. Can we commemorate those as well as the Holocaust?
I think the Holocaust should be separate, but I am becoming very sympathetic to commemorating the genocides of Russia and the eastern genocide by the Japanese.
Mr. Roy: I do not know how you could, senator. One can think of many examples of murders, massacres and genocides.
I can remember, as a young boy of about five, in the early 1920s, when I did not want to eat broccoli or some particular food, my mother would urge me to do so using the phrase, "Remember the starving Armenians." It was some time later before I understood what she meant.
One can go back and forth in time, one can go east and west, and these confounded massacres and genocides just keep on occurring. What has happened in Cambodia in recent years boggles the mind. Many Chinese-Canadians on the West Coast remember the rape of Nanking. There are events on a smaller scale in what was Yugoslavia. They are all over the deck.
If we wanted to memorialize all of those events, we would have to expand the War Museum to such an extent it would be overwhelming and the impact of these events would be lost. In a word, one must limit the space to have an impact and not try to cover all of the horrors of war.
The Chairman: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not thinking of those events being commemorated in the War Museum but in some other fashion. Do you have a suggestion on how they could be commemorated?
Mr. Roy: Quite frankly, I would not want to give you a short answer on that. I would want to think it over.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could write to our committee on that issue. We would appreciate that.
Honourable senators, our next witnesses are from the National Aboriginal Veterans Association.
While Mr. Sinclair comes to the witness chair, I would explain to the audience that this is a new committee room which has been named the Aboriginal Room. We will be adding more aboriginal works of art around this room.
Mr. Sinclair, you have the honour of being the first aboriginal witness to appear in the Aboriginal Room. I will vacate the chair now. Senator Chalifoux will preside while Mr. Sinclair is making his presentation.
The Acting Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr. Sinclair. Please proceed.
Mr. Sam Sinclair, President, National Aboriginal Veterans Association: I have appeared before your committee a few times over the last few years. I have been president of the Aboriginal Veterans since 1992.
I appreciate this room being named for aboriginals. Since I am unemployed, I thought you might recommend me for a janitorial position or something.
Senator Prud'homme: If we ever need a guide to explain the meaning of art and aboriginal society to the young, you would be very helpful.
Mr. Sinclair: The main reason for my appearance here today is to discuss the expansion of the museum. However, our aboriginal veterans have certain other specific concerns. I do not know if I should mention them now or leave them till later.
Senator Jessiman: Put them right up front.
Mr. Sinclair: Many people do not know that thousands of our people joined the armed forces to fight in the First World War. I understand our people even fought in the Plains of Abraham for the two parties who were fighting for the land they had not yet taken from us. However, that is not what I want to discuss. I want to discuss our First World War veterans, of whom there are very few left. I was fortunate enough to travel with some of the people here to the commemoration at Vimy Ridge. I noticed the graves of many of our young people out there alongside their comrades of the First World War.
I was in the Second World War for only a short time. I joined the army when I was 15 years old, went overseas when I was 17, and served just long enough to find out how I could run, because when you are scared, you can move. When the war ended, because I did not have much combat time -- as I was only in the front area for 27 days -- I volunteered for the Pacific theatre. I was sent home early to go to the Far East. Fortunately, when I arrived in Canada, on August 15, 1945, the war ended. When the war in Europe ended, I was in a little town in Germany.
Our people are always being left behind in all of the consideration that is given to other veterans. They do not, ordinarily, have to stand up for their rights as we have had to do. We do not ask for any special treatment, all we want is equal treatment. That has not been given to us. As a soldier, I thought I was being treated equally. One bullet could kill me just as it would kill a person with whom I was fighting side by side. However, when I got out of the army in 1946, I could not get a job in government because, for some reason, they found ways to block natives from getting jobs in government. Later on, I did manage to break through that because of some connections I had. Those kinds of situations hurt us. When I went to war, like other aboriginal veterans, I went hoping my presence would help this country to have the freedom we have today. It bothers me that aboriginals did not get equal treatment after the war and that we continue to have problems.
The National Aboriginal Veterans Association is not sponsored by government. The only time we receive funding is when we are asked to come and lay a wreath at the Cenotaph here in Ottawa. That has only been happening for the last six years. We want some funding to help us set up an office, preferably in Ottawa, to deal with some issues that have still not been dealt with properly.
The housing situation for our aboriginal veterans is terrible because, for some reason or other, we did not qualify under the Veterans Land Act. I was one of those who was turned down. We were never given land like others in recognition of what we had done as was the case with other veterans in Alberta.
I am not here to complain. I am asking you, when you talk to the MPs who are responsible for some of our issues, to ask them to consider our concerns. Please listen to us a little bit and call us in to see if we can resolve some of these issues.
We are trying to raise funds for the war memorial which is to be erected here in Ottawa. The land for the site has been approved by the council, but we are expected to raise the money for the land, $750,000. It will be a beautiful 30-foot-high monument. We think this government should help us in the building of that monument. We hope that those with some power will circulate information to others who do not know what is going on. Senator Taylor is spearheading our fund-raising campaign. We only collected $120,000 in the first year. That is a long way from the more than $700,000 we need.
The government must understand why this monument is important to us. It will acknowledge that we fought side by side with other Canadians. Hopefully there will never be another war but, if there is, you can be sure we will again be standing side by side with other Canadians helping in whatever way we can.
With that, I am open to questions.
Senator Jessiman: You have told us your problems. We understand and we sympathize with you. I have heard some of them before, but I have not heard about the statue inside that park.
What is your view about the suggestion that the War Museum, as it is now constructed, will be increased in size and that between 22 and 30 per cent of that increased area will be used for the purpose of housing an exhibition or a gallery for the Holocaust?
A number of other veterans' groups who have come before us have objected to that, for several reasons, but we should like to know what your views are in that regard.
Mr. Sinclair: I spoke with other aboriginal veterans last night, as well as in Alberta before I came here. We are not in favour of the Holocaust gallery being in the same area of the museum. I have visited the museum a couple of times. It is a fine museum; I understand why they are trying to expand it.
The Holocaust was horrible. I visited some of the prisons when I was overseas in 1986. In fact, I saw them twice. I think this is a separate issue. The museum should be dealing with the wars that we know about. Horrible things took place during the Holocaust, mainly to certain nationalities that experienced extreme prejudice. As aboriginal veterans, I do not think we belong there. We are not against the Jews and we acknowledge how they were treated by one person who was also ready to destroy the rest of humankind had he won the war.
I would support the extension of the museum, but not in the same manner as the Holocaust presentation.
Senator Jessiman: You are in line with those who have come before you. Without exception, all veterans' organizations have said the same.
The percentage of aboriginal people who joined the service was higher than any other ethnic group, but do you know how many joined the service in World War II?
Mr. Sinclair: It numbers in the thousands. Taking both world wars, as well as the Korean campaign and the Vietnam movement, about 50,000 joined.
Senator Jessiman: How many who are also members of the organization that you represent would be alive today?
Mr. Sinclair: You have raised something that bothers me. If we had proper funding, we could answer these types of questions more adequately; we would be able to present the correct numbers and update them annually.
Senator Jessiman: Would 10 per cent still be alive? Do you think that there are 5,000 of you still around?
Mr. Sinclair: I doubt it; it would be more like 3,000. We have a rough count some place. Many of our people live in isolated areas. We do not even know if some of them are still living there. They only come out of the woodwork only once in a while.
Again, when you have nothing to work with as far as resources are concerned, you cannot do a complete job. We can volunteer, but we cannot do this forever because it costs a lot of money, especially if we have to travel in the north. A lot of that travel is done by aircraft, which is expensive.
Senator Jessiman: Where is your home base?
Mr. Sinclair: I live in Edmonton now. I live in what I call a "cement forest". I originally come from Lesser Slave Lake. Senator Chalifoux lived there for a while.
Senator Phillips: Senator Andreychuk chaired a committee on aboriginal affairs that looked at the problems and the treatment of aboriginal veterans. Have you noticed much change since that report was made?
For example, have you noticed any change in the treatment you are receiving from, say, DVA? Is the Department of Veterans Affairs taking more interest in you than they did prior to the committee issuing its report?
Mr. Sinclair: There are improvements here and there. However, it seems that they do not take us seriously as a group of people. For instance, many of our veterans have never been dealt with satisfactorily in the area of lands. My request for land that was available in Slave Lake was turned down. They used the excuse that it was a flood hazard. I had asked for only 39 acres to live on, but my request was turned down. Later, they developed that area into an industrial area and sold it for a half a million dollars.
In addition, down the river from Slave River was another piece of land that was available. The man who applied for it had the right connections. He was aboriginal but he looked white, so they treated him as if he were white. He got half a section of land there and has been able to farm it and do very well. I did not have the same opportunity.
I should like to tell the story just the way it was. The man I am talking about is Ed Gaunier. He was an aboriginal person who looked white; his mother was a Metis.
He had served in the war. He was also there on D-day, where he was wounded. He had a plate inserted into his head. One day after a funeral in Slave Lake, I asked Mr. Gaunier if he would like to go to Holland, to Flander's Field, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-Day. He said, "I would be glad to go." I replied to him, saying: "There is one condition, Edmond: You have to be an aboriginal person and you have to admit that you are an aboriginal." He had never done this before. He replied, "Yes, I am part Indian. I probably even belong to the Saw Ridge Band." He went to Holland and took part in those ceremonies. He now visits me often to thank me for that trip.
It took many years for this man to admit that he was one of us, but he was honoured for it. These things happen sometimes in a kind of funny way. I was not trying to be rude to him; I just thought I had a chance to get back at him.
I went to school with that man, too.
Senator Prud'homme: Were you ever consulted as a representative of a group?
After all, it is all very well for me to say the two founding races. I once promised the leader of the Huron nation in Quebec never to repeat that phrase, because I feel humble, and I say that publicly time and time again, when I am in the presence of the real first Canadians. I know our history of Canada has not been the kindest. We talked a lot today about racism and anti-Semitism, and people are well organized to fight that. I know what your people have gone through. We often pretend it is not there, but it is there, and you know it. You just gave us some facts to prove that.
You are of the opinion that the museum should be separate. You have a long tradition and history. Were you consulted by the board, Ms Clarkson, Dr. MacDonald and their staff? Has there ever been any input from some of these people on the direction that the War Museum could take and on the participation and representation of your people in the War Museum?
Mr. Sinclair: There is more than one way to answer that question. For instance, Louis Riel was a great aboriginal leader in the mid-1800s, and in 1885 the poor guy was hung for fighting for the rights of aboriginal people who were known as Metis. That injustice will never be forgiven. People have done worse and have not even seen a jail term since, let alone been hung. That is a sore spot amongst our aboriginal people, what they did to that one man who was trying to lead people who were landless according to their terms. At that time, it was a Conservative government.
Other Indian leaders of small gatherings in Saskatchewan also were punished for trying to help their home cause. All they were trying to do was retain the land they were living on and be a part Canada as it was before the invasion of the Europeans.
You have those hurts, and you wear them for life. You hope people will change so you can feel a little better as a human being, and you want to be part of that, but you also want a little bit back. I know that as I get older, my feelings seem to be hurt easier, and when I go into a white residence, even though sometimes I know some of the people, I can feel when I am not welcome. The sooner I get out of there, the better I feel. There are other aboriginal people who I have spoken to who have the same feeling. Not everyone feels that way. Call it racism or just plain hatred. We want to work away from that.
Our people are getting better educated. I have four of my family in the university level now, two who have degrees. We did not have that 20 or 30 years ago. We have to play the game the way it is in front of us. We have to work hard, and we have got to show it on paper. I know I was asked several times if I had a degree. I said, "I have one degree called CS, but I do not know if it will be accepted." I was asked, "What does that mean?" I said, "Common sense." I try to live by it.
Senator Prud'homme: I became involved by accident with the Nishga in British Columbia. They were here in Ottawa, and spontaneously, as I am known to do, I said, "Would you like to come to dinner?" After, we came to my office. Very late that night, it hurt me to hear what the man had to say. He was crying and so was I -- and if people think I am afraid to say that in public it is because people do not know me. He said, "I have been here for years to make representations for my people, and this is the first time I was ever invited to someone's office."
Sir, if you ever come to Ottawa again, you will have many friends here. You can hang your hat, and I say that looking you straight in your eyes, and feel very warmly welcome. I can see you are a wise man. You will make the difference between talk and reality. I am pleased to have stated that to you.
Senator Forest: Mr. Sinclair, we are delighted to have you here. I can certainly appreciate why your friend Edmond did not want to admit that he was an aboriginal. I worked for many years in human rights. I had the pleasure of working with Sam's sister on Alberta's first Human Rights Commission many years ago. We recognized then, and that was over 20 years ago, that the worst racism in Canada was against the aboriginal people. Most Canadians do not appreciate that. It is true. I think that still exists today. In those days, the aboriginal people for the most part just accepted it.
Now, fortunately, they are becoming better educated and better organized and they are beginning to stand up for themselves. I know you have had a very difficult row to hoe, but people like your family have contributed greatly in Alberta and now on the national scene, and we must take off our hats to you. I appreciate that.
Senator Phillips referred to the Senate committee report "The Aboriginal Soldier after the Wars" which came out in 1995. I would just like to read one small quote from it. It said:
Aboriginal veterans who appeared before the committee spoke positively about the treatment they received in the armed forces. All soldiers were treated alike in the face of a common foe. Despite the horror and tragedy of the wars, they were a learning experience, and many veterans emphasized to us how their war time service built their self-confidence and gave them a sense of dignity. But once the fighting was over, Aboriginal veterans insist, it was a different story.
That is precisely what you have told us today, Mr. Sinclair.
The first recommendation of that committee reads:
2. that the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian people:
recognize the special contribution of Aboriginal veterans during the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War, and
apologize to Aboriginal veterans for the inequities and insensitive treatment they experienced after their return from these wars.
Senator Phillips asked you if you felt anything had come of this, whether there was any better treatment. I am curious to know whether anything was done about the second part of that first recommendation with respect to an apology for the way the aboriginal veterans were treated after the war. Was any apology given?
Mr. Sinclair: An apology is only kind words. That helps, but action say more. We are asking, in a very nice way, for funding so that we can participate. The government says it is broke, yet we hear on TV that there is a zero deficit. That is a good thing, but there is still a large debt. If I had $50,000, I would ask them to match it.
Senator Forest: You have $130,000 for your monument. Why do you not ask them to match that?
Is there any particular reason that the monument would be situated in a park away from Parliament or the War Museum?
Mr. Sinclair: Two of my comrades and I drove around on Friday trying to find a location which is presentable as well as accessible. Some monuments cannot be easily seen unless you know where they are and you make the effort to see them.
We think that the site is not bad. It is out in the open and there is space for parking. I think people would enjoy seeing it.
Senator Forest: So you are happy with the site.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. I would say that it is a good location.
The government told us that all existing monuments were funded by individuals, which we learned is false. We learned that most of them were sponsored by the government itself. Again, we want equal treatment in this regard. If the government would provide the money, we could continue to fund-raise and probably pay most of it back.
Senator Forest: Good luck to you. Thank you for appearing here.
Senator Chalifoux: Mr. Sinclair, the Aboriginal Veterans Association has been established for many years, has it not?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Senator Chalifoux: Has the Aboriginal Veterans Association ever been consulted by the War Museum with regard to being included in that museum?
Mr. Sinclair: Not during my mandate, which started in 1992. The predecessor of this organization was the National Indian Veterans Association. That caused a split because NIVA was only for treaty Indians.
We have not been consulted enough on anything to do with the Second World War. I am a veteran and I have never heard of any such things. I guess they were trying in some areas through the Legions, but the Legions have not cooperated to the full extent possible across Canada on behalf of our people.
Senator Chalifoux: There were some recommendations made in this report regarding aboriginal veteran issues. The first recommendation was that the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian people, recognize the special contribution of aboriginal veterans during the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War. Have you ever received any special recognition in any way, shape or form, including monetarily?
Mr. Sinclair: Since my mandate began, a program has been instituted dealing with aboriginal fine arts. It is an educational program spearheaded by John Kim Bell out of Toronto. That is a start. The federal government, through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, came up with $1 million for that and there was some additional money from somewhere else.
It is a foundation and the interest earned from that money is used to help students of aboriginal ancestry through grants. The program starts this year so we will probably get more applications than we have moneys. As the number of applications increases, we could go to the public or the government for additional funding or for ideas on how to raise funds.
I am hopeful that we will receive donations from big companies. When the six big banks in Canada brag about the billions of dollars of profit they make every year, I wonder why they do not share a bit of that. We are not known to have large amounts of money, but we have participated in enabling the banks to earn those profits, mainly through loans that we have to pay back.
Senator Chalifoux: The War Museum has been given $ 12 million for expansion. They want to use 25 per cent of their space for the Holocaust Gallery. You are telling me that aboriginal veterans associations have never been consulted on this or recognized within the War Museum for their contributions.
What is your opinion on the Canadian War Museum using that space for the Holocaust Gallery?
Mr. Sinclair: As I said earlier, I disagree with the Holocaust Gallery being part of that museum, but I am not against having it elsewhere. Why do they not allot some space in the War Museum specifically for aboriginal veterans?
There is some recognition there, we see some of the things that we recognize, but not as a unique group of people where you know it is a certain battalion. We have people who served in the wars in companies that were half aboriginal but never recognized as such. Yet in the United States they had divisions, all black people, some of the best fighting forces they said they had, and we probably could have made a division too if we were recognized the same way. It is not that we want to be segregated but we should be recognized at some level now for what we are trying to do, and one way is that monument.
Senator Chalifoux: Would you not consider putting that statue or monument within the War Museum so that it is part of the Canadian War Museum and the history of Canada's armed forces?
Mr. Sinclair: I am not qualified as a one-man show to be able to answer that. However, I certainly want to pursue the matter and maybe make a presentation as soon as possible on exactly where we could go with that particular aspect.
Senator Cools: You may have already articulated this but I am not absolutely certain. Do you have an idea of the exact number of aboriginal people who served in World War II? Senator Forest said it was 50,000.
Mr. Sinclair: One of the reasons it is hard to get some of those statistics is we were not counted separately when we went into the army, which was probably fair ball as far as the Canadian army is concerned, everyone was treated alike. We were treated alike during the war because when you can die any minute beside your comrades colour means nothing and the size of bullets means nothing. Whatever kills you is your enemy. That is why we cannot get a real handle on the number of veterans we have.
However, going back -- it seems like I am harping on this funding all the time -- a lot of the things we are asked now we could answer if we had some funding. We can engage our university aboriginal students to do research on the very question you are asking, to get an accurate figure on our aboriginal veterans.
Senator Prud'homme: You mean to say that you were counted as one of the boys during the war, but immediately after the war you were treated separately and differently?
Mr. Sinclair: That is right.
Senator Prud'homme: That is where the real injustice lies. You are my buddy when I fight but the day after it is all over you cannot have the same qualification to get the same grants. That is what you, in essence, are communicating to us. That is not known. It is getting me very upset, there is no doubt. To be frank, I did not know about that.
Mr. Sinclair: I would like to mention a few things some people do not know. When some of our aboriginal people joined the army, especially treaty Indians, many of them were asked to relinquish their treaty rights so they can go into the Canadian army and be accepted as such. When they got out they wanted to be treated like the other veterans under the VLA, Veterans' Land Act. They said, "You do not qualify because we are reinstating you, and you can go back to the reserve where you already have land."
It is true. That is what they have done to some of our people, and some of them had trouble because once you relinquish your rights and then given the powers to that reserve again, they keep you out.
Senator Prud'homme: After what you have just said to us, I have a feeling that you will come back here some day as a witness on other committees. It is new to me. Sometimes we think we know everything. I realize that I do not.
Senator Chalifoux: This is why it is so important that the Aboriginal Veterans Association be included in the War Museum so that that story can be told also.
Another thing is that nothing has ever been mentioned about the aboriginal women who fought in the war. My sister was one of them. That must be addressed and also put in the museum.
Mr. Sinclair: One thing I will mention on the aboriginal women veterans, their names will also be included in that monument.
The Chairman: The next witnesses are from the Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada. Major General Addy, I believe, is the presenter. Please proceed.
Major General (Ret'd) Clive Addy, Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada: Honourable senators, I have provided a copy of my brief. I will read my brief and then answer any questions you may have after that.
It is a privilege to be asked to testify before you on behalf of the members of the Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada on the topic of the location of a proposed Holocaust memorial in the War Museum.
First, might I humbly remind the commission that I represent about 10,000 former serving officers and members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, interested participants in the 29 member institutes from sea to sea.
The War Museum, to the vast majority of these loyal and dedicated Canadians, is a national institute of much importance and interest. It is mandated to commemorate and illustrate the military history of Canada, of Canadian participation in past wars of our nation, particularly the acts and sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors and air men. The members of the federation support strongly this mandate.
From a personal perspective, having served in Europe and travelled widely to allied France, England, Australia, Italy, Greece, and to such former enemy countries as Poland and Hungary, I find it somewhat depressing that our country, for which over 100,000 service men have been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in wars not of our making, seems ashamed of admitting that it took part in wars and produced some of the finest fighting men and women in the world. I judge this from the sad comparative state of our War Museum, and I hope that this committee will comment on this particular aspect of the issue in its final report.
Members of our federation are very concerned that the ill-conceived juxtaposition or integration of a Canadian Holocaust memorial in our War Museum is neither in keeping with the mandate of our War Museum, nor in keeping with what the Holocaust means to Canadians who were subjected to the atrocities of the Nazi death camps and their descendants.
I know you have heard a myriad of submissions by all types of groups stressing one issue or another in this matter, but I suggest that in any controversy which pits two valued and valuable commemorative themes against one another, Canada loses.
I will not belabour the committee with another historical perspective of the Holocaust, particularly Canada's sensitivity or insensitivity to it between 1939 and 1945, nor the knowledge or ignorance of it by our serving youth at the time, nor its motivational value as to our declaration of war.
What then is important? It is that such a monumental atrocity occurred on such a scale in countries that we and they considered civilized, irrespective of a state of war. The world watched and cared not enough to get involved. Then, as now, we are reminded that civilization itself is but a very thin veneer on what was and can again become nature's wildest of beasts -- man.
It is the view of this federation that Canada can best commemorate this monumental atrocity on its own to afford it its due and special place, or perhaps in a museum of man or of civilization, reminding all of the fragility of both.
I have visited four former death camps in Germany, Poland and France. It is a diabolical experience each time, make no mistake about it.
Since that time, man has made great strides in codifying his humanity and spreading true civilization. The creation of the United Nations and its charter of human rights represents a great success. However, man's performance around the world has, in fact, been laden with more failures than successes -- the Gulags, the violence of colonization, the terrible upheavals of de-colonization climaxing in such bloodied locations as India, Vietnam, and more recently in South Africa, Bosnia, Rwanda, Eritrea and Somalia. These are but some of our greater failures. However, we must differentiate these examples of systemic genocide from the mandate of the war museum.
Today it can be said that we are "perhaps" more sensitive to the potential of genocide as a cause or effect of war or even as justification for international armed intervention, as my friend General Dallaire quite rightly points out. However, we are still very selective. The Kurds, gypsies, Algerians and Cambodians might bear witness here.
In summary, we do need reminding in Canada. A Holocaust memorial is vital. On the other hand, we also need reminding of our participation in war. Having forged our very nationhood at Vimy, war for Canada did not end with the Second World War, the Korean War, the Cold War or the Gulf War. We participated in all of these. Canadians fought and died in each. We may yet fight again in others.
The role of the UN and our own admirable part in its operations and those of NATO are worthy of commemoration in our War Museum, in our view, since the juxtaposition of armed Canadian troops between two or more belligerents at war or in armed conflict is much in keeping with the mandate.
To the Canadian armed peacekeeping troops involved and under fire, in fact, the debate is shamefully stupid as to what is or is not an operation. They deserve their place in the museum alongside their fathers and their grandfathers.
One can see just how deserving and yet how different are these two themes of our historical Canadian experience. This federation feels strongly that each deserves an important but separate place, and that any blurring of the intrinsic value of each through ill-thought or presumptuous juxtaposition is not in the best interests of either, nor of Canada.
My last concern on the governance and administration of the War Museum I have kept to the end. Neither I nor the members of the federation are as well versed as committee members are by now on the links of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation with the governance of the War Museum. Suffice it to say that we view with much alarm the fact that what appears to be the agenda of some has, in fact, led to the unfortunate situation before you at this time.
I illustrate by pointing to the work on your right, a frontispiece for the new war museum depicting soldiers in Canada, from Norsemen to our peacekeepers. Notice first that no weapons are depicted. All appear to be sad or saddened at serving their country, their cause, or their fellow man.
Is this in keeping with the mandate of our museum? Or is it part of some Orwellian interpretation of heritage as opposed to our history? Should not someone more attuned to its mandate provide governance to the War Museum of Canada? Perhaps it should be the Department of Veteran Affairs. I am unfamiliar with how the administration works, but I would suggest that, perhaps, there is something wrong with the mandate.
Mr. Chairman, these are the concerns of your members of the federation which I am privileged to bring before you. I trust they will be considered in the spirit in which they are offered, that is, in the best interests of all Canadians and in recognition of all those who served and suffered.
The Chairman: You referred to the frontispiece. If you look at some of the displays in the War Museum, you will see that the weapons are gradually disappearing from those displays. You have raised an important point, one which has not been mentioned before, and I thank you for that.
Senator Chalifoux: I am thankful that someone has finally commented on that terrible picture. I managed an army canteen, and I never saw a sad soldier in my life. I saw many happy faces. That is how they perceived themselves. They conducted themselves with pride and dignity. I trust that other veterans' associations will take great objection to that picture.
I understand your frustration with the administration. I am glad to hear you say that it should be under another administration. However, like you, I am not sure how that works. Thank you for your excellent presentation.
Senator Jessiman: Are we correct in assuming that your association was not contacted by the Canadian Museum of Civilization on behalf of the War Museum regarding this expansion and plans to include the Holocaust Gallery?
Mr. Addy: As an official approach, no, senator, we were not contacted. To be fair, many of our members belong to an association called the Friends of the Canadian War Museum where this topic was discussed. It did evoke a lot of emotion from everyone. I would not be here today had it not been such an emotional issue.
Senator Jessiman: Do most members concur in what you have told us today?
Mr. Addy: Very much so.
Senator Cools: Mr. Addy, you made reference to the artwork here, the proposed frontispiece for the War Museum extension. Can you amplify on your question at page 5 of your brief:
Is this in keeping with the mandate of the museum or is it part of some Orwellian interpretation of our "heritage" as opposed to our history?
This morning, professor Terry Copp made what I thought was a profound statement about us taking a stand on what our history is and then presenting it. Basically, what we have been told repeatedly this week is that our history is not a good sell. From my point of view, if one begins with such a good product and it is not a good sell, then you rarely look at the merchandise, but at the salesmen. Maybe we need better salesmen. I wonder if you could amplify on that because you have captured a very profound thought, the Orwellian interpretation of our heritage as opposed to our history.
Mr. Addy: It is an expression I have used myself and coined but the idea is certainly not my own. As far back as 1991, Desmond Morton, in an article that he wrote in The Globe and Mail, refers quite clearly to the one of the problems in Canada, and we all know that searching for the Canadian identity other than that we are not American poses many questions and problems to everyone. But let me get back to the question of heritage. Our history is founded on fact and it has good and bad things about it. You learn from both the good and the bad. One does not look at one's history by trying to modify the past in order to give oneself a vision of the future. This is not a marketing system that we are trying to construct. A museum, particularly the Museum of War, reflects what we did. Nobody glorifies war. No soldier glorifies war, but he is darned well prepared and trained to do his best as a Canadian soldier. He was in the 1860s, he was in the 1890s, my grandfather was in the Boer War, my father was in the Second World War, and I was. None of us thought that we were preparing to go to a great big party, I can assure you.
We have problems in our country and they do not change the fact that we went to war. We did not go to war for all the good things. I am from Ottawa. We were not always nice people in Ottawa. I come had a Protestant mother and a Catholic father. I was sent to Catholic schools. A mixed marriage in those days was something quite different from what we call a mixed marriage today. That is part of Canadian history. Were we racist? Yes, in those days we were. In fact, it was almost a badge of honour in the Second World War to say, "I am from this church and I am better than you." Another soldier would say, "I am from this church and I am better than you."
Let me just refer to an example. I travelled across the Pacific with the gentleman that you heard before me, Sam Sinclair, who was my bus partner as we went to pay respects to those who had been Burma bombers and Hong Kong veterans. They were with us, and they struggled from all over to get there to pay their last respects. When you see those people, when you see that kind of reaction, you know that they came from tough times. We are changing, we are evolving; but in those days they were very proud, very racist, and honesty has to admit both of those things. We are getting better. We are working towards getting better. But it is not by trying to twist the truth to forge things that should not be forged that you will achieve what you should achieve in this country. That achievement will be reached by being honest, by learning from history and by progressing. I think that is what upsets me more than anything else in this debate.
I reflected as well, senator, on the point that we should not even be here. We should have had enough wisdom and common sense not to even have thought of doing this thing. That is what upsets me, I guess, more than anything else. I wish more people had the degree of common sense exhibited by Mr. Sinclair. I trust that is what it means because Orwell, of course, changed words to mean things other than what the actual words meant in the dictionary, and I think we are doing the same thing by putting in the Holocaust museum <#0107> in other words, we are trying to relate ideas that are not necessarily that closely related, particularly not in our history.
We are doing more than that. We are imposing ideas that would violate what history was actually was.
The Chairman: You are also head of the Corps of Commissionaires.
Mr. Addy: That is correct. I am the National Executive Secretary of the Commissionaires.
The Chairman: Did the War Museum consult you before they removed the Corps of Commissionaires from the War Museum?
Mr. Addy: No. That was a unilateral decision, made on the basis of the lowest bid.
The Chairman: But the War Museum made no effort whatsoever to retain the veterans who were there.
Mr. Addy: There were efforts made by us in the opposite direction, but not many efforts made to retain our members, to be quite candid.
The Chairman: I received a significant amount of correspondence on that and it left me with the feeling that the board really did not consider veterans to be very important.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Thank you for your presentation Major General Addy. I was struck by a number of words in your statement. I talked about this all day along without having heard your presentation. When I say and when you say:
[English]
For whatever reason that pits two values and valuable communities.
[Translation]
This debate is unfortunate -- and you have just said so. As Mr. Trudeau used to say in caucus: always be cautious.
[English]
Because you could pit community against community.
[Translation]
It seems to me that the debate has gotten off to a bad start, a very bad start. Like you, I regret this. And what I particularly regret, as you mentioned on the last page of your brief, is the lack of consultation. If I had to make a suggestion, or I was almost going to say if I had to punish a student, in this case, the Board of the Museum, I would like to lock them in a room and oblige them to watch all the witnesses that were heard by the committee on CPAC. What we see repeatedly is the lack of communication, knowledge or sensitivity of people who may have a greater affinity for the arts. In that case you will understand, if there is no one to defend the military issue, it may suffer. You must have had the same reaction as I did when Ms Susan Riley, national arts writer for The Ottawa Citizen, announced in her recent article that there would be major expansion and that Mackenzie King would be criticized. That amounted to judging society.
And you did say that we shouldn't be afraid of past wrongs. But is the War Museum the appropriate place for this? I have my doubts. Especially, judging all of French-Canadian society. I really got angry a while ago. There didn't appear to be anything good. It is the whole Catholic Church, all the best elements of the media, all the intellectuals, and there I have a right to be offended, Senator Cools, and everybody else, because my people as a whole is being attacked. It's as though there had been nothing good; nevertheless, my brother volunteered in 1939. He was not called up, he was not obliged to serve. He served in Europe in 1939. Perhaps his only mistake was that he didn't die. Perhaps that makes him less worthy.
I find it unfortunate that we were forced -- I would go so far as to say that I find it, and I'm using a very strong word, repugnant. I think that all of this energy should have been applied to understanding us, talking to us and convincing us. That was not done.
[English]
I was keeping this picture behind me for Friday, for the media people. It looks more like a bunch of Canadians surrendering as prisoners than people going to war.
[Translation]
When I looked at the picture, I had the impression that it was Canadians who surrendered and were prisoners of war. I'm told that that is not the case. Perhaps I am not very good at figurative art, but we'll see.
Mr. Addy: I was upset to see what was happening to our museum. I wouldn't be here if I didn't share your opinion.
[English]
Senator Cools: In the same article by Susan Riley to which Senator Prud'homme has referred, there is a reference to Mackenzie King's anti-Semitism. What do you suppose that means?
Mr. Addy: I regret that my profession has made me a general and not an historian. Therefore, I find it difficult to comment on that.
In those days, during the war there were all sorts of groups. The Knights of Columbus, the Orangemen, the Richelieu Club and others were all exclusive clubs. It was part of the culture of the day. It was part of everyone's up-bringing. To pass value judgments now and to say that all of those members were horrible people would be a fairly damning statement and one that is not really founded in fact.
The Chairman: We survived it and built a good nation, did we not?
Mr. Addy: I think it is not bad. I would certainly fight for it again.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation today.
Our first witness tomorrow morning is Mr. Doug Fischer. We will also be experimenting with a teleconference call tomorrow. We will hear from a member of the Southam commission who cannot make the trip to Ottawa.
The committee adjourned.