Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 6 - Evidence - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:05 a.m. to continue its study of all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Our first witness this morning is Mr. Doug Fisher, who is well known to you as a political columnist.
I feel that I had a good deal to do with the fact that he left politics and became a columnist. When we both came into the House of Commons in 1957, Mr. Fisher was anxious about doing his radio broadcasts for his riding. One day, he invited me to share the broadcast with him. In order to avoid getting into a political argument, we discussed fluoridation of the water supply. After that, I am sure Mr. Fisher decided there was an easier and better way of making a living. I think I drove him out of the House of Commons after that broadcast.
Please come forward, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Douglas Fisher: It is good to see survivors around here. I was thinking that yesterday, listening to the tributes in the house to Mark MacGuigan and Bruce Beer and David Orlikow. When Bruce left, he had this great ambition to have a trotter that would run a 2-minute mile. He found one that ran it in 2:01. I thought that was fairly good. That was his goal. Poor David got turfed out early, and he should have left. I think he had been here too long. He was an unobtrusive ornament on the hill. Mark was, quite simply, one of the nicest, most decent persons I have ever known. I am telling you this because I have a tendency to look backwards and, to a degree, this is what this committee is doing.
I am here without any formal constituency. I have been writing a column for 18 years in the Legion magazine. From it, I have had a tremendous amount of contact, particularly with veterans who have something to say. I am as au courant as you are likely to get with the bibliography of war veterans and what they have been doing and what has been written about them.
I have spent a fair amount of time in my own personal commemoration of the war. I was a trooper in an armoured car regiment that went to Normandy a few weeks after D-day through to the end of the war. I was what they call a gunner operator in a Stag Hound armoured car. The 12th Manitoba Dragoons was a great regiment to be in. We had good leadership. We saw a lot of the war. Through a series of circumstances, particularly because we were a closely knit regiment where people exchanged things, I knew quite a bit about how the war was developing from, for example, intelligence reports and so on. We knew that the V-1s and V-2s were coming before they burst as a news item. I mention this because ever since I went back overseas to go to the University of London after the war I have been keeping up with the Canadian army, in particular in Italy but also in northwest Europe during the war.
As a consequence of all this -- the correspondence, the letters, the appearances, the talks at Legions and so on over the years -- I do not want to say that I speak for veterans in the way that Mr. Chadderton and some of the Legion people do and can, but I do have a view. I also have some experience on the Ottawa scene. I know something about government spending and funding and so on. I have my own views about the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of Civilization and about the particular issue before you.
Quite frankly, I am most concerned about this because of something that has bothered me for years. I have written several articles about the terrible tendency in this country to label and tag people. The tag that has always bothered me the most is the anti-Semitic tag. I get very uncomfortable when I see issues and cases developing that will have a political context in which the question is raised: Well, is this anti-Semitic? Is this racist? Does it swing on some fundamental of religious conflict?
What has most disturbed me about this particular issue is that it seemed to come sliding in from nowhere. All of a sudden we are confronted with it and immediately veterans who have a position on whether there should be a Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum are being tagged as anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. This drives me up the wall. It is very regrettable. I want to state very strongly that this should not be a matter that raises the issue of anti-Semitism. That is most bothersome.
Having said that, I want to come back to war veterans, the Canadian military, the military history of this country, and why we have done so little with it. Why is there so little Canadian pride, let alone interest, in World War II achievements? There is not much interest in what individuals or units did.
I believe I have an explanation for that. One of the main reasons is that there was no official approval or determination right from the end of the war to commemorate. This can been seen in the problem Colonel Stacey had with Brooke Claxton. The Liberal government of the day had led a magnificent war effort, but they were very much aware that the war, particularly in its later stages with the reinforcement crisis, had been very divisive, so they were sort of against the idea.
Mr. Pearson had to intervene personally, as an old friend of Colonel Stacey, in order to get him the money to produce the histories of the services in World War II. The view was to play this down because a sector of the country had not committed itself and participated as strongly in the war; that sector being the French Canadians, particularly the ones in Quebec. Therefore, it was felt that we should play it down and not get into any big commemoration. They did not want to build up a huge patriotic myth about the great things that Canada did during World War II.
One of the ironies of that is that five or six years after the war, when we were into what Granatstein called the golden age of the mandarins of Ottawa, the heroes of the war apparently were the mandarins; not even C.D. Howe and his "dollar a year" men, but these wise people behind the politicians who had masterminded this wonderful war effort and kept the country together and at the same time began to develop the social system that we currently have.
That is my first point. There has never been in government itself, particularly in the senior bureaucracy, any great enthusiasm for making a great deal out of Canadian war efforts. The same applies to World War I. There, the crisis, in terms of bitterness, was even deeper than what developed in World War II.
This is, of course, something people do not want to talk about. James Eayrs, in his books on the defence of Canada, gets into it a bit, particularly when talking about the dislike of senior bureaucrats for so many of the Canadian generals after World War II. The general they cottoned up to was the one who was the most unpopular with all the other generals and the troops. However, I have made my point.
Next, there was an initiative seized in a diplomatic role for Canada by the Pearsonians. It was founded on the status that Canada and Canadian services had earned, through their war effort and what Canada as a nation had done as a supply base during the war. These people, aside from the stature they wanted for Canada on the world stage, which we can all appreciate, began to develop the idea of peace-keeping, which has led to peacemaking. Along with it they developed, with a great deal of support from many people, particularly clergymen and others who were worried about the atom bomb and so on, this whole idea that Canadians are not really war-like, that we are essentially a peaceful people. That became part of what I call the haloes that we presented to the world, as if to say that, in a sense, we were better than other people because we were not so savage, so brutal, or so military-minded, particularly in comparison to our big neighbours to the south. This is somewhat amusing if you know anything about the reputation of the Canadian troops in two wars or the reputation of No. Six Group in the RCAF during World War II.
We must also note that NATO was created to face Stalin's USSR, which was suddenly transformed from grand ally to the dread enemy of democracy. We had the spy scandals and domestic treachery in Canada. That created a good deal of cynicism about this good war that was just over. Both NATO commitments and peace-keeping for the UN gave serious roles to the Canadian military, but the forces that we had for NATO were largely permanent. These forces, by their leadership and supported by the government, gradually turned away from what had been the basic Canadian tradition with regard to the military, which is that it was based upon the militia and reserve organizations.
This led to a downplaying for years of all the regional associations and local connotations of regiments and squadrons. They were no longer a vital part of communities across the country. Throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, one could almost watch the spine, life and vitality going out of the armouries all across Canada.
When the creative writers, novelists and journalistic historians, such as Pierre Berton, and the film producers turned in the 1950s and 1960s to Canada in World War II, their focus was on what went wrong.
I spoke not long ago with Harold Herbert, a long-time Liberal MP from Montreal. He wrote an amusing memoir entitled Memoirs of a Trained Seal. Harold had one of the most exacting, terrible and decisive roles of an ordinary man in the RAF that you can imagine. He was the man flying at 40,000 feet taking photographs. He told me that he is driven crazy by the obsession of Canadian writers and film producers for replaying the disaster at Dieppe and for incessantly discussing who was responsible, the bravery or the lack of it, the poor planning, whether the Germans knew, and so on. He thinks of a much greater fundamental military disaster with which he had a connection, that being the bridge too far, the drop at Arnhem.
He said that what happened there was a terrible failure, much worse in scope and casualties than Dieppe, yet it has become almost a primer of heroism with those beret-headed troops clinging to that bridge and fighting for so long.
He told me that it bothers him because he was dispatched on three separate occasions to fly at a high altitude and circle that part of Holland to get perfect pictures. Of course, the Germans sent their fighter planes up but could not get him because they did not have planes that could reach that altitude. So he circled and circled and took pictures, going back again and again. He does not know what was done with the pictures, but it was very apparent to him that the Germans knew he was up there and had certainly figured out that something was happening in that corridor.
I thought I was giving it away when I discovered what transpired after September 17.
It reminded me of how the Brits and Americans play their disasters differently from the way Canadians do, as we did with Dieppe. We get all this stuff in Canada about the ruthless exile, which was perfectly legal, of Japanese Canadians from the B.C. coast, the shipping losses in the North Atlantic, the brutality against poor German civilians in the allied bomber offensive, and all about the reinforcement mess in the army with too few infantrymen, failures, disasters, and so on. Yet these were aspects of what was an unbelievably mighty war effort by 11 to 12 million people over a period of five years, by a country that was mixed in its enthusiams but came together and rallied.
The next point I wanted to make is the most sensitive one, namely, the creation following the war of the state of Israel. It owed much of its justification and western support to the revelations of the terrible cruelty and infamy of the Holocaust. As the awareness and understanding of the Holocaust took shape in the early 1950s, regarding the diabolical arrangements and the scale of it, and as people began to see it as an unparalleled human calamity engineered by an evil inhumanity, it became clear that the allies had done less than they might have done to save Jewish lives. It is hard to say what allies but I am really talking about the senior command. It had nothing to do with Canadians from the beginning to the end of the war.
As the records were studied and as the brusque dismissals given European Jews seeking safety in Canada became known, the Canadian record seemed to be stained by a collective default in our conscience, inspired by anti-Semitism. This tainted the victory of its predecessors among the post-war generations of Canadians. What sort of victory was it if, while it was being achieved, there had been these oversights and unawareness of the cruelty that was being carried on and developing and that was wiping out the Jews of Europe? The victory came too late for those who suffered the most in the war. Again, that detracts from what we did together during the war.
After the war and well into the 1960s, there was broad support in Canada for more immigration, and the country of origin was not important. Partly through the personal ideas of Tom Kent, this led in time to a change in our immigration policy, away from our traditional sources of people, particularly from Northwest Europe, towards the whole world. You had the point system, and so on. This has in turn led to the national policy of multiculturalism. In part, we have the policy of multiculturalism because immigrants by the thousands were from lands that were once Canada's enemies. If you are to build your nation on being a microcosm of the whole world, you must look back and realize that we had two wars. A lot of these people are coming from societies and communities that were our enemies.
One of the things that this new immigration policy and multiculturalism began to stress -- and it ties in with the United Nations Declaration of Rights -- was that there had to be an equal value and respect in Canada for each heritage, each language, each culture. We in our proud pluralism, in which we have tended to preen before the world the heritage and ideas of every ethnicity, find a global model here. At the same time that this policy was developing, we were disconnecting more and more from the strong British ties that we had had coming out of World War II. Those ties were based on joint endeavours in two wars and even more through the inherited parliamentary institutions and values.
With official bilingualism and multiculturalism, the concept of Canada emerged as that of a nation with two charter or founding peoples and with a Canadianism enlarged by official and subsidized respect for all ethnic groups and their languages, religions and cultures in the country. If every ethnicity is of equal worth, whatever original Canadian ethnicity there had been -- which the thousands of service people had felt and thought they understood -- has been bypassed. I cannot put that to you strongly enough. I never found any Canadians during the war, in the army or in all my other relationships, who did not know they were Canadian and were distinctive and unique. There was something there. There was a Canadian ethnicity. I think the French Canadians had their own distinctive one, based particularly in Quebec. That has given way with this multi-ethnicity or multiculturalism. Thus the Canadian common denominator, which once emphasized British traditions and institutions and that heritage, became the global rainbow.
We are the model and a conscience for the globe in our respect for the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms and global diversity. The nation whose people rose to the challenge and fought and sacrificed in the mighty war against fascism is no longer very relevant, it seems. Heroism in battle, triumph in actions, large and small, huge output of weapons, tools and foodstuffs for war are not worth a continuing and vivid remembrance.
I think the great people who fashioned this were not all in the services. The man I was lucky enough to defeat in 1957 in Ottawa, C.D. Howe, is owed a lot of commemoration by Canadians for what he achieved in creating the Canadian economy and the communications system. But again, that is long ago, far away, and is being forgotten.
Celebrating a war-time patriotism of long ago only lionizes Canadians who seem to have killed or wounded those who are now our friends, even our fellow Canadians. Meanwhile the myth has grown and grown of Canadians as an ultra-civilized and unwarlike people and of Canada as an intrinsically pacifistic country.
Today so many also forget the mighty transformation in Quebec that began as the fifties closed and Duplessis died. The most conservative Roman Catholic enclave in the world swiftly became one of the most secular and liberal societies in the world. The long-held determination of French-speaking Quebecers for distinctiveness and as much autonomy as possible for their provincial government within the federation became more nationalistic and aggressive after the war and was ready to run with the concept of a people's right to self-determination as expressed in the UN charter. So the nation whose economy, communications and social system had been so largely forged in two world wars has become a political process or laboratory in which its own divisibility is a continuous possibility. Canada has become a nation of two parts, as much or more than it is a nation of 10 provinces and northern territories.
One recognition of post-war reality is found in our prime ministers. In 39 of the 52 years since World War II ended, the Prime Minister has come from Quebec. We know the reasons why. It ties back to where I began. When you have that kind of situation, that part of our memory that most crystallizes and would lionize what was done in the war seems, to a lot of people, particularly in politics, to be down-played. I feel that is one of the reasons why there has never been strong political support and interest in Ottawa -- and I include Parliament Hill -- for the Canadian War Museum.
The tragedy of this is that I have a lot of acquaintances who are French Canadians who fought in the war. Gaby Chartrand is one of my favourite people. He was Michel's older brother. He was a real hero. He was dropped in France a number of times. He worked. He escaped the Gestapo. He led a charmed life. He was one of the great agents we had in France. When he came back after the war, he wanted to do something for his fellow veterans. He was in our Royal Montreal Regiment for a time. There, through his own activities and the people he attracted, he created in the west end of Montreal Island two big complexes just for veterans. He has been supported strongly in it by a lot of the leaders of the French-Canadian units.
I think, for example, of the regiment that I was close to a number of times during the war, the Fusiliers de Mont-Royal, and the casualties they suffered. The Black Watch had nothing on them. Those were our fellow Canadians of French Canadian stock.
Yet somehow, that is not to be memorialized because it does not fit.
As merely one volunteer who served for some years among the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in our armed forces in World War II, I believe in myself almost as an archetypal ex-warrior. I was so happy to get out, to get on with life, to get an education, to get work, to be domestic and to put down my roots. I did this not so much to forget the recent past and service, but to ignore the war's major significance while occasionally recalling its comradeship and regimental reunions. Most veterans did get on with life -- soldiers once, citizens now.
One of the wonderful stories about the veterans of World War II is how so few of them are on the welfare roles. I go through the paper now and look at the obituaries. If you look at any major paper, I challenge you to find a list of obituaries where you do not see a proud remembrance: "squadron leader in World War II", or "with the engineers in World War II", and so on. The forces were made up of citizens and volunteers. Almost 1 million of them took up their lives and got on with things.
I blame myself and my fellows for being so occupied with what we were going to be and do as persons and individuals in our communities after the war that we let slide the continuing celebration of why we all got together. There is nothing we have done together that matches what we did as a small people of 5 million or 6 million in World War I, and as a small people of 11 million and 12 million in World War II. Yet, there it is.
These developments I have been sketching, these points I have made, much altered the interpretation of Canada in World War II by those who look backward, particularly those of the following generations who had nothing in direct wartime experience. A lot of what I am talking about, this failure, happened in the schools where there was a strong reaction to making much of war and to making a lot more about Canada as a pacifistic people.
It was a fantastic achievement, with only 11 to 12 million Canadians during that period. It deserves the most funded and the most brilliant museum we can put together.
I look and see what the Smithsonian has done. I go around the world and I see what the Americans have done in the south at Arlington and what the British have done in a number of places. Then I look at the tawdry little thing that we have to celebrate this monstrous achievement in two world wars. I say to myself, "What kind of wimps are we?" I blame myself because I never stood up often enough and raised enough hell.
I came to Ottawa as an MP and pursued my issues. This was not one of them and it should have been. At 78, it is too late. I am not pleading with you to take it up, but the occasion that has brought me here to give this presentation, which I hope does not strike you as a tirade, is symptomatic of the kind of difficulties we are getting into.
I do not believe that the kind of celebration and interest that I should like to see developed and carried on about Canadians in war will be helped at all by having a major Holocaust Gallery.
Finally, if we are to have a Holocaust Gallery partly supported by government funds and government enterprise, we must consider questions about whether we have the scholarship and necessary authorities on the Holocaust. How many individuals with a Ph.D. know about this field? A good Canadian historian told me that there are over 20 people in the Smithsonian who have post-graduate expertise in connection with their display.
If we are to have government support for a Holocaust Gallery or museum, it needs to be done well. I do not think it fits that well with the Canadian War Museum.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you, Mr. Fisher, for an interesting and informative review. I am particularly impressed by the fact that you say that we in Ottawa, and particularly the parliamentarians, are partially to blame for the neglect of the War Museum. I stated this publicly before you spoke. I agree very much with you.
You were so interesting that I did not interrupt you to allow time for questioning. We will proceed with our next witness because of the extremely interesting manner in which you presented your brief.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, this witness was so insightful, could we have him back? The wonderful thing about his testimony is that he integrates the entire picture.
Mr. Fisher, could you come back again? There are many questions I should like to put to you.
The Chairman: Will you be able to do so before we write our final report?
Mr. Fisher: I would be glad to. I wish I could have paid more respect to the veterans' groups here. I should have worked in an explanation of the particular roles they played, which have been very important and fundamental. In this country, the politicians have treated our veterans very well on the whole, but that is not the issue before us. In some ways it is almost to say, "Treat them well and they will go away."
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: I gather you disagree with Mr. Abella.
Mr. Fisher: I am bothered by Mr. Abella.
Senator Cools: Could we take five minutes more? We have not had many witnesses who could discuss the question of Mackenzie King's anti-Semitism.
The Chairman: Senator Cools, we have 13 witnesses today, and I would like to keep to our schedule.
Our next witnesses are representatives from Esprit de Corps Magazine.
Please proceed.
Mr. Scott Taylor, Esprit de Corps Magazine: Mr. Chairman, appearing with me today are Mr. Les Peate and Mr. Norman Shannon.
Thank you for permitting us to appear today. As we are from the media, it is probably more acceptable that we be sitting back reporting on these proceedings. However, given our magazine's narrow focus in dealing with this subject and the fact that over the past several years we have had a strong working relationship and a strong knowledge of the principal players at the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum, we felt it would be within our civic duty to appear here with both our concerns and comments as to what has been happening in the current debate.
In addition to our presentation, we will be providing you with our latest edition, which is devoted entirely to the War Museum-Holocaust Gallery debate.
Many of the points discussed here are included in that presentation but they are dealt with in much greater detail. We would like you to consider that edition as part of our official presentation as well.
Our presentation has three parts. Mr. Norman Shannon will cover the most suitable site for a Holocaust or genocide gallery. Mr. Les Peate will cover the concerns over the independence of the management at the War Museum vis-à-vis the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
First, I should like to cover our concerns over official disinformation which we have been recording coming from the Museum of Civilization Corporation and the War Museum regarding this whole issue.
By way of introduction, as a media outlet which specializes in covering military affairs, Esprit de Corps has been instrumental in exposing a number of sensitive issues that transpired in National Defence. Over the past few years, we have seen morale gradually crumble within our forces as the senior leadership has been held in increasing contempt by the rank and file. However, nothing in my experience to date can compare with the current situation at the War Museum. Never have I seen such divided loyalty or fear of employer retribution as I have witnessed in the past few months through covering this expansion/Holocaust story.
To the credit of those inside the organization who have risked either dismissal or judicial review of their contracts, our magazine, along with many other concerned parties, have been kept apprised of the often deceitful strategies employed by the Museum of Civilization Corporation in entering this debate.
I believe this committee is already aware that the paper trail of circumstantial evidence sometimes runs in conflict with statements made by Museum of Civilization officials.
Exprit de Corps is aware of many such examples where public comments issued by the few individuals duly authorized to issue such statements have run counter to the truth. In the publications provided to you as a supplement to this briefing, you will find a detailed listing of ten such meddlings with the verité under the banner headline " Disinformation, Obfuscation and Fabrication."
In addition to these particular examples, all of which were drawn from publicly available information, I will submit to you today three additional pieces of internal correspondence which illustrate a pattern that we can only pinpoint as conspiratorial deception.
The first letter is found in Appendix A. It is dated November 25 and was originated by Mr. Elliott Oshry of Ketchum Inc. who was fund-raising counsel, addressed to Mr. A.J. Freiman, concerning the Holocaust Gallery campaign.
At that particular juncture, the public debate over the War Museum expansion plan was gaining momentum. This letter would appear to illustrate a concerted effort to regain the PR initiative on the part of the pro-Holocaust Gallery faction. There are several passages in this correspondence that cause me some alarm as to the depth of the federal government's private commitment, both financial and otherwise, to the Holocaust Gallery, at least at that juncture.
In one such instance Mr. Oshry states:
...We are being given a wonderful opportunity; we don't have to create the space or staff or program; and we can't let this slip through our fingers.
He does not state exactly who is providing the opportunity for this Holocaust Gallery.
On the second point, we have filled in the names of the individuals who are only listed by first names to be Mike Wolfe, Murray Johnston and Ramsey Withers:
Mike can get help from Murray and Ramsey to secure an enthusiastic endorsement from the Legion.
While this endorsement never happened, it is disturbing for us to note that this was even attempted, for them to meddle in a private organization. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
The most disturbing point we found involved George MacDonald, where they believe he:
...can secure unequivocal endorsements from the government.
It does not indicate from whom he can obtain them, but certain questions arise: How would they have knowledge of that and what endorsements did Dr. MacDonald feel he could get for his organization?
Regarding their public affairs campaign, they were going to:
Revise the case for support to include...a response to the question of 100 per cent government funding...
Never before have we seen any statement pertaining to 100 per cent government funding. We do not know the answer to this but it begs the question: Who was promising 100 per cent government funding?
They also wanted to encourage as many members of the committee as possible to attend the February conference which took place in Toronto. As this conference was sponsored with public funds by the Museum of Civilization, they were obviously backing this with public funds as well.
The second memo I will bring to the committee's attention is a December 18, 1997, correspondence from Colonel Murray Johnston. It is clear from the text that Mr. Johnston is trying to develop an internal explanation for the discrepancy in the published fund-raising totals at that time. His solution is rather disturbing:
I know that the differences are $2 million from the Holocaust Gallery campaign and the extra $2 million being provided from the Corporation. But I don't think the veterans are aware -- and may ask.
Perhaps it would be easier to explain that the project has evolved and that a proper expansion of the CWM will cost $12 million with a public sector contribution of $7 million from the Corporation and a private sector contribution of $5 million from Passing the Torch.
The appearance of deception there is not as disturbing as what becomes clear in the final document we tabled. That one questions even the figure of $12 million, which has been bandied about and certainly stated repeatedly by public affairs spokesmen from the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization. As recently as yesterday they said in the press that the $12-million figure was the cap.
Internal planning documents, which we have obtained and provided to you, show that, as of December 1997, the approved budget at that point was already set at $13.8 million. They noted in their own notes that this did not include the moving costs, which would be in addition to that. Already they are out by $2 million as of December 1997 according to their own documents. Yet they are still making public statements to the effect that this thing has been capped at $12 million.
We do not have all the answers, obviously. We do not have all the bits of information we would like to have. That will take some time. Clearly, this situation illustrates a problem with the management and the control that is being exercised by the Museum of Civilization.
Mr. Les Peate, Esprit de Corps Magazine: I would draw your attention to the beautiful picture at the front showing a brass plate, which will be placed in front of what is supposed to be a War Museum. It lists Canadian servicemen, through the years, through the centuries, in fact. Take a look. You will find that not one of them has a weapon. I would suspect that this is a very good indication of the state of mind of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which controls the destiny of the War Museum. Has anyone seen a war memorial in any town in Canada where the soldier has not been carrying a weapon? I have not.
To return to my presentation, it is becoming more and more evident that the woes of the War Museum are mainly due to the fact that the War Museum is controlled by the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. I have become aware of a few anomalies since Tuesday. We received some nice figures indicating how generous the Museum of Civilization is to the War Museum.
It turns out that, since 1991, the Canadian War Museum has received a total of $24 million and change. During the same period, the Museum of Civilization Corporation's funding, including that for the Canadian War Museum, was $337 million and change. You do not have to be too much of a mathematician to see how much of that we got.
Admittedly, I did not include corporate services which, over the last three years, the Canadian War Museum has received from the CMCC. However, until that time, the Canadian War Museum, where I have been involved as a Friend, a tour guide, and in other ways, was managing quite well on its own. Why they have had this thrust upon them is beyond me. I suspect there is a rather sinister reason in some cases but I do not want to go into that here.
Regarding the lack of funds, well, we are all short of money, so we do not give too much to the War Museum. We could not afford to buy McCrae's medals when they were advertised in a catalogue for $30,000. The Museum of Civilization can afford to buy such wonderful pieces of Canadian history as a technicolour Pakistani motorbus. They can afford to display Siamese bicycle-taxis. I believe those were actually presented.
Next year they are having an Egyptian display, which will cost $10 million. Some of it may be recovered from other funds, but we have heard that about a number of other government projects. I will believe that when I see it. While they are getting $10 million to display such an important part of Canada's history as replicas of ancient Egypt, the total budget for the Canadian War Museum is $3,013,415. I do not think I need to say more about that. These figures were given out on Monday.
Senator Jessiman: Did you say $3 million?
Mr. Peate: Yes, $3,013,415. This figure is in the hand-out that was given out on Monday. That information is contained in that brief.
Dr. MacDonald of the War Museum states he will not have a Holocaust Gallery in the Museum of Civilization despite the fact that everyone and his brother thinks this is a major social problem, not strictly a military one. He provided a number of reasons. I suspect they do not want to destroy their Pollyanna image. They like to have a Disneyland on the Ottawa and have nice things there. However, history is not always nice. If it was, it would be great, but it is not. They do not want to show the dark side.
The Museum of Civilization cites lack of space as one reason for not wanting a Holocaust Gallery at their museum is lack of space. I am not an architect, but I have seen space at the museum. This Egyptian display will take up over 930 square metres. The highest estimate we have had so far for a Holocaust Gallery is 600 square metres.
Over the past few years, the staff at the War Museum has been cut from 44 to 24 members. Some of the functions of the War Museum have been taken over by the CMCC. Representatives from both museums have mentioned that.
Australia, in comparison to Canada, has a population of 18 million. It has a War Museum which is much larger than ours. It has a staff about three times the size of ours and it has a budget that I shudder to think of how much more than ours it is.
Also, when you start to make comparisons, I would suggest you take a look at the luxurious interior of the Museum of Civilization and compare it with the War Museum. There is a lot of room for improvement.
Incidentally, I am not knocking Dan Glenney's staff. They have been doing the best with what they have. I have no quarrels with the way they are working.
I mentioned the lack of military presence. It came as no surprise that just after this issue came about Barney Danson was appointed to the board of trustees. I also understand from a press release that he is also chairing the consultation group. That is a step in the right direction, but it is a case of too little, too late.
I discussed the consultation committee before and spoke of just how neutral it is. I do not want to go into that again unless someone specifically wishes to ask later.
We have been receiving deceptive information. We asked the public relations staff of the museum for the names of the people on this consultation committee. The person who is supposed to be in charge of public information was unaware that three of the members of the consultation committee were his immediate bosses. The president and vice-president of the Museum of Civilization is one of the trustees. He also, surprisingly, did not know whether these people were being paid or not. They are being paid what is termed a "modest per diem." I do not know how modest it is, and as the honourable senators here are probably quite interested in salaries, having seen today's paper, I will not even hazard a guess. However, I would be willing to do their work for half of what they are getting.
As for the subject of visitors' polls, we have been unable to obtain a copy of the mysterious poll that indicates two-thirds of visitors would like to see a Holocaust Museum. As I mentioned before, the questionnaire was slanted inasmuch as no other specific aspects of war were asked about, simply the Holocaust. People at the War Museum are scared to talk. We have asked to review the questionnaires. We still do not have them.
There are a number of other inconsistencies, but time is short. I should like to finish with my final paragraph.
The sooner that our diminishing company of veterans and the new generations to whom "with failing hands we throw the torch" can boast a real War Museum, the better.
Mr. Norm Shannon, Esprit de Corps Magazine: The major issue in this debate is not the Holocaust Gallery per se but the need to liberate the War Museum from the Museum of Civilization.
I should like to spend a few moments discussing something you have all heard a great deal about this week, namely, the Holocaust and its relationship to other acts of genocide, particularly in this century.
The need for a memorial goes far beyond the need for a Holocaust memorial. Although 6 million Jewish people died in World War II, 138 million people have died from acts of genocide in this century alone. Some of us can almost remember the first one. The Holocaust has a sad history, but genocide is as current as the next newscast. When you go home tonight, you will likely hear an update on the 40,000 or 80,000 people who have been killed in Algeria in the last six years.
We now understand that the United Nations is hoping to send someone with a briefcase into Algeria to discuss the situation. My point is that while 140 countries have signed a UN agreement on genocide, these are worthless scraps of paper. The UN has neither the will nor the way to enforce these agreements. The United Nations has drifted along for over 50 years without coming to grips with a global problem.
I do not propose to be unduly critical of the United Nations; I am just trying to illustrate the magnitude of this thing. Recently, Canada brought 123 countries together to sign the landmines treaty. This was a real breakthrough. They managed to penetrate the walls of bureaucracy that surround the UN. They also managed to introduce a new voice into the UN.
Canada could establish strong leadership in the 21st century if it pursued a Holocaust program that is an educational program with anti-Holocaust information. Already, there are a potential 123 countries that may subscribe to this.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be an ideal place to put this type of a project. It would solve this ongoing debate which continues to divide Canadians. It would remove this divisiveness and put Canada on a strong course in putting a sad past to work for a better future.
Mr. Taylor: That is the end of our prepared brief. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Senator Kelly: First, the name of your magazine is Esprit De Corps.
Mr. Taylor: That is correct.
Senator Kelly: That means "team work," does it?
Mr. Taylor: Spirit of the corps.
Senator Kelly: I wish to confirm that I received your message correctly. In general terms, your message is that things are in a hell of a mess.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, at the War Museum.
Senator Kelly: That is what I understood you were saying. You are saying that there are all sorts of plots afoot to undermine one initiative or another initiative.
You also talk about the current controversy. Have you been present throughout this week?
Mr. Taylor: I have not, unfortunately, no, but Mr. Les Peate and Mr. Shannon have been.
Senator Kelly: What I have heard and seen emerge this week is total agreement on what everyone considers would be a perfect world; a perfect world being an upgraded War Museum. It needs more space, it needs more facilities to do the job it has set out to do. All of us agree that would be an ideal, perfect world, although we may encounter some difficulties in reaching that goal.
There seems to be a consensus that the Holocaust must have a museum of some kind to continually remind people of the horrors of genocide. That is one of the most glaring examples of a very dark chapter in the history of the world. There also seems to be agreement that that could be accomplished best if it were a stand-alone entity. That, again, is the perfect world. It is not something that may be available tomorrow.
The consensus I sensed here was not so strongly against it necessarily being with the War Museum, but better to be on its own to send its message, combined with the other initiatives that are undertaken by the War Museum.
I do not sense that this controversy is, at this stage, ongoing. A number of agreements have been arrived at by all sides on what had been some difference of opinion. Do you have concerns about that?
Mr. Taylor: I, too, am encouraged with the developments of late. There seems to have been a change of will at the government level and certainly at the level of the Museum of Civilization. The fact that we are here cannot be ignored. The people who have pushed this through in the past four or five months have created a divisive environment in their own organizations and among veterans' organizations. The whole issue has become splintered. At one point we had Jewish organizations against veterans. Now everybody is unified in the fact that they realize where the problem lies, and that problem must be addressed.
We have been at the vortex of the issue, and trying to come to grips with it. We have been fed two sets of information from the same organization. That troubles me. Until that is brought into perspective, this remains a symptom of a greater problem. We have talked about that before.
The Holocaust Gallery debate issue and how it was managed by the bureaucrats, is the problem. It was mismanaged, to say the least. The fund-raising is at a standstill. In some cases the money has had to be returned. It has been a fiasco. You cannot say it has been a glowing success or we would not be sitting here today.
The Senate hearings have been helpful, and the fact that there has been some relenting on the part of the Museum of Civilization is encouraging.
Senator Kelly: I am pleased that you do not disagree too forcefully with the perfect world I described.
Mr. Taylor: The perfect world would be ideal. However, we cannot ignore what has transpired in the last five months and why these hearings are being held today.
Senator Kelly: You will agree with me that there are two ways of moving from where we are at present to a further state. We can start out by destroying confidence in everything that has gone on before. The problem with that, however, is that it moves us back in time. I believe we all agree that things have improved, even throughout the discussions which have taken place here. If we can start from this point -- and I feel you would agree -- it would be better than trying dwell on why the situation was in a mess six months ago, a year ago, or four years ago.
Mr. Taylor: I would disagree given the current state of the work environment within that organization. They have seen their management challenged and it had to give ground but, in the meantime, they have been subject to a lot of deception and there is a lack of trust there. There must be some sort of disentanglement of the Museum of Civilization from the War Museum and a new crop of managers put in place so that those working there can have some faith in the leadership before they can move forward. The symptom can be dealt with, but we must consider the bigger problem.
Senator Jessiman: Are you familiar with the statement that was read into the record yesterday? I am referring to these four paragraphs purported to have been issued by the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada, and the B'Nai Brith?
Mr. Taylor: I am not familiar with the statement, no.
Senator Jessiman: It states:
The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada, and B'nai Brith Canada would like to make a joint statement in response to the controversy that the Canadian War Museum expansion plans have engendered.
They are saying, in effect -- I will summarize to save time -- that they are prepared to consider something new, and that is what gave Senator Kelly hope that this matter has been settled.
As was pointed out yesterday, one sentence in this says "whilst we." If you read the statement by itself you would think that the four parties to this statement are included in the "we."
...have not abandoned our original proposal,
In questioning three of the parties to this document, because we have not yet discussed it with the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, they told us they had nothing to do with the drawing of this statement. This statement was drawn by the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. The "we" refers strictly to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. That corporation has not abandoned its original proposal.
That is a caveat we must all consider and, until we hear from them tomorrow, and unless they change their view, we will be back to square one. We are all taking the view that they have changed their minds, but that is not the case.
Are you familiar with the workings of the board and the appointment of Mr. Danson? I would refer to a press release which states that Minister Sheila Copps announced the government has appointed former defence minister Barney Danson, who is also Jewish, to the Civilization Museum board to mediate the dispute. There is another release indicating that he is on some advisory or consultative board.
If he is to mediate, with whom is he to mediate -- the other members of the board, the other members of the advisory? I do not understand how a member of this board can mediate anything.
Do you know anything more about this than what is in the press?
Mr. Taylor: It seems to be changing almost daily. The first step was they appointed him to the board of trustees and that was a prerequisite for him becoming the chairman of the advisory committee. Mr. Joe Geurts has said that his appearance on that advisory committee was due to the terms of reference over which he had no control. He seemed embarrassed about the fact that he appeared on the same advisory committee which was to provide advice to himself, which we also found to be a conflict. He and George MacDonald as well as Claudette Roy, who was the original chairperson, were on the board of trustees. Three out of the seven were there to provide advice to themselves. To eliminate that, they have brought in Mr. Danson, first, to be on the board of trustees, and then as the chairman.
Senator Jessiman: The chairman of the advisory committee?
Mr. Taylor: I believe that is where it stands now.
Senator Jessiman: They have a board of trustees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and it has, then, an advisory board?
Mr. Taylor: After the debate first became public, in order to assuage that particular subject, they set up an advisory committee.
There were originally four members of the original board or part of the management system on that committee. The veterans' organizations, realizing the composition of that board, chose to ignore that.
Senator Jessiman: Now we have one member who is a veteran. One of four, is it?
Mr. Taylor: It is one member of seven who is a veteran. Two are ex-military, but they are not veterans.
Senator Jessiman: We will get further into that as this proceeds.
Senator Prud'homme: I have always read your magazine, but I will now subscribe.
This reminds me of little kids who are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. People have made these decisions as a fait accompli. "We will announce it; if you don't like it, tough."
I have a strong argument with people who take on this committee privately. I wish they would do so publicly. They are saying that this committee understands nothing and that we are completely out of touch. I will return to that tomorrow.
Do you agree that if the Canadian Legion, the veterans and the concerned citizens who care about this had not reacted, it would have been a fait accompli? It would have been extremely difficult, as it almost is now, to oppose this or to put our view forward.
Mr. Taylor: That is exactly what happened. Mr. Les Peates wears two hats. He is a Friend of the War Museum, and he is also a reporter for our magazine. When he went in to discuss this with individuals at the War Museum, they pleaded with him not to discuss the Holocaust issue as they knew it would blow up. We proceeded with the story, but he was even called at his home in order to try to kill the story during that period. Even when the story did break, they came back and stated that proper consultation had taken place and they felt that this was always being communicated through newsletters, et cetera. That was not the case. When they knew it would make a bigger splash, they made every attempt to keep us from making it public.
Senator Prud'homme: Your brief will be part of the minutes of the proceedings. However, I also wish to add the letter which was not read. I hope that people who read the proceedings will also read the letter. It will only be a page more in the minutes.
The Chairman: I would entertain a motion that the brief and the appendix be tabled and form part of the record.
Senator Cools: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, did you read Mr. Abella's testimony yesterday or see his statement on the 6 o'clock CBC news last night? He emphasized that if they did not get what they wanted, they would be pressing to come back to the original plan. Did you hear that?
Mr. Taylor: I believe the word "agreement" was used. I do not have first-hand knowledge of it, but Mr. Peate does. Perhaps he could field that question.
Mr. Peate: Yes, I did catch that 6 o'clock newscast. He did mention returning to the original agreement. I do not know whether this was a poor choice of words or whether in fact an agreement had been made. It is not for me to decide. I am just repeating what I heard on the news.
The Chairman: I felt he was emphasizing that. That is what the CBC chose to report. I should like all honourable senators to be aware of the statements made by Professor Abella.
Senator Cools: Perhaps we could have a transcript of Mr. Abella's statements on the news brought before us. It grows a little tiresome having important material that we should know about released in the media. Mr. Abella was before us yesterday and could have given us that information. Perhaps we could have our staff obtain a transcript of what was said. Based on that, we could then consider whether or not we would like to invite Mr. Abella back before us.
Senator Prud'homme: I would love to see him return.
Senator Cools: I also have a question regarding the statement that Senator Jessiman read to you, the one of which you were unaware. Again, this came before us informally and unofficially. As of yet, it has not been placed before us by the Museum of Civilization itself, despite the fact that, when the museum people appeared before us, questions were put to them which would have given them the opportunity at the time to reveal or disclose their thoughts or actions on the matter.
We must be crystal clear. I appreciate Senator Kelly's concerns that the museum has not yet formally or officially placed the issue before us, as contained in the statement that Senator Jessiman has read into the record. I remind everyone that it is not officially before us yet. We are reading about it in the media and we have had to discuss media reports about it, but the museum has not placed that issue before us yet.
Yesterday, in the testimony, it was clear from the B'nai Brith and the Jewish War Veterans of Canada and even the Jewish Congress that they were not properly canvassed on this either. We are waiting to have the entire origin and content of that statement disclosed to us.
Mr. Taylor: That is in keeping with the information we have been getting, namely, that it is a long way from over. That is why we are encouraged but not convinced.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I agree with Senator Prud'homme on the quality of your magazine.
I would ask our next witnesses to come forward.
Mr. John C. Thompson, Director, The Mackenzie Institute: Thank you for the invitation to appear here today.
As a general statement about my own interest and the interest of the institute in the affair, we have a long interest in all aspects of organized violence and political instability. As well, over the years, I have kept a strong private interest in the phenomena of mass murder, especially in the 20th century.
I will not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, primarily because I think it is too limiting. Instead, I prefer to use the word "democide" coined by Professor A.J. Rummel, the foremost scholar on the phenomena, because it includes killing people not only for their identify but for their beliefs and a number of other circumstances.
I wish to make three quick points. First, the experiences of all new Canadians tend to become a part of our heritage. Now that we are acquiring new citizens from every country and every society on earth, we must pay much more attention to some of the events that have been going on around the world.
At the same time, atrocity and mass murder, or democide, has been far too common in this century. The most conservative estimate that I have been able to come up with is approximately 165 million people. We are never quite sure of how many people are killed in these incidents. We are often too willing to deny that they are occurring at the time they are ongoing.
For example, in the early 1970s, no one was willing to admit what was going on in Cambodia or Vietnam. We need more recognition of the phenomenon and more understanding of how it occurs.
Finally, if we are to commemorate a single mass murder, particularly the Holocaust against European Jews, we must commemorate all other incidents because we are also connected to them. Whatever reasons Canada has to commemorate the Holocaust, those reasons also exit for a number of other incidents.
In my written presentation, I have a short list of those incidents of mass murder in which over 1 million people were killed, with some comments about Canada's connections to them.
Last Sunday, I was at a meeting of Asian-Canadians -- Korean, Chinese, Malaysians and Filipinos -- discussing the Japanese Holocaust. At the conference were two elderly Filipino gentlemen who, in 1942, had been part of the Bataan Death March. Their experience is now part of our heritage because these two gentlemen have now become Canadian citizens. They have passed on the way in which this experience shaped them and their attitudes to everything they have done in this country and to their grandchildren. What shaped them has become a part of our heritage.
I have talked to more people as well. At the Mackenzie Institute, we do a lot of primary research on many different subjects. I also like talking to people and collecting their stories. We have talked to Polish veterans who endured Stalin and Hitler, and then Stalin again. I spoke to a taxi driver in Toronto who had been a prisoner of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, one of the few people who survived the mass executions in his prisons.
I have a sister whose pastime is supporting people in a local elder's hostel. One of the people under her wing is a Ukrainian woman who has many personal recollections of everything inside the Soviet Union, including the Nazi occupation. Her children came to Canada and their children know all about their grandmother's stories.
A young academic whom I met two years ago shares my birth date in August of 1959, but he was born in Cambodia. In the years when I was going through a peaceful, ordinary teenage existence in Canada, he was praying daily that the Khmer Rouge cadres in the camp where he was would not kill him if they found out about his education, and watching while two of every seven people in that country were murdered in a four-year period.
Everyone who comes to Canada is shaped by their experiences, and through whatever they pass on to their children we all indirectly become shaped. When people have been affected by mass murderer, that becomes a part of our heritage.
Mass murder in this century has been a very extensive process. Much of it has occurred. I always find it annoying or distressing when it is restricted to the Holocaust against the European Jews only. The techniques used in the Holocaust were applied at that time to a number of other people. Remember that in WWII in Europe 12 million to 15 million soldiers were killed; four million to five million civilians died as a result of military activity; and at the best estimate, 21 million people were killed by direct democide -- mass murder, the deliberate use of famine and exposure by the Nazis in that war. That includes five million to six million European Jews as well as Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and Byelorussian civilians; gypsies; gays; the mentally and physically impaired; clergy; and civilians from just about every occupied country. If we are to commemorate the Holocaust, we must commemorate all these people. Some of these people were not only victims of Hitler, some were also survivors of Franco; and a number of them, particularly in Eastern Europe, were hit coming and going by Stalin.
Remember that every Russian who was captured by the Germans not only endured -- if they managed to survive -- appalling prison conditions which killed almost two-thirds of all prisoners of war. When they were "liberated" they were sent off to Siberia because they had been contaminated by exposure to western culture and to the Germans, and most of them died there.
The great killings in the 20th century certainly did not stop with Hitler, and as someone else mentioned this morning, they are currently ongoing. There are incidents of contemporary democide.
Mass murder is mass murder, and the results are always the same. If you kill Mr. Jones, the green grocer on the corner, because he is a Jew, or because he is wealthy, or because your government wants to randomly terrorize people to ensure there is no opposition whatsoever, or just because someone feels like scooping up a number of people for a labour detail in harsh weather conditions, the results are always the same for Mr. Jones: He is dead. We have killed people in this century for very many reasons.
It is well to understand, under all circumstances, how people get killed in this way. Even in our own contemporary politics it becomes too easy to slap labels on people and objectify them into particular classes. That is always disturbing because it is a precursor, a first tiny step that we almost all commit, which, if other conditions are added in, can end traumatically.
Finally, I do believe that we must commemorate the Holocaust. I do not believe that we need to commemorate it in the War Museum. Mass murder sometimes occurs during warfare and sometimes wars do occur without mass murder. The two are often separate activities.
For example, 30,000 Canadian citizens were deported under Idi Amin's regime before he went on to kill 200,000 or 300,000 people. They were not at war with anyone. This was just random terror against their own citizens.
If we are to commemorate this activity, we must commemorate all of them, especially if we are going to do it with public support, public funding and public facilities. I do think commemoration is necessary. Canada is perhaps the only country, with the arguable exception of the United States, whose citizenship is drawn from every population in the world. We are probably the only country -- again with the possible exception of the United States -- that can commemorate every mass murder. Also, because in recent years our society is becoming more and more cosmopolitan, it becomes important that we mark all of these affairs.
I mentioned that we do have connections to many incidents of mass murder in the 20th century. Remember that we did not only fight against Hitler; we also fought against imperial Japan. Canadian troops were involved in the expeditionary force to Russia in 1919 and we were up against the Soviet Union in the long, drawn out cold war, and their democide continued right up until the late 1980s. We fought against North Korea. Indirectly, we fought against Mao Tse-Tung because we were fighting Chinese troops in Korea. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment and other Canadians were involved during World War I in fighting against Turkey, which was involved in democidal activities. They massacred approximately 4.5 million people over 20 years.
Indirectly, 50,000 Canadians volunteered for service in the U.S. military during the Vietnam war. That is more Canadians than went to the Korean War and more Canadians than went to the Boer War. I suppose you could argue that very indirectly it is, in that sense, a Canadian war, and North Vietnam was a very democidal regime.
We have also been up against Saddam Hussein. We played a very small part in the 1991 war, but Saddam Hussein is a "democidal" individual. At best count, we think maybe 600,000 people have been murdered by his regime.
Canadians have been victims in a number of circumstances. A few were killed in Hitler's camps; more died in Stalin's camps. Remember, Canadian political pilgrims went to Russia in the 1930s. Some were arrested and saw the gulags.
We do know that 300 Canadian PoWs were murdered by the Nazis. About the same number died mostly through murder and neglect in Japanese hands. Hundreds of Canadian PoWs vanished at the end of the Second World War into Soviet custody. We do not know what happened to them. The Americans lost an estimated 1,400 that way. They found graves of American servicemen who were captured by the Germans. They found graves of these servicemen in Siberia.
Under Stalin, hundreds of servicemen went missing in the Second World War. We believe that there were direct Canadian victims among them.
We also know about a number of incidents of mass murder. I am not even going to talk about aid workers, missionaries and other people who witnessed events all over the planet.
Senator Forest: Thank you for an interesting and insightful presentation.
Could you tell me a little bit about the work of the Mackenzie Institute and the type of research you do?
Mr. Thompson: We are a little eclectic. We are interested in all issues of organized violence and political instability. That ranges anywhere from looking into domestically driven ideologues, people who have substituted political ideology for rational thought, radical left and right groups, and organized crime. We just released a major paper on the black market in alcohol, but then we go right across the spectrum and comment on conflicts elsewhere in the world, such as incidents of mass murder. I will be talking to the press later today about chemical and biological warfare with respect to projects in Iraq.
In Canada we do a lot of primary research. We like to interview people and see things for ourselves. I like to collect anecdotes from people, especially about conditions in other countries. I have done hundreds of interviews and listened to the stories of people who have just arrived in Canada.
Senator Forest: Most of your research, then, is geared to matters of violence.
Mr. Thompson: It is geared to violence and instability, yes.
Senator Chalifoux: Should the Holocaust Gallery be within the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Thompson: No, it should not. Putting the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum would be too restrictive. You are restricting the commemoration to the European Holocaust alone, which is far too narrow. Second, this sort of incident of mass murder is often entirely separate from warfare.
I have a personal interest in Canada's military heritage. All of my granduncles, one grandfather, all of my uncles and every member of my family has worn a uniform at one time or another. Most of them have gone off to fight in wars. Hence, I have a strong interest in preserving our military heritage.
Our military heritage is really only tangential to the European Holocaust. A handful of Canadians did make it inside Hitler's camps, including some airmen, most of whom were witnesses. Approximately 300 Canadian PoWs were murdered in Nazi custody. That should be commemorated. It does belong in our War Museum. That is part of our military experience. The same thing applies to the death of prisoners of war in Japanese custody; but while the Holocaust itself is part of the Canadian heritage, it would be too confining to put it in the War Museum. Of course, to be perfectly fair, you would have to then make room for all these other incidents of mass murder.
Remember Hitler and what he did. He is only third down the list of mass murderers in the 20th century. The Soviets killed about three times as many people, and communist China killed about 35 million people.
Senator Prud'homme: And the Armenians?
Mr. Thompson: With respect to the Turks, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred during the First World War. An equal number were massacred immediately afterwards when the Turks spilled into Armenia during its brief envelope of independence. The Turkish "democide" is about seventh or eighth down the list. There is a long list of others who come well ahead of them.
Senator Prud'homme: It is a long list.
Mr. Thompson: I limited my written submission to those instances where over one million were killed. If I had gone on to those incidents where over 100,000 were killed, there would be about 35 or 40 of them. Then you go all the way down the list. It has been a very busy century.
Senator Jessiman: Are you familiar with the corporate structure of the Canadian Museum of Civilization? I understand it comes under the National Museums Act. It is a creation of that. Are you familiar with it?
Mr. Thompson: I am only familiar with the Museum of Civilization as a visitor. In contrast with the War Museum, I am not very impressed with it.
Senator Jessiman: I have to look into the corporate structure. It is somewhat confusing to me.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Thompson.
General Roméo Dallaire was to appear tomorrow morning to present a paper on genocide. That, unfortunately, has had to be changed, but I would like to table General Dallaire's brief to form part of the record. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Doug Donnolly.
Please proceed.
Mr. Doug Donnolly: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, my name is Doug Donnolly. The subject of my presentation is the proposal to create a Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. My credentials include 30 years in the Canadian army. In World War II, I was a private in the infantry during the Italian campaign and was also an artillery gunner in Italy and subsequently in northwest Europe. I retired with the rank of major in 1972. You do not want to know what happened in between.
I take the liberty of including as credentials my three-year study of the Holocaust as a senior student at the University of Toronto, a degree program in which I am currently involved.
I feel I can speak with confidence about the veterans' side of this issue. We are an uncomplicated group that expressed our unchanging promise to remember Canada's war dead each year on November 11 and on other appropriate occasions. Our monuments, associations and institutions are meaningful to us. We tend to defend them with the same tenacity that characterized our conduct in war.
Speaking about the Holocaust is a vastly more complex problem. I have studied it from the perspective of perpetrators who referred to the mass murder of Jews as the "final solution of the Jewish question in Europe". I have also studied the Holocaust from the perspectives of the victims and the bystanders, local and international. Although I know generally what happened and I am familiar with the process of annihilation, I continue to be overwhelmed by a feeling that this event cannot be understood thoroughly by anyone who did not experience it personally.
We are grateful to historians and scholars who continue to research the Holocaust. Many have dedicated their professional lives in the personal commemoration to its spiritual and intellectual elimination. I shall confine my remarks to matters which are well documented and historically accurate.
The Jewish genocide was the work of Heinrich Himmler and his state security police, that is, the Gestapo, SS, SA, et cetera. These were not soldiers but were uniformed thugs -- indoctrinated Nazis -- carrying out Hitler's policy of annihilation. The Holocaust was social and political in its origin and implementation, not military.
Canadian soldiers did not take part in the liberation of concentration camps or death camps. Until the last days of World War II in Europe, Canadian soldiers were unaware that such places existed let alone what was happening within their barbed-wire enclosures. We knew that the Nazi regime was evil, but we did not know of the "devil that is in the details". As a veteran and a student of the Holocaust, I have neither seen nor heard of a Canadian army operation order issued with the objective of capturing or liberating a camp containing Jewish prisoners. The perfectly logical reason for this was because we were never deployed anywhere near these camps.
Let us reflect for a moment on the circumstances under which both Jews and Canadian servicemen died and the impact of these deaths on today's society.
The Jews who died in the ghettos, the death camps and at the hands of mobile death squads called "Einsatzgruppen", were helpless, unarmed men, women and children, subjected to a process of mass murder escalated to an industrialized scale. Although enabled by the disorder of war, the Holocaust was not a part of the war between the Axis Powers and the Allies. I should like to dwell on that for a moment. There was no formal declaration, there was only the gratuitous, one-sided slaughter of people for no other reason than their being Jews.
Senator Cools displayed an understanding of that point the other day when the witnesses were discussing the one-sidedness of this whole affair which made it a war by the Germans but not a war by the Jews.
The perpetrators of these acts do not deserve to be included as part of our species, let alone accorded the status of soldier. The victims were of no significance to them as human beings. Jews were considered only in terms of confiscation of their material possessions, including the gold in their teeth and how their death, inflicted in the cruellest and most degrading manner, contributed to the Final Solution.
Canada's war dead were trained volunteers who died in combat with a tough, no-holds-barred enemy in circumstances where the accepted rules of war were generally observed by both sides. Without imputing undue virtue to the German Wehrmacht, I believe its members aspired to much higher values than Himmler and his criminal gang.
Although we value each individual life equally, whether it was taken in a gas chamber at Treblinka or given in an attack at Ortona, we should acknowledge and respect the distinct difference in the way these lives are remembered and memorialized. The loss of our young men in war is tragic in many ways, but we find it more tolerable believing it carried an element of purpose. We rely on that belief to add feelings of pride and gratitude to our expressions of mourning.
On the other hand, the sheer apocalyptic horror of the Holocaust is totally beyond the compression of anyone separated from its events. The ability of Jews, especially Holocaust survivors, to deal with that horror, whether from experience or learning, is equally impenetrable. I will not presume to understand or interpret a matter that is so sacred and private.
The distinction to be made is that the trails of remembrance from Treblinka and Ortona, to the present, follow parallel lines that can never meet in a cultural or religious sense. Any attempt to impose such a conjunction -- and I refer here to the placement of a Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum -- would be viewed by one group as intrusive and by the other as a vulgar trivialization, both of these a prelude to mutual resentment. I have read that, sadly, fingers of resentment have already been pointed by the principals at each other while certain politicians and bureaucrats who created this situation exculpate themselves, believing that they are doing a good job. That is why I am asking our government to step back and rethink the whole idea from the beginning.
Dr. George MacDonald, President of the Canadian Museum Corporation, is reported in The Toronto Star on November 8 to have announced three principal points. First, that the museum's development has been made a priority millennium project by its parent corporation; second, that $12 million has been allocated for this purpose; and, third, that the Holocaust Gallery will occupy less than 7 per cent of the space at the Sussex Drive museum.
I will address the first two points later. As for the third point, namely, that the Holocaust Gallery will occupy less than 7 per cent of the space of the museum, veterans will find little comfort in Dr. MacDonald's patronizing approach, wherein they are told that it is only 7 per cent. The proper amount should be zero per cent. I will explain that later.
Jews would be justified if they interpreted the comparison as, at best, unfortunate; at worse, odious. Moreover, it can only widen the dichotomy and do nothing to restore the goodwill between Jews and veterans which was jeopardized by a remarkably insensitive third party.
The same newspaper published an editorial on November 30 which reads like an apology for Canada's bargain rate War Museum project. The article informs that the U.S. Holocaust memorial museum in Washington is tremendously moving and well attended but required $200 million U.S. as well as 16 years of planning, fundraising and constructions. By comparison, the editorial cited the $12 million project for the combined museum renovation and Holocaust Gallery and the millennium deadline imposed on the Canadian project.
The Toronto Star, in supporting this project, tells us to keep our expectations low. Meet both the deadline and the bottom line and, essentially, be satisfied with what we get. I do not support this notion.
No authority, political or bureaucratic, should arbitrarily decide the means and method by which the Jewish people should grieve their loss or Canadians in general remember the sacrifices of their war dead.
I wrote a letter to each member of the House of Commons, 258 letters in total. However, I did not receive a response from the Minister for Canadian Heritage. In that letter I asserted that Canada's place of honour among the nations of the world was forged on the crucible of war at Vimy Ridge and tempered in many battles in Hong Kong, Italy, Northwest Europe, Korea, on the Atlantic and in the sky over Britain, Germany and occupied Europe. More than 100,000 fatal casualties and several times that many maimed deserve to be memorialized in a special way and in a special place. Such a place must be consecrated to their memory and forever stand alone as a symbol, a reminder, not to, in John McCrae's words, "break faith with us who die". Nothing more is needed and nothing less will do.
The same premise applies to a Holocaust memorial. The Holocaust occupies a unique place in Jewish history, transcending the genocide of 1933 to 1945. In addition to the annihilation by the Nazis of 6 million of their people, two-thirds of the European Jews, two-fifths of the world's Jewish population, the Holocaust encompasses a continuity of persecution dating back to the early fourth century when the Emperor Constantine made anti-Semitism a state policy.
Victims of the Holocaust and Canada's war dead are both worthy of our most reverent memorialization, thoughtfully, distinctly and, as no relevant connection exists to unite these institutions under one roof, separately.
I am still receiving replies to my letter. The response has been, in the great majority of cases, positive from members of all parties to whom I wrote. I am encouraged by their reaction. A national Holocaust memorial should not, must not, be a part of something else. It must be, as stated above, unique like the event itself. To thrust the memorial into a corner of a building to meet inadequate, self-imposed constraints, would profane rather than venerate the memory of 6 million murdered Jews.
I am sure that, in the minds of informed observers, the most prominent object of remembrance in that place would be a compelling image of Canada's narrow and shallow concept of the Holocaust as to both its scope and its significance to Jewish and, indeed, world history.
A new millennium may be a wondrous event to a country 130 years old, and so it should be. In the context of Jewish experience, however, I expect that the passing of another thousand years will be viewed by the Jews more realistically and maturely. What I am saying here is: What is the hurry? We have virtually unlimited time ahead of us to plan, fund and construct a separate Canadian Holocaust memorial. Through consultation with Jewish organizations such as Yad Vashem, the Israeli institute devoted to Holocaust research and commemoration, plus academic, religious and other community leaders -- one of the greatest will be addressing the panel this afternoon in Dean Marrus -- we can gain incite and avoid treading unwittingly into areas most of us cannot understand.
Consistent with this approach, I suggest the following as an alternative to the present plan. If I oversimplify, forgive me, but I did include the caveat at the beginning of my paper that we veterans are an uncomplicated group.
Senator Forest: And a tenacious group.
Mr. Donnolly: Place a moratorium on all present plans related to the addition of a Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. Proceed with the renovations to the War Museum to include peace-keeping which is Canadian in origin and essentially military in character as a millennium project. Announce the government's commitment to construct a Holocaust memorial building when funds are available, explaining the proposed method of funding outlined as follows.
Use the $12 million less the amount estimated for a Holocaust Gallery to pay for the above renovations. Create a Canadian Holocaust Memorial Fund committing the funds originally designated for a Holocaust Gallery as seed money. Accumulate funds from public, corporate and private sources, properly supervised and safely invested until the nation is ready to proceed from a solid, financial, historically informed beginning. If the memorial takes a few years, even a decade, to build and furnish, and if the results do justice to the purpose, the delay will be worthwhile.
As a final exhortation, if it is to be done, let us do it right and do it well. Above all, do not set a stopwatch on the project for December 31, 1999.
Senator Chalifoux: I find interesting your recommendation to create a Canadian Holocaust memorial fund. I would like your opinion as far as the aboriginal veterans are concerned. They have not been afforded any special recognition. There is absolutely no funding for the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans Association and for the contribution that was made by thousands of our veterans of aboriginal descent.
In all these hearings no one has mentioned the contribution made by the Inuit during the war effort through the DEW line through Canada's north to protect our country from a possible Russian invasion. Why should we initiate a Canadian Holocaust memorial fund -- although I know it is just as important -- while allowing the government to ignore our aboriginal veterans?
Mr. Donnolly: I suggest this as an alternative to what has been originally proposed which is the addition of the gallery where the cost of the Holocaust addition would be absorbed into the $12 million. Since my suggestion is to segregate the two, it cannot be done without two separate allocations of funds. That could only be done through separate funds. As I say, it is merely a suggestion that it may be done through public, corporate and private sources.
I am sorry I cannot speak to the other issue because I know absolutely nothing of the problem you address.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: This brief is really very clear. We know what you propose. This is the sort of brief I like to read. I liked the others, but the proposals you end up with are clear and constructive.
[English]
We are sometimes distracted by a side debate when we talk about percentages. You are quite right that it is a question of principle. Do you agree there should be a separate exhibit or not?
I remember in the old days a minister was caught buying shares in a gas company. His defence was that he only bought 500 shares out of millions. The question was not the number of shares or the percentage. The question is whether it was the right thing to do. For me, this issue is a question of principle. Should we mix the two together or not? Of course I am probably of the opinion that we should not. I do not understand why you did not write to the Bloc québécois. I am not a member, but I am French Canadian.
Mr. Donnolly: I considered it. The reason I did not was because they had not shown a terrific interest in the preservation of Canadian institutions up to this point. In fact they have not shown an interest in the preservation of Canada.
Senator Prud'homme: My concern is en passant. In your presentation you said "except some", however, in your brief you write "except BQ". It is not a major point, but I like to know where you stand.
You suggest using the $12 million less the amount estimated for the Holocaust Gallery. Why not use the $12 million? The War Museum needs that money. If they are to add exhibits relating to our commitment to the United Nations or exhibits to honour the Inuit, the Métis and the First Nations, $12 million would not be exorbitant.
Whatever the outcome, a theatre where students could watch a video in order to understand would be much better than just walking around and hearing an explanation and seeing an artefact.
Canadians of Jewish faith would not wish to dilute magnitude of the Holocaust. Both the War Museum and a memorial would suffer with the placement of the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. We know that separation of the Holocaust Gallery and the War Museum will ensure focus and attention for both. A separate Holocaust museum could also provide space for exhibits relating to other acts of genocide.
Although you are against a Holocaust Gallery, I am pleased that you offer positive alternatives.
The Chairman: I should like to point out that we have already heard this morning that an internal memo indicates that costs of renovation will run to $13.8 million. That does not include the moving costs. I am not so sure the figure they are giving us includes the covering of the courtyard as you see in that picture.
For that reason, I have reservations about your idea of taking the amount for the Holocaust Gallery out of the $12 million. When the officials from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation and the Canadian War Museum were before us on Monday, it was very difficult to get a definite figure from them on anything. Nothing had been completed or planned. For that reason, I can support your brief with the exception of deducting money allocated to the Holocaust Gallery. All the money we can get is needed for the War Museum.
Mr. Donnolly: That was included partially as a compromise offer. We all know that any construction initiative we undertake usually runs over budget. If a fund were to be considered, there should be something in the ante before construction starts, something to add to rather than starting from scratch. It might make it a little easier to support knowing that there was something of substance already in place.
Senator Forest: Practically every brief we have heard in the last three and one-half days has come to the conclusion that, in view of all the circumstances, it would be better to have the Canadian War Museum and the Holocaust Gallery separated.
At present there is an exhibit of the Holocaust in the War Museum. There have been suggestions that, even though the Holocaust Gallery would be separate, there should be included in the War Museum for educational purposes an exhibit which would demonstrate the small involvement that the Canadian military had with respect to the one concentration camp they liberated, as a snapshot, if you will, of the minimal Canadian involvement. What is your opinion on that?
Mr. Donnolly: I have no quarrel with having a cameo in the museum which illustrates that this was going on during World War II, with the understanding that the Canadian military was not really a part of it. However, there should be a notice to indicate that, for further revelation, visitors should also visit the Holocaust Gallery. I think that could be done.
I will just throw in a gratuitous comment about the discussion I have heard so far about the comparison of the Holocaust to other major human catastrophes in the world. The uniqueness of the Holocaust lies in the fact that the objective of Hitler and his minions was the annihilation of every Jew on the planet. It was not ethnic cleansing in Germany.
By comparison, the Armenian massacre that took place in Turkey did not extend to the other parts of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians were left to live in peace outside of Turkey. However, inside of Turkey they were fair game. In the case of the Jews, they tracked them down across Europe, they had a large, semi-circular arc of sweeping people up from the Scandinavian countries to the eastern European countries such as Poland. Hitler's forces even looked for Jewish people offshore, anywhere they could find them. Their objective was total destruction of the world's Jewish population. I do not think any other genocide had that broad objective.
The Chairman: Your brief has been much appreciated, Major Donnolly, and I agree with those who said that they appreciate that you have suggested alternatives.
We will now go to our next witness, Mr. Bruce Levine.
After the Senate authorized this study I received a very interesting fax from Mr. Levine, which intrigued me because he was looking at alternative sites, not only for the Holocaust Gallery but for the War Museum additions. It is in that context that we would particularly like to hear from you this morning. Your fax has become more relevant since the announcement that they have agreed to look for alternative sites.
Would you please proceed?
Mr. Bruce G. Levine: This is an extremely important debate and it is an honour to be part of it.
My purpose in addressing you today is to tell you that the proposed expansion of the Canadian War Museum's current home on Sussex Drive will fall far short of Canada's real and profound need for a museum of this kind. The proposed new exhibit space will be too small to do justice to the horror of the Nazi Holocaust. The entire building, including the new addition, will be nowhere big enough to accommodate the Canadian War Museum's collections and allow the fulfilment of its mandate.
Furthermore, this would be the last ever expansion of the building because it would fill the entire area between the National Gallery of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mint. Should we ever decide to provide more space, it would be necessary to move the museum to another location.
Before I make my proposal for a much larger building elsewhere, allow me to describe another museum project. It has been proposed that the Government of Canada Conference Centre on Confederation Square be renovated to accommodate a sports hall of fame. While there can be little doubt about our support of Canadian athletes, especially in the week before the Nagano Winter Olympic Games, I do question our priorities if this project were to take precedence over the problems and opportunities currently before the Canadian War Museum.
However, there are two lessons to be drawn from this proposal. First is the need for hero worship. It is altogether appropriate that the government should provide a place of honour in the nation's capital for those who establish and support our highest values. All those who have served Canada in whatever field of endeavour -- politics, sports, culture, war -- deserve to be honoured and remembered.
Second, while the old Union Station might become a museum of sports heroes, the building should be remembered for other events which have taken place there. A large piece of the Berlin Wall stands in the lobby as testimony to political initiatives which contributed to the end of the Cold War. More recently, the Conference Centre accommodated an international conference on a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines. Where will we put the piece of the wall and how will we remember the contributions made by Canadians to the so-called "Ottawa process"?
Whatever the fate of the Conference Centre, we have a more urgent need for a pantheon for Canada's real heroes; those men and women, both named and unnamed, who served in Canada's military in war time and in peace time, at home and abroad, the civilians who supported them, like the Merchant Mariners, the election monitors, the diplomats and negotiators, international development workers, environmentalists and human rights activists. We cannot honour these heroes without trying to understand the causes they supported and the difficulties they faced. Their determination, their sacrifices and victories, both large and small, are essential to our collective understanding of what it means to be Canadian.
Canadians' contributions to many wars, as well as their contributions to eliminating the causes of war and repairing the results of war, deserve to be commemorated in a national museum, one which is autonomous, and one which has a vision broad enough to encompass many points of view. It must also have enough space at its disposal to do justice to all these heroes and to the full range of their contribution. This pantheon of heroes cannot be accommodated in the old public archives building at 330 Sussex Drive.
To remedy the situation I propose the establishment of a new corporation with a mandate to provide more and better accommodation for the display of Canada's military history. Also, without attempting to revise the Canadians War Museum's mandate, this corporation would provide accommodation for exhibits sponsored by other organizations on topics of genocides, human rights, environmental degradation, democratic elections, peace-keeping; all of which are factors in the climate of war.
I further propose that this corporation obtain custody of the Connaught Building, located between MacKenzie and Sussex Drive, and renovate it to accommodate the Canadian War Museum, an expanded peace-keepers' gallery, a Holocaust memorial and a wide range of permanent and temporary exhibits on the Canadian heroes of whom I have spoken.
This building has several advantages. First, it is located midway between the War Memorial and Confederation Square and the peace-keepers' monument. It looks across Major's Hill Park at Parliament Hill. Its walls of rusticated and cut stone, its massive oak doors and its stained glass windows call for a public use more grand than the office functions it now accommodates. Its most significant advantage is size. It is much bigger than the current home of the Canadian War Museum.
In conclusion, "war" is not a dirty word, but it is a necessary evil. Peace is also a dirty and dangerous business. Canadians have distinguished themselves in all areas of war and peace. They have done noble service in these difficult enterprises, and they deserve our respect, our remembrance and our understanding.
The old public archives building, even if expanded, cannot do justice to them. It does not serve Canada well as a pantheon of heroes. It is simply too small.
I encourage the subcommittee to make a strong recommendation to the Senate and to the Government of Canada to create an appropriate organizational structure and adequate accommodation to honour Canada's heroes of war and peace.
The Chairman: I should point out to the committee that Mr. Levine is an architect and has done extensive work around the hill and, if you look in your briefing book, you will find that he has participated in work on the renovations of the Centre Block and the West Block, as well as the justice buildings.
I believe it was General Withers who indicated that renovating old buildings would be too expensive when you install air conditioning and temperature control and so on, which is necessary for some of the artefacts on exhibit. However, I have been attracted by your idea of using the Connaught Building. I do not necessarily support the idea of including everything you have mentioned, but I would like to see it utilized.
Can you give us an idea of the difficulty and the cost of renovating the Connaught Building?
Mr. Levine: I would not hazard a guess as to the capital cost of that. Yes, indeed, it will be expensive because you would be working within an old building, but it is often necessary to renovate old buildings anyway, even if they are is to remain office buildings. We must separate the cost of a new roof, repointing the stone work, fixing the hinges on the doors and so on from the actual interior fit-up.
It is true that museum-quality interiors are more expensive to build, even as a new construction, than ordinary office buildings, but I would argue that even that higher price is money well spent for such a worthy cause.
If we were to look for a site for a brand new museum to encompass some or all of these worthy subjects, we would not find one in the right location. There are no more sites similar to the location of the Connought Buildling or the old Union Station, which is a much smaller building. If there is an opportunity to occupy that site and take control of the building, that would be a worthy project -- an expensive one, but worth doing.
The Chairman: You say it would be expensive. Can you give us an indication of the cost of renovating the Connought Building? It would be the interior. The outside is already being done. Could you compare the cost of renovating the interior of that building with constructing an entirely new building?
Mr. Levine: I would not hazard an estimate at this point.
The Chairman: Would renovation of the interior be less expensive than starting from scratch and building a new building?
Mr. Levine: I would think so, yes.
The Chairman: A suggestion was made the other day, due to the inadequate space, that possibly the War Museum could be expanded to include the Mint. Do you have an opinion on that, Mr. Levine?
Mr. Levine: They just completely reconstructed the Mint perhaps 10 years ago for its own purposes, and I suspect that would be very difficult. It would be much easier to move the Department of Finance out of the Connaught Building than it would be to move the Mint. The Mint is a special-purpose building, rebuilt for a specific purpose. I think the general-purpose space in the Connaught Building could be renovated more easily than taking over the Mint.
I would point out, if I may continue, that that building on Sussex Drive was not built for the War Museum. It was the public archives when it was a square building. A wing was added later. It is an adaptive reuse of an old building already. Many other old buildings have been adapted to modern uses. It is the tradition in the nation's capital to do so.
The Chairman: Yes, and the Connaught Building is a heritage building, so it would not be torn down at any time. It would be renovated to accommodate something else some time in the future.
Mr. Levine: Yes, that would happen sooner or later. To be perfectly fair, the cost of taking over that building involves the cost of relocating the office functions which are there, but they can be accommodated in any office building, and there are many empty ones in this city.
One must also consider what use to make of the heritage building at 330 Sussex Drive. I would suggest that the National Archives has a vast collection of paintings kept not for their artistic merit but for their historic interest, comparable to the collection of war art at the Canadian War Museum. Perhaps if that collection were installed in 330 Sussex Drive, it would continue the museum row which we have developed along that street, and it would contribute significantly to the capital.
Senator Forest: Mr. Levine, I was interested in your suggestion about the Connaught Building. It turned my mind back to my days at the University of Alberta when there was a debate over restoring the three original residences at the university. There was no problem with one because the cost of restoration was less than the cost of a new building, but the third one was questionable. However, it was restored, at perhaps as much of a cost as building a new building. However, 10 and 20 years later everyone is pleased that we kept that building.
We are talking about a museum that records the history of the Canadian military for many years, and I would certainly like to see it in an old building because there is a charm, character and heritage in any old building. A clear case can be made for the restoration of old buildings, even if the cost is great. As you say, you cannot replace those buildings.
Senator Prud'homme: I would appreciate it if Mr. Levine's letter could be added to the proceedings of the day, because it is full of exciting proposals and ideas.
The Chairman: I think it should be included.
Senator Forest: I so move, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Prud'homme: Good luck in trying to remove the bureaucrats from that building. I was chairman of the member services in the House of Commons for many years. You would not believe how many years it took to remove people from the Justice building, which is a similar building, so that we could use the building as an addition to the House of Commons. The debate was horrendous and horrible. It lasted years.
The Château Laurier was for sale for peanuts and could have been added to Parliament so that all our buildings could have continued from Sussex Drive up to the Justice building and the Supreme Court. It was a good proposal, but it was sabotaged.
Let us say we were not to take the Connaught Building for the War Museum. That would leave it available for a gallery for the Holocaust and other genocides.
Mr. Levine: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: Let us say all that unfortunately becomes impossible. I am an old man, but I try to be modern too. Today, television and audio-visual presentations are important, so we need a theatre. While in the Middle East, I stopped in Malta where they have an underground theatre to explain the history of Malta. Malta has a scarcity of land, so they built a beautiful museum underground, and they have that big screen which they use to explain the history of Malta going back to the Greek and Roman times.
With your background, would you consider the construction of an underground theatre something that we should think about?
Mr. Levine: In terms of underground construction, consider what they were able to accomplish with the old railway shed beside the Château Laurier alongside the locks. They built the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography in what was unused, dark, dank space. It is now a lovely space. That sort of function fits well underground and can be accommodated without taking up more of the landscape.
Senator Prud'homme: Perhaps a series of underground galleries could be built. You are the specialist. Do you think that, with some imagination, it is feasible to do that?
Mr. Levine: It is feasible. It is expensive to chip rock, but it is quite feasible.
[Translation]
You probably visited, in Paris, the memorial to the people who were interned in concentration camps; it is behind Notre-Dame Cathedral. You go down very narrow stairs and you end up in a room in the open air which is nevertheless quite confined. It creates an unforgettable feeling, the same a prisoner who is about to die would experience.
Senator Prud'homme: That requires people who not only have talent but also imagination.
Mr. Levine: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: We are in Ottawa, you know!
Mr. Levine: It is only question of wanting it, thinking about it and deciding to do it. It's a long process and it should be set in motion without the clock starting to tick. It is too important for it to be done quickly and badly.
Senator Prud'homme: To add to this, if all these people had not suddenly reacted and asked questions, it would have been a fait accompli.
Mr. Levine: Yes, and it would have been too late to think about it.
[English]
Senator Prud'homme: I thank the chairman for having taken this initiative. People wanted to be heard on this issue. A coup d'état was performed on us; what was to be done? If you protest, you are accused of all the sins of the world.
Are you also of the opinion that there is some good in the work of this committee?
Mr. Levine: Definitely. I think it is very important that this subcommittee took the initiative and set aside a week to listen to what people are saying. It is an extremely important debate in the panorama of Canadian history.
The National Gallery is a lovely place. The Museum of Civilization is fascinating. It is great fun to go there. I thoroughly enjoy the Aviation Museum. This subject is too important to be allowed to go by without an opportunity to do it right. This debate will have to continue forever. If we have a much larger museum which is able to accommodate the War Museum better and many other related subjects, that is a subject for debate. It is not an easy debate, although it is a very good and very Canadian debate, and it must continue.
Senator Prud'homme: I shall put on record the first line of your letter:
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand...is reported to have said that "War was too serious a thing to be left to military men."
You add:
If this is true, then I would say that "The remembrance of war is too serious a matter to be left to the museum administrators."
The Chairman: Mr. Levine, I referred to the fact that the Mint had been mentioned. We were also told that the Southam commission had looked at the National Research Council site on Sussex Drive. We are considering that again today because the National Research Council has undergone certain cutbacks and there is the possibility that some of those people will move out. It is a beautiful site with large grounds for the display of tanks and artillery. What is your opinion of that as an alternative site?
Mr. Levine: I consider the building at 100 Sussex Drive, known as the "temple of science", to be one of the most beautiful buildings in Ottawa. The auditorium and courtyards are spectacular. I think it is a viable alternative. The National Research Council will not give it up easily, but that is part of the process.
You are right; the grounds are large, it has two courtyards which could be covered with skylights. That is a very good suggestion.
Again, my professional advice is to look at the requirements and then find a building that is or can become the right size. I would say without hesitation that 330 Sussex Drive is not that building, even expanded. It is just plainly too small to do justice to the museum. However, the Sussex Drive labs of the National Research Council, the Connaught Building and the West Memorial Building are much larger with more room to develop inside and outside.
The Chairman: Would any purpose be served by this committee attempting to get the veterans groups, the museum people, and advisors such as yourself together to give us an idea of how much space we need for a museum? That is not our field but I think that, before our final report is made, we should have some idea of what size of building we need to house the museum.
Mr. Levine: That is the first step in taking a broader view of this expansion problem. We should know the full range of what we might wish to encompass with this condominium museum, how much space is required, and we should have at least a rough idea of what the capital budget would be. That is the first step.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for a very interesting brief, one that I think is most important in view of the announcement that alternative sites and proposals are being considered.
I would also thank you for your fax in early November which led to your being invited here to make your presentation today. I hope that we can call upon you in the future when we are writing our report and we need advice.
Mr. Levine: Please do.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, for the last couple of days, Senator Prud'homme has been attempting to raise a point of order and I have been delaying him.
Would you like to proceed with it now, senator?
Senator Prud'homme: I thought my friend and colleague Senator Cools would raise the same point of order -- that is, to see if the minister should be called as a witness. It should be on the record that there is an ultimate political boss somewhere. The ultimate boss is not the Minister of Veterans Affairs but the Minister of Heritage. We have been discussing that issue amongst ourselves. The ultimate boss is not Mr. Mifflin, but Ms Copps.
Senator Jessiman: I understood that Senator Cools is attempting to contact her office with the hope that she would appear.
Senator Cools: Yes, I have fulfilled my undertaking to the committee. At the present moment, there is communication back and forth between Minister Copps and the Senate. Phone calls have been placed to Minister Sheila Copps, and I am currently awaiting a response.
It would be my expectation that Minister Copps will be attending the Senate hearings. We will have to work out a time and a schedule, but I am extremely hopeful that she will attend our Senate hearing. She is the minister responsible for museums and heritage in this country.
We may have to consider continuing our hearings into next week to be able to hear Ms Copps, but I am hopeful that she will accept our invitation.
Senator Prud'homme: You mean to say that she will be appearing as the ultimate boss, instead of hearing from Ms Clarkson?
Senator Cools: As I say, phone calls have been placed to her. I am currently awaiting a return call, and I am hopeful that she will appear as a witness.
The Chairman: The committee was in touch with Ms Copps several times during the preceding two weeks, but we were unable to get an affirmative response. I think the time is fast approaching when she has to make up her mind to attend or not, and advise this committee of her decision.
Senator Prud'homme: Tomorrow morning I will ask you if you have received a phone call.
Senator Cools: I hope to be able to give you a response later on today.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, there are one or two matters I wish to discuss with you about tomorrow's schedule. Possibly we can do that over lunch. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the clerk of the committee has just distributed the transcript of Mr. Abella's testimony.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until 1:00 p.m.
The committee adjourned.