Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Friday, February 6, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:16 a.m. to continue its study of all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum.
Our first witness is Mr. Victor Suthren, former curator of the museum. Mr. Suthren, I understand, has signed a confidential agreement with the War Museum and has some concern about breaking that. I would ask the Law Clerk of the Senate to join Mr. Suthren so that if he has any questions he can consult the law officer of the Crown.
Mr. Suthren, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Victor Suthren: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I am appearing here at your request. I appreciate the concern you have just expressed concerning the confidentiality requirement. I have prepared a short presentation, as was suggested in your letter of February 3, so I will make that presentation now if that is your desire, or I will simply respond to questions.
The Chairman: How long would your presentation last?
Mr. Suthren: About ten minutes.
The Chairman: Would you make the presentation, please?
Mr. Suthren: My own relationship with the Canadian War Museum began in 1975. After attending Bishop's, McGill and Concordia Universities, and earning a commission in the navy reserve, I joined the Canadian Parks Service in 1971 and served in Louisbourg, Halifax and Ottawa as a military historian until 1975. In that year, I joined the staff of the Canadian War Museum as curator of war art, becoming curator of exhibitions, planning and design in 1976, deputy chief curator in 1981 and director of the museum in 1986.
I propose to give you a very brief summary of the structure of the Canadian War Museum and what has been achieved in the past in order to have a better vision of what it could do in the future, given autonomy, proper housing and adequate resources.
The Canadian War Museum is located in two buildings in Ottawa; the principal, 330 Sussex Drive site, and Vimy House on Champagne Avenue. Its relationship to the Canadians Museum of Civilization Corporation is that of an affiliate museum, with autonomy in curatorial and public programming activity, and integration with the corporation in financial and administrative matters.
Working closely with the chief operating officer, the director general of the Canadian War Museum reports to the president and chief executive officer of the corporation, who, in turn, reports to the board of trustees. From 1991 until it was abolished by the present board chair, the Canadian War Museum was guided and advised by a consultative committee chaired by board member, General Ramsey Withers.
On taking up my duties as head of the museum, I determined that an improvement in the profile of the Canadian War Museum could be accomplished in three ways: With the development of a support organization for the museum; visible and attractive public programming; and the continuing professionalization of the museum's basic work of collections' care and development.
The creation of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum brought into being an energetic and dedicated body of volunteers who, to this day, provide invaluable support for the museum, whether in the current fund-raising campaign or in their successful suggestions to government which resulted in the 1991 task force on military collections in Canada, chaired by G. Hamilton Southam and Denis Vaugeois. The report of the latter still presents, in my view, the best summary of both the problems of the museum and the best path for resolving them.
Developing new and attractive public programming within the museum which would raise its profile and the priorities given by the board of trustees of the corporation to outreach beyond the national capital to enhance a sense of national identity had to be addressed.
Internally, the museum sought to attract greater audiences by a program of exhibit refurbishment, on a step-by-step basis, from existing funds, and the aggressive pursuit of existing artefacts for the Vimy House collection. As an example, in 1988 I wrote directly to the Soviet government and asked for a T-34 tank, the key Second World War innovation tank technology. The Soviet government shipped, at their expense, a fully restored, equipped, and operable T-34. It was delivered to the museum by a marshal of their armed forces.
Lacking electronic means in the form of video or computer-based communications to initiate an outreach program, it was achieved by instituting a relationship with other historic sites and agencies with whom we signed some 10 memoranda of cooperation and, with these institutions, an outreach program of historical commemorations and events involving pageantry and volunteer re-enactments was developed. This proved successful in both drawing audiences and providing a venue where promotional material on the Canadian War Museum could be disseminated in large volume. Notable among these were the Battle for the Capital, a 1988 sham battle in Ottawa which drew 50,000 spectators over two days; a recreation of the 1792 landing of John Graves Simcoe at Niagara-on-the Lake which drew 5,000 spectators; a 1993 cooperative effort on the War of 1812 with Parks Canada and the U.S. parks service which drew 25,000 spectators; and the Louisburg voyage, a gathering of 13 tall ships, 2,000 volunteer re-enactors, and an audience of 80,000 at the Fortress of Louisburg, in addition to thousands more in Quebec and Atlantic Canada who witnessed the passage of the museum-organized squadron and its escort of the destroyer HMCS Terra Nova provided by the Canadian navy. A National Film Board film resulted from this event and was televised internationally.
Closer to Ottawa, we committed ourselves, in 1993, to the commemoration of the Sicily-Italy; in 1994, to the D-day landings; and finally, in 1995, to Victory Spring. In these activities, the heartfelt commitment of the staff of the museum and the large contingent of volunteers to honouring our veteran men and women could not have been more warmly demonstrated. They staged vehicle parades with veterans in open vehicles, receiving the thanks of the public, aircraft fly-overs both day and night, military encampments, and big band dances where veterans mingled with guests in period 1940s clothing and uniforms. For these latter events, the museum received a special award from the Department of Canadian Heritage for its contribution to the commemorations.
In the care and handling of the museum's collection of some 440,000 objects, the professionalization of the various curatorial functions under succeeding directors of collections of research, Karen Graham and Daniel Glenney, brought the Canadians War Museum to a position of leadership in the corporation in its computer registration applications and in the development of a collections management policy, as well as in simple care of the collections. With travelling exhibitions of large or three-dimensional artefacts being prohibitive in cost, the chief curator of collections, Laura Brandon, successfully placed exhibitions of pieces from the museum's large art collection in venues in North America and Europe. The graduated opening of Vimy House as an exhibit centre revealed more of the collection to the public.
The years 1996 and 1997 focused on the success of the fund-raising campaign, on planning the new building expansion at Sussex, and finding new options for the Vimy House facility which were being examined by the corporation. Profile-raising issues were pursued and, in the summer of 1997, an agreement was successfully negotiated with the Department of National Defence, bringing a $250,000 courtyard display on the modern Canadian military to the 330 Sussex site which resulted in a marked improvement in the museum visitor figures during its showing. A special new exhibition on war-time separation entitled, "We'll Meet Again" opened in 1997 to positive reviews, and the image of the couple which we selected to be its symbol appeared nationally on the cover of The Globe and Mail. At the time of my departure from the Canadian War Museum on October 2, 1997, the museum's budget was in good condition in terms of its management and was predicted to end the year within permissible expenditure variables.
As to the future of the Canadian War Museum, I would offer the following views based on my 22 years of service with the institution, 11 of those spent as its head. I believe the two institutions, the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum, to be ultimately incompatible, too divergent in the basic premises of their purpose and existence, to allow the Canadian War Museum to reach its full potential. The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a colourful kaleidoscope of many and varying cultural experiences which can readily encompass an IMAX film on a rock-and-roll band or folk dancing demonstration with little difficulty. The Canadian War Museum must always, in contrast, be sensitive to its memorial role and to its principal subject-matter of the story of Canadians at war, which must be approached with prudence, with respect, and a necessary gravity for the sacrifices that story represents. It is bound by a moral duty which, in my view, sets it apart from the other museum irrevocably. I do not believe that the Canadian War Museum can achieve its full potential unless it is freed, regardless of time frame, from a relationship that impedes it.
I would suggest that the ability of the Canadian War Museum to obtain the resources it needs to function as Canada's national museum of military history can only occur if it stands clear of the shadow of the Canadian Museum of Civilization rather than in that shadow. If it has independent status, it will be more visible and have an unmistakable identity as a valued national institution, rather than always being seen in the context of the Canadian Museum of Civilization which, at the moment, is unavoidable. It must have the freedom to pursue both public and private-sector funding on its own terms, not those of a larger entity. It must be able to make its own case for expanded quarters that will allow it to display the treasures Canadians have the right to see and to learn from, and it must be structured so as to report to its own board of trustees, themselves reporting to a minister of the Crown, who have an understanding of the veteran and military context and can guide the museum in its operation and development.
I endorse most strongly the suggested appointment of members from veterans organizations, the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Defence, and other like-minded associations to such a board.
My own ability to act to behalf of an institution to which I gave 22 years of service has been brought to an end, but I would draw to the committee's attention the quality of the institution and those who work within it, and urge that you do recommend independent status for the Canadian War Museum within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Alternatively, the responsibility for the museum could be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of National Defence, both of which would have an understanding of the museum's subject-matter and its moral commitment. The museum staff can achieve a bright future for the institution. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill: Give them the tools, and they will finish the job.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you, Mr. Suthren. You said that you took some training and became a naval officer. Could you fill me in on some of the details of that, please?
Mr. Suthren: Yes, senator. In 1961, I joined the UNTD program, the "Untidies", and was commissioned in 1964 in the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve as a seaman ship specialist, what is called a "MARS" officer now, and I remained with the naval reserve until 1971. My last position was head of seamanship definition in HMCS Donacona. I have retained an affiliation with the navy and was made an honorary captain by the Minister of National Defence in May of last year.
Senator Jessiman: When you started in 1975 with the War Museum, as I understand it, it would be then under the National Museums Corporation by virtue of the National Museums Act that was passed in 1967. Would you be familiar with that?
Mr. Suthren: When I joined, the museum was a division of what was then known as the National Museum of Man.
Senator Jessiman: In 1967, the National Museums Corporation's board of trustees redesignated the Canadian War Museum's board, so at that time it had a board, or so I assume from the document I have read. They redesignated it as the Canadian War Museum Consultative Committee.
You are saying it was called the National Museum of Man. Was there a consultative committee of the Canadian War Museum that reported to that corporation? Was it a corporation, by the way?
Mr. Suthren: It was not a corporation at the time. It was established as a separate corporation under the Museums Act that established the four major national corporations.
Senator Jessiman: That was in 1990, but tell us how the War Museum operated prior to 1990?
I can tell you what it was in 1967, but you said it has changed. Back then it was part of the National Museums Corporation, just as it is part of this corporation, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. The board that existed then was at some point changed into a "consultative committee." I am asking you, from the time you started, was there a consultative committee of the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Suthren: The museum had been a division of the National Museum of Man until approximately when I became director. It then became an affiliate or an associate museum of the National Museum of Man, which later became the Canadian Museum of Civilization. There was no formal consultative committee established for the Canadian War Museum until the passage of the Museums Act in 1990-91, which established separate boards. The board for the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation provided for a consultative committee of that board to deal with the problems of the Canadian War Museum.
Senator Jessiman: I could not find that. Are you are saying that, since 1991, when this new corporation was incorporated, there was a provision for a consultative committee? Where was that? It is not in the Act, or at least I do not think it is.
Mr. Suthren: You are probably right. Not having it before me and not being a student of the act, I cannot reply. My own memory of the circumstances was that, when the act established the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, along with the three other major corporations, a separate board for the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation was created.
Senator Jessiman: I know about that.
Mr. Suthren: One of the actions of that board was to create a consultative committee.
Senator Jessiman: Maybe the officers can tell us how they arranged that. They have the right to set up by-laws and committees and perhaps they have done that. Certainly the general by-laws that I have seen gave them that right. When do you think that committee was established?
Mr. Suthren: My recollection is that it was established as soon as the board itself undertook its activities in 1991. The board established the consultative committee. It was chaired by one of the members of the board who had experience in military and veterans affairs, General Ramsey Withers.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know how many members there were?
Mr. Suthren: Yes, there were five members.
Senator Jessiman: Was that the make-up of the committee or is it just that you remember seeing five members? Do you know if there was a minimum or maximum number of members?
Mr. Suthren: My memory is of five members. The committee was composed of a distinguished military historian and former soldier, Professor Desmond Morton; Dr. Alec Douglas, a former commander in the navy as well as head of the directorate of history at National Defence; Major-General Robert LaRose; Mrs. Beverley Scott of Winnipeg; and the chairman himself, General Ramsey Withers. There may be another member whom I cannot recall at this point.
Senator Jessiman: How long did that last?
Mr. Suthren: That lasted until the present board came into being.
Senator Jessiman: I thought you said this started in 1990.
Mr. Suthren: It started with the formation of the previous board, yes.
Senator Jessiman: You mean this is the same board but there are new members?
Mr. Suthren: Yes, I refer to the previous board of the new Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
Senator Jessiman: That would have lasted how long, until 1995?
Mr. Suthren: This lasted until the new board was established under Ms Adrienne Clarkson.
Senator Jessiman: This was not a brand-new board. In 1995, were the previous members dismissed or abandoned or what?
Mr. Suthren: As it was presented to me, the board and the chairwoman had decided that the committee was no longer necessary. They felt that the affairs of the museum could be addressed by the board as a whole. The advice and counsel that had been previously given by the committee could be provided instead by the board.
Senator Kelly: Thank you, sir, for an excellent presentation. It reaffirms my impression of the quality of what has been done so far. Your emphasis is on the importance of increased independence for this museum. That is always difficult within the political government structure. Have you ever given any thought to the question of whether this entity could be privatized?
Mr. Suthren: I would be reluctant to speak to government policy, but I am certainly prepared to give an opinion.
Senator Kelly: Obviously the government would have to review its policy. We are not talking about that. You and I are talking about a perfect world. In a perfect world, would it be possible to achieve the current mandate of the War Museum if it were privatized, even though government would retain an interest?
There are a number of sizeable foundations in this country and I feel the War Museum would be a laudable enterprise. I am not suggesting that a private War Museum would necessarily be better than what we have now, but I have a hunch it might be a bit more free and not so subject to the current problem of generally scarce resources. The War Museum is just one more demand on a shrinking pool of funds. To isolate the thing as a public-private entity or as a private entity, or as a non-profit organization, might well be worth considering. We would want to think through the negative aspects, though.
Mr. Suthren: My feeling is that anything that increases the freedom of the Canadian War Museum to compete, if you will, for its survival would be a plus. Without any ill-meaning on anyone's part, the simple juxtaposition of a smaller institution under the wing or shadow of a larger one inhibits the smaller one from establishing a clear identity and thereby from pursuing revenue sources, whether private or public.
Anything that increases the freedom of the Canadian War Museum to do what it must do would be a plus. I am not able to address how those arrangements would be undertaken while being sensitive to the interests of the Crown and the people of Canada. At the same time, the institution would need clear guidelines about its moral commitment and its moral responsibility as a memorially focused Canadian War Museum. If that were in place, then I would think that the freer you are, the more successful you are.
Senator Kelly: I think it would be possible to find the odd private-sector foundation that has the moral standards to suit you. I wanted to inject that into the mix. Also, I wish to make the observation that while it is currently under the umbrella of a parent agency it does not necessarily mean it will not work; it just means it may not be right now. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Suthren: Certainly. My own opinion is simply my own opinion.
Senator Forest: I wish to follow up on the question of Senator Jessiman and ask if, in your opinion, this consultative committee was an effective way of bringing the concerns of the military to the museum.
Mr. Suthren: In my view, senator, it was an enormously useful tool. As Director General of the Canadian War Museum reporting to an institution that lacked personal experience or professional involvement with a military or a veteran experience, some elements of our mandate were often difficult to translate or to explore with them, however well-meaning and willing they were to examine those issues.
The consultative committee provided not only advice to the larger board and corporation, but also advice to me. It was chaired by General Withers and was composed of individuals who were both academics and former soldiers or former sailors or individuals who had other interests and knowledge of the military and veteran context. When any delicate issues came up or when I was uncertain about how to approach a key topic or uncertain as to who to consult this meant that they were there as a resource; General Withers, particularly, was most wise in providing that committee for me to use as a resource. With its abolition, I lost that resource. Instead, I could only bring such issues to the larger board if they were within the same organizational structure as was I.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the current board lacks anyone with a military or veteran experience, in contrast to the previous board which had General Withers, former chief of defence staff and veteran himself, as well as Professor Duncan Fraser from Nova Scotia, who was a decorated and wounded infantry officer in the Second World War. That meant that even with full willingness and no pejorative approach to anything I may have brought to the board, there was simply no one there with a military or veteran background to interpret or understand the special circumstances of the War Museum or problems it might have had in dealing with Canada's military and veteran history.
Senator Forest: Would the present advisory council have had its genesis in the original committee? Did that come about to replace the original committee?
Mr. Suthren: The advisory council which now exists was created after my departure from the Canadian War Museum. In reading about it in the papers, I noticed that it appears to provide the same function. If that is the case, then I think it will prove most useful to whoever is leading the War Museum because the previous committee was a valuable resource that I was sorry to lose.
Senator Forest: Was the present committee appointed after 1995?
Mr. Suthren: No. The current advisory council, which has just been appointed, was appointed after October 2 when I departed the museum.
Senator Jessiman: After October 2, 1997.
Mr. Suthren: That is right.
Senator Forest: My concern, as a result of viewing the curriculum vitae of several people on the present committee, is that there does not seem to be the same experience with the military as there was on the original committee.
Mr. Suthren: I am afraid I cannot speak to that.
Senator Jessiman: You are certainly familiar with the task force that took place in 1991.
Mr. Suthren: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Did you happen to give any evidence or speak to this task force?
Mr. Suthren: I was interviewed quite thoroughly as part of the process.
Senator Jessiman: As you said, you would certainly recommend recommendation 16 where they said that the Canadian War Museum should be established as a separate museum.
Mr. Suthren: Yes. It is my belief that that is the best course for the museum.
Senator Chalifoux: Mr. Suthren, I would like to discuss with you the evolution of the concept of the Holocaust Gallery within the Canadian War Museum. Could you explain how that started, if you were involved, and what transpired?
Mr. Suthren: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for your direction on this issue, as this touches on, to a degree, the confidentiality agreement to which I am a signatory.
Senator Cools: Let him tell us.
The Chairman: The rule is that the committee must consider the material to be relevant, and I would think the committee is most interested in that information. Therefore, I would like to have the question answered. Mr. Audcent can advise you on your immunity.
Senator Jessiman: I agree with that, and I think the whole committee would agree.
Senator Cools: I would offer you the protection of Parliament.
Mr. Suthren: In 1994, determining that an extension to the 330 Sussex building might increase its exhibit space, efficiency and attractiveness to visitors, the Friends of the Canadian War Museum were approached to undertake a fund-raising campaign in support of this project, to which request they agreed. The campaign came to be known as "Passing the Torch". Assisted by funding and professional fund-raising staff from the corporation, the Friends made the campaign largely successful by 1997. The leading gift was $1 million from General Motors of Canada; and I personally solicited and received a $400,000 gift from Macdonald Stewart Foundation in Montreal.
I favoured a modest addition to the rear of the 330 Sussex site which would not disrupt the courtyard space or alter greatly the appearance of the building. The three-storey addition favoured by me would not have unduly disturbed the existing exhibits. It would have increased the exhibit space on the second and third floors as well as visitor amenities and temporary auditorium spaces on the ground floor. The cost as presented to me at the time was $6 million to $8 million.
On the second floor of the extension, I proposed that the museum install an exhibit gallery on the Holocaust and other genocides in history to be entered after completing the Second World War gallery or visited alone if wished.
Arriving at the decision to pursue such a gallery was a developmental process within myself as well as within other people. Earlier proposals for a Dutch liberation theatre or a Jewish war veterans exhibit lacked, in my mind, the universal moral lesson that the Holocaust symbolizes.
I studied carefully the approach taken by the Imperial War Museum -- a colleague British Commonwealth country -- and found that there were lessons to be learned in their approach. I also looked at what other NATO allies were doing. I came to feel that an examination of the Holocaust would bring into sharp focus for visitors, particularly younger ones, how vital and important was the victory by our armed forces in 1945, as the passage of time and the limitations of our educational system blur the memories of the war. It was not only a struggle for territory or economic gain, even if our fighting young men and women at the time were unaware of the full facts of the matter.
I also felt that including with it a study of current, similar tragedies such as Rwanda and Bosnia, would demonstrate to the visitor how fragile our rights and freedoms are, that vigilance is the price of a decent and free society; that we must be determined to defend our democratic institutions and the free and tolerant community they were meant to ensure; that we must maintain well-equipped, combat-capable armed forces able to act in our interests and in defence of the things we believe in; and that we must, through strong alliance systems such as NATO and in common cause with UN partners, both ensure our own rights and help those around the world who cannot do so.
I was concerned, however, that the introduction of this gallery not unbalance the presentations of the museum's exhibits away from the primary story for which it is the story teller and the memorial: the service of our men and women in uniform. I had established a curator for the gallery, Fred Gaffen of the museum staff, confident in his abilities as a published military historian with long experience in working with outside scholars in our historical publications program. I also believed that the Canadian War Museum's autonomy in public programming and curatorial matters had been prudently exercised in the past, as it would be now in developing the gallery. I had also established a Director General's Advisory Council on the gallery, the first meeting of which in May of 1997, chaired by me, was successful.
Dr. MacDonald, in the summer of 1997, moved to declare the gallery a "corporate-theme feature to be located in the Canadian War Museum" and that the theme and content of the gallery would be decided by Professor Robert Bothwell of the University of Toronto and a committee Dr. Bothwell would chair. Dr. Bothwell is a member of the board of trustees of the corporation.
I remained convinced that the proposal I favoured would not overbalance the museum's exhibit profile away from its primary task of presenting Canada's military history.
In terms of consultation undertaken to bring about a Holocaust Gallery, responsibility for such consultation or any failure to consult rests with me until October 2. Certainly, the existence of an advisory council would have helped greatly in dealing with this issue, but in this instance it was not available to me. I had dealt with the issue for some time and had contacted Dr. MacDonald who was supportive and encouraging. I did raise the issue at a meeting of the board of trustees and indicated to them that I was a creature of the corporation and of the board. If they did not wish me to proceed, I would not. The words of Vice-Chairman, Jacques Lacoursière, were, "We must do it," and so I proceeded.
As to consultation with the veterans' community, since 1993 we have been working closely with the veterans in the commemorations of the Sicily campaigns, D-day and so on. Our staff and volunteers worked closely with them. They were in the buildings. They were part of our family -- volunteer guides with their medals and blazers were always to continue to be in the museum. The Friends of the Canadian War Museum, which were actively carrying out the Passing the Torch campaign, which included the Holocaust Gallery, had representatives of veterans organizations on its board.
The Chairman: Mr. Suthren, I issued a warning to the committee that we had 15 minutes left. You have now used up 10 of it. Would you please answer the question?
Senator Jessiman: He is answering it.
The Chairman: Your response has taken 10 minutes, and, as I say, we only had 15 minutes left.
Mr. Suthren: I was asked to explain my involvement.
The Chairman: Need your answer be so lengthy?
Mr. Suthren: I can certainly stop, sir, if you wish.
Senator Chalifoux: His explanation is making many things very clear to me.
Mr. Suthren: I only have a sentence or two more. To get back to the question of consultation with the veterans groups, having the veterans amongst us may have lulled me into a sense that I was among family and that I was communicating sufficiently. Clearly, I was not, and I accept responsibility for the lack of consultation, particularly with the veterans organizations, and to Ian Inrig and Mr. Kahn, to Jack Kobolak and Duane Daly and to that stalwart warrior, Cliff Chadderton, I offer a complete apology.
Senator Chalifoux: Thank you very much. You have answered all my questions.
Senator Cools: The witness is obviously in a legal conflict with the museum. Perhaps it involves a settlement of some kind and the witness is being duly cautious. That caution is reflected in the witness's manner and choice of words.
I have two questions. These questions arise from the testimony before this committee. Have you ever been asked to leave a museum's board meeting because you were wearing a Canadian military uniform? If the answer is no, the matter is settled. If the answer is yes, who asked you to leave and what reason was given to you?
Mr. Suthren: No.
Senator Cools: My next question is with regard to your current status at the museum. You no longer work there. Was that your choice or was it someone else's decision?
Mr. Suthren: It was not my choice, senator.
Senator Cools: My next question is: In your opinion, have you been treated fairly by the museum? Of course, I have asked for your opinion, and we know the difference between opinion and fact.
Mr. Suthren: I have been treated with full address of legal issues, I think is the best way I can put it, senator.
Senator Cools: I was not addressing legalities, I was addressing the concept of fairness. As I said, the witness's tone, manner and choice of words are cautious. Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Senator Jessiman: Did the dispute arise because you wanted this gallery to be included in the War Museum and the board did not; or was it because you wanted it to be housed in a smaller gallery? Did your dispute with the board have anything to do with the Holocaust Gallery per se?
Mr. Suthren: It was not my perception, senator, that I had a dispute with the board.
Senator Jessiman: Your termination had nothing to do with this gallery?
Mr. Suthren: There were no reasons given to me for my termination.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you.
Senator Prud'homme: I have five or six questions which call for "yes" or "no" answers. You had responsibility. Did people from the board ever tour the War Museum?
Mr. Suthren: The current chairwoman was exemplary in visiting the institution in all its locations, even before the first meeting. Attendance at or visiting the remainder of the buildings was less successful with the other members. Some of the other member did see all aspects of the museum, others did not.
Senator Prud'homme: Are you saying that the chairperson, whom I hold in the highest esteem, visited with you?
Mr. Suthren: Yes, Ms Clarkson toured 330 Sussex Drive and Vimy House in great detail shortly after taking over.
Senator Prud'homme: Were there any comments about the displays or their content that you might care to share with us?
Mr. Suthren: I cannot speak to Ms Clarkson's opinion of the museum. However, what she communicated to the staff was enthusiasm, respect for their work, great interest and perception of value of the collections. She was quite encouraged and interested in what the museum was about, its mandate, its collections and its work.
The Chairman: We have heard evidence in the past week that the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery was necessary to increase attendance at the War Museum. Do you consider that to be a valid claim?
Mr. Suthren: It has validity to the degree that presenting military history on its own is a long educational process for the general public. Our school system does not provide for a great deal of instruction on the military and wartime history of Canada, so it is a harder sell.
Frankly, issues which cause gut reactions are of more interest to the public. An understanding of the question of dehumanization, the mistreatment of others and of conflict that involves violence is more readily understandable in the context of the Holocaust.
The Chairman: "Democide" was a term which came up yesterday. Should the Japanese democide which occurred in the Far East in World War II be included in the War Museum as well?
Mr. Suthren: At present, the War Museum is displaying an exhibit on our particular Hong Kong experience where we lost two regiments. It also addresses the mistreatment of prisoners by the Japanese.
It would be necessary to show all aspects, as much as space and time would allow. There is a common thread -- the dehumanization and mistreatment of other people that is one of the root causes of war. If we are to understand the phenomenon, it must also be present, even if only as a lesson as to why we must be prepared to defend our society and ensure its institutions survive.
The Chairman: Would these demonstrations be included in the Holocaust wing?
Mr. Suthren: My view at the time was that the principal story of the Holocaust is the largest issue, that it must be shown with other examples of human beings' inhumanity to others to show it is not an isolated case, is not something that simply happened in a white European society in a given number of years. It is endemic to all humanity, and we cannot address the issue unless we consider it as a problem in which all humanity shares, and in which humanity must share in a solution.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Suthren, for accepting our invitation and for your brief and answers here this morning.
Our next witness is Ms Adrienne Clarkson, chairwoman of the board of trustees of the CMCC. She will be accompanied by Dr. George MacDonald, president and chief executive officer; Mr. Joe Geurts, chief operating officer and senior vice-president; and Mr. Daniel Glenney, acting director general.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Adrienne Clarkson, Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation: I hope that you have all received the documentation that we brought along for this meeting of the subcommittee on veterans affairs, a meeting that has important implications for the future. I will begin with my presentation and I will be happy to take questions after that. I have been warned about how the committee chairman feels about bureaucrats who talk too much.
On behalf of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, I wish to thank you very much for this invitation to participate in the subcommittee hearings on the future and growth of the Canadian War Museum. We want to thank you for your interest in the welfare and development of our museum. We share the same interest. The recent dialogue about the proposed expansion of the museum has been welcome as a reminder of the deep attachment of Canadians to their War Museum and to our national military heritage. In my opinion, this controversy serves as a further stimulus to a careful consideration of the museum's future course.
As Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees of the CMCC, I oversee the operations of the corporation along with the Board of Trustees. We endeavor to set the strategic directions that the central museum and its affiliate, the War Museum, will take. As such, we work closely with Mr. George MacDonald, the President and CEO of the CMCC, and with the administration to ensure that concrete action is taken to achieve all of the development and expansion objectives set out in our museums policy.
This being said, I am truly proud to be the Chairwoman of the Board of the CMCC, which includes its affiliate, the Canadian War Museum. I was extremely honoured to accept this appointment in November 1995. When I came on board, not only did I see that there was work to be done, I also observed the healthy state of this institution.
[English]
It is very important to me that we have the care of the Canadian War Museum. That was one of the issues that greatly interested me.
The moment I became the chairwoman of the Board of Trustees of the Corporation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, I toured the museum in Hull, the museum on Sussex Drive and its storage facility at Vimy House.
I must to say that as chairman I was excited about working with the high quality of museum people that we have at both institutions. This is very exciting for someone who is not a professional in the museological field, but who has always visited and liked museums, and who has a more than passing interest in things that are military, particularly things like battlefields.
In my career, I have had the opportunity to be the official representative of the Government of Ontario at the fortieth anniversary of the landings at D-day in Normandy and to be present at a number of commemorative activities throughout my life which have deeply marked me. There is no one of my generation in Canada who has not been touched by war, the sacrifice of war, and all that that means to our close families, friends and relatives.
I also think it is important to note how much museums are a part of our Canadian fabric. Our goal is that they should be broad in scope and in attendance. We want the broad attendance because we have all of these wonderful artefacts in our trust at the War Museum. We have collected over half a million artefacts representing all of Canada's military history, right back to Viking times. It is most interesting to see the kinds of artefacts we have, such as the 16th-century armour from the people who were with Champlain. When we look at all these things, as I have done several times, we have to realize that they say something about our country. The museum is not a place where artefacts are simply stored and sometimes seen by people. A museum is a living, breathing entity, that stores the past for the present and keeps it in trust for the future. A museum is also something that has a message for everyone about our own country, our own history and all the things that have made us what we are.
In terms of our past, present and future, certain problems have arisen at the Canadian War Museum because of the numerous threads that have been drawn into the fabric of Canadian society. We are a unique society, a society of immigrants, a society founded by two cultures, French and English. I am very fortunate to have lived abroad so that I can fully appreciate our uniqueness, which we are creating all the time. That makes our history and our commemoration even more important because people come here and become Canadian, which is our glory, but they must always be reminded of the past that was lived before them. Our museums can give them our heritage immediately, almost on a plate, as it were.
Malcolm Ross, the great scholar from Dalhousie, spoke of "the impossible sum of all our traditions." Museums have this complex but invigorating task of capturing our common history and diversity and, therefore, they must be inclusive. We must also be able to say to people, "This is our history, and this includes you now because you are part of it; you are looking at it." We must be inclusive. That is part of our mission.
The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation and the Canadian War Museum are mandated by the Museums Act, as you are well aware, to increase, throughout the country and internationally, knowledge and understanding of the human cultural traditions, achievements and behaviour, to maintain and develop research, now and for generations to come, collections of artefacts of historical and cultural interest with special, but not exclusive, reference to Canada.
That is something else we must realize: We are not a young country. We are very fond of that cliché, but we are not young. We have 400 years of history and we have collected a lot and must show it. We must inspire, educate, entertain, involve and engage Canadians of all ages.
First, I want to tell you that as soon as I became chairwoman of the board I toured the museum at 330 Sussex, met the people there and went to Vimy House, which is the car barn out in the west end where most of the artefacts are stored. I realized that these facilities were inadequate to promote our military history and commemorate the glory of the sacrifices made by Canadians in war. Therefore, I wanted to make the War Museum the number one priority of the board.
Before I came onto the board, we had just lost General Ramsey Withers as a member. His time was up, so we no longer had a military person on our board. When I came in, we restructured some of the committees, a perfectly normal thing to do. We have an audit committee, a finance and compensation committee and an executive committee. We decided not to have an acquisitions committee as we have no money to buy anything. We did not have a military person to chair a committee and we were waiting to reconstitute it until we got one. We did not have anyone on our board to fill that role. As you know, our board of trustees members are appointed by the Ministry of Heritage.
Now we have Barnett Danson, who will chair our advisory committee for the War Museum. If you cast your eye down the list, Senator Forest, you mentioned the CVs of the people. We have General Manson, General Belzile, and there is a third general, as well as Mrs. Patricia Toner, who was a WAC during the Second World War and lives in the Ottawa area. We have a very strong advisory committee now in terms of the War Museum.
We wanted the board to focus on the War Museum, to make it a big priority. We were going to deal with it through a new "development committee," which would discuss the development of the war committee and fund raising for the War Museum. It was important to us, and to me personally, because it is an absolute priority to replace Vimy House. I toured those buildings more than once and I insisted that the board come too. We went to Vimy House, and we actually had our lunch there and a bit of a meeting.
Our war art collection, which I hope you will note, comprises 11,400 pieces of some of the finest art that has ever been done by Canadians in the context of war. The first war artists went out under Lord Beaverbrook's aegis in the First World War. They include five of the seven Group of Seven artists. Our collection includes David Milne and, from the Second World War, Alex Colville. All our major artists are represented in this very fine collection. These paintings are not able to be shown in our very cramped facilities at present.
We set about doing a strategic, long-term plan for the complete War Museum. It would re-emphasize its purpose, to commemorate the sacrifice, to always take care of Canada's military history and to document our peacekeeping efforts. We have done that with resources from the corporation despite a declining public-sector allocation and reduction of 23.6 per cent in our budget since the fiscal year 1994-95.
We have tried very hard to find a replacement for Vimy House. Just after I became chair we lost a perfect site, the land engineering test establishment site. The RCMP got it instead. As a board, we were very disappointed about not getting it. We have subsequently been looking at something south of Ottawa that we could fit up for relatively little cost. It would enable us to publicly show all our vehicles and perhaps have displays in the summertime, which would be an added draw.
We have vehicles in working order at the museum which we would like to display. Vimy House has been open to the public on weekends during the summer and, within the context of the restraints -- it is not an ideal place to show artefacts -- it has been a great success.
We are well aware of the 1991 task force on military history museum collections in Canada which reported to National Defence, the then Department of Communications, and Veterans Affairs. The board took very serious note of the recommendations that the Minister of Communications should give independence to the War Museum and that the corporation give more autonomy within its current structure.
The first recommendation must be achieved, I must point out, through government direction and legislation. That is not within the purview of the board. We cannot give autonomy to the War Museum.
As to the second recommendation, the War Museum, as a practical matter, determines its own programs, priorities and projects such as exhibits. Its practical relationship with the Museum of Civilization is that of cooperation. It is not one of subordination. The current members of the board have attended many of the museum's special exhibits. We thoroughly enjoyed the opening of the 'Til We Meet Again exhibit.
It is also been a priority of our development team in the administration area, as opposed to the development team of the board, to raise funds for the War Museum.
We want to make the War Museum more visible. That has been the whole point of this expansion. The War Museum must be recognized from the street. It should not be mistakenly identified as the parking lot of the National Gallery of Canada or of the Mint. We are very committed to that expansion.
In our strategic planning we have given high priority to fund raising for the museum. As well, the energy and commitment of the Friends of the War Museum just cannot be underestimated.
Budgets of other parts of the CMCC have plummeted up to 30 per cent, but we have maintained stable funding and even increased funding over the last five years for the Canadian War Museum, ensuring that $6 million was set aside for the museum over each of the past four years. In fact, funds were allocated from the corporate budget to ensure that the War Museum was in the best possible financial position that we could all afford.
At a cost of $1.7 million, we finished all the permanent exhibits of the Canadian War Museum, while some of the CMCC exhibits have yet to be completed.
Of course, we realize that we need to do more.
[Translation]
Still more remains to be done. That is why we have proposed this expansion. We are committed to upgrading, renovating and expanding our main facility at 330 Sussex and to replacing Vimy House. Quite honestly, it has not been easy to obtain public funds specifically for the War Museum, particularly in these times of budget cutbacks. Our resources, ideas and ingenuity have nevertheless stood us in good stead and we have decided to proceed with our expansion plans. We still need ongoing assistance from the private sector and from the friends of the War Museum. Their moral support is very important to us. A $5 million fund-raising campaign is underway and the board has approved $7 million for the proposed expansion. We are disheartened and even saddened to see that projects undertaken with so much enthusiasm and commitment by our Board of Trustees...
[English]
The Chairman: I aplogoize for this interruption, but perhaps we should proceed to questions.
Ms Clarkson: Absolutely.
Senator Prud'homme: Perhaps Ms Clarkson could have one minute to summarize.
[Translation]
As I said, we are disheartened to see our enthusiasm for this project and our goodwill misinterpreted and misunderstood. We regret the situation. In coming here, we are making every effort to make our true intentions clear. We realize that we have an obligation to move cautiously and responsibly when dealing with this delicate issue. You have my word that we are committed to a renewed War Museum which will give full expression to our military history on into the next century.
[English]
We accept our responsibility for custody of this part of our history and we will be sensitive to everything this committee will recommend. Thank you.
The Chairman: Am I correct in understanding that you used three architects on this project?
Ms Clarkson: We have not used three architects on this project. We had an open bidding process, as a result of which the firm of Diamond, Schmitt was chosen.
The Chairman: Were any architects involved in any previous consultation?
Mr. Joe Geurts, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice-President, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation: Mr. Chairman, I believe you are referring to the fact that, in 1988, a development plan was produced for the Canadian War Museum by a Mr. Michael Lundholm who was the head of architectural services for the National Museums of Canada. We also contracted with Mr. Lundholm, prior to the national tender, to provide us with some initial thoughts on the feasibility of constructing an addition at 330 Sussex. If you recall my presentation the other day, I identified the date on which we conducted a feasibility study. Mr. Lundholm did provide a feasibility study and not an architectural concept.
The Chairman: Was there anyone else involved in addition to Mr. Lundholm?
Mr. Geurts: Not to my knowledge. There may be some confusion surrounding another name which was mentioned and who might be perceived to be an architect. Those are the three key dates or documents that were produced around an architectural concept for 330 Sussex Drive.
The Chairman: Is the interior planning completed?
Ms Clarkson: As far as I know, the interior planning is not completed. This is an ongoing project.
The Chairman: What are the architectural fees to date?
Mr. Geurts: We have a contract with Jack Diamond which was based on the tender that we provided to you several weeks ago. I do not have the numbers contained in that contract, but I can provide that information to the committee this afternoon if you wish.
As far as the plans for the interior and the finalization of the actual installations is concerned -- the particular elements of the program for the Canadian War Museum -- we presently have a plan but that is not yet a final plan. That final plan will depend on what the Canadian War Museum staff decide they would like to do with their program. The present plans, as unveiled in December or November, are not final.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chairman, the witness was asked a precise question, and I would suggest that, while he is giving his evidence, it would be easy for a member of the staff in this room to phone and ask what price was given. That would then be furnished to us before the end of this meeting, and not this afternoon when we will not be sitting.
Mr. Geurts: I would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: One of the pages will take you to a telephone.
How long will the museum be closed while construction takes place?
Mr. Geurts: Again, existing plans as to the construction schedule for the closure of the War Museum are not final. We have received a number of scenarios from the architects. The worst case scenario is that, if construction started in 1998, the museum could be closed from the fall of 1998 to the spring of 2000 because of the requirement to renovate some of the older floors.
The contract we have with Jack Diamond is for $493,000, with a contingency of some 20 per cent, bringing the total budget to $591,600. That contingency is included because, typically, in construction contracts you may demand other services outside the original scope of the tender. It is a budgeted amount; it is not within the contract with Jack Diamond.
The Chairman: Does that include supervision of the construction or anything of that nature?
Mr. Geurts: The overall contract amount will include fees, disbursements, translation and specialty sub-consultants for structural engineering, the heritage building envelope, mechanical and electrical engineering, and cost consulting. It does include some supervision, but our own staff will also deal with the issue of project management.
The Chairman: In other words, we can expect the contract price to be higher.
I would like to turn to your announcement of November 24. You state there that consultations are underway with the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Committee, the National Capital Commission, the Royal Canadian Mint and other agencies regarding the design concept. Have you met any objection from any of those agencies concerning the design?
Mr. Geurts: We had one meeting with the officials of FHBRO, and objections to the existing design have been raised by that particular group of architects. We have not been responding to those objections until these hearings were complete in the sense of focusing on the work here.
The Chairman: You had one meeting with whom?
Mr. Geurts: The Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office provided us with some objections in writing to the existing design from Jack Diamond. FHBRO is the group responsible for the heritage buildings within the federal government envelope.
In addition, we have had meetings with the Royal Canadian Mint. They provided us with their needs for continuing access to their site, which will likely require some modifications to the existing design to ensure access. That is something the architect will be asked to look at.
We have had preliminary meetings with NCC officials, but the official meeting with them and their committee structure has been delayed. I believe it is now scheduled for May because we wish to make changes in response to the FHBRO meeting and the meeting with the Royal Canadian Mint to be able to present a design closer to the final design.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I wish to read into the record a letter dated January 23, 1998. The letter is addressed to me and is entitled "Re: Canadian War Museum Expansion". It states:
In response to your enquiry I am pleased to provide you with the following information regarding discussions between the Royal Canadian Mint and the Canadian War Museum with respect to the proposed expansion of the Canadian War Museum.
The Royal Canadian Mint was officially made aware of the proposed design concept for expansion of the War Museum in November 1997 at a press conference held by the Museum. The Mint immediately expressed concern that the addition to the War Museum building appeared to prevent access to the Mint's loading dock situated on the south end of the Mint's building. The Royal Canadian Mint met with officials of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum early in December 1997 and they confirmed that the proposed design concept would in fact prevent access to the loading dock. The Canadian War Museum has undertaken to present options for modification to the design concept that would recognize the Mint's right of way.
The letter is signed by Marguerite Nadeau, Q.C., Executive Director, Legal Services and Corporate Secretary.
Honourable senators, this causes me great concern about the efficiency of the planning for the expansion. It raises questions as to the space allocations. How many feet will have to be taken off the museum? Which sections will be losing space? In other words, all the information provided to us here on Monday is now open to doubt. It is inaccurate because you will have to alter your plans. You admit that. Legal counsel for the mint states that you have agreed to all of the plans. Why were we not told about this on Monday when Mr. Geurts and Mr. Glenney were here?
Mr. Geurts: My response, sir, is that the plans may need to be altered to satisfy the Mint's conditions. They may need to be altered to satisfy the objections of FHBRO. However, it is our intent and commitment to continue to provide the same amount of space presently planned within that "concept". We have been using that word throughout the presentations -- that is, it is a concept -- knowing full well that we would have to respond to some changes.
The commitment of the corporation is to provide that amount of space and a street presence to the Canadian War Museum. We believe that is essential. We have no intention of reducing the amount of space that this concept proposes to add to the Canadian War Museum.
The Chairman: How will you provide that space without transgressing on the right-of-way of the mint and possibly the art museum? Will you go up or will you go underground?
Mr. Geurts: An architect has identified an option, although it is not yet designed. We could be add space at the front of the plaza, which was not part of that existing maquette. It would not reduce the amount of space in the plaza but would provide more building space. We are quite comfortable with the fact that there are designs that will be able to meet the objectives of that particular concept with no alteration in the Canadian War Museum's program or in the amount of space we would be providing to the institution, and no alteration in the plan of achieving the street presence and identity for the institution.
Senator Prud'homme: And these designs will not alter the price of the architect?
Mr. Geurts: As I explained to you before, in terms of contingency and in terms of demanding an architect to go beyond the original scope of the tender, the demands I talked about in terms of redesigning it would lead to some additional cost. That is agreed. Will they be significant? No.
Senator Prud'homme: Sorry?
Mr. Geurts: I do not believe the additional cost would be significant but I do not have a price for you.
Senator Prud'homme: In 34 years, I have heard that many times.
The Chairman: So have I.
Now, I have one further question, but I will make the comment that I feel your reply has completely nullified by the explanation given to us by Mr. Glenney on Monday.
Ms Clarkson: I should like to say that I believe what our officials presented on Monday was a concept. It is not the finished project. Our plans are what they are. They are evolving and, naturally, since it is a government building, they will have modifications. There will be changes. This is realistic. This happens even in the private sector, depending on what the city wants, what the by-laws are, what the height restrictions are, et cetera. This is a concept. We are now working on that concept. It is a process that we are involved with. We are not locking this up in a little golden box and saying, "That is it," but we are committed to this amount of space and this kind of expansion. I do not think that is a contradiction.
The Chairman: It may not be a contradiction, but it leaves the committee in a very awkward position when we begin to talk about the space allocated for World War I and World War II, and attempt to establish what space would be taken up by the Holocaust Gallery. As you are well aware, Ms Clarkson, the figures your organization gives vary widely from what the veterans' organizations give. Mr. Glenney presented this in his evidence. We were given the footage in a brief, which I do not have with me now, but if you have not seen it, we will be happy to supply you with one. I would suggest to you that my statement is accurate that today's explanation nullifies it.
I wish to raise one question and then I will pass the floor on to others. I find it puzzling that the Museum of Civilization does not have to do the extensive fund raising that the War Museum does.
Ms Clarkson: It is also involved in fund raising.
The Chairman: But not to the same percentage of your total budget.
Ms Clarkson: We are involved in a fund-raising campaign for the Museum of Civilization to the tune of $14 million, for our First Peoples' Hall and the Canada Hall. Those are the areas for which we are presently fund raising.
The Chairman: So it is not going towards the cost over-runs incurred during the construction of the museum ten years ago? Have they been paid off?
Ms Clarkson: No, they have not. The fund raising is to finish the First Peoples' Hall and the Canada Hall, which were never funded by the government. To complete them, we have drawn from our current operating budgets, and we are raising $14 million from the private sector.
Senator Jessiman: I thank you for appearing, all four of you. I will direct my questions to Ms Clarkson, if I may, but perhaps others would like to answer.
When you were appointed in 1995, it was reported to us earlier that your board had an advisory committee in respect to the War Museum. What was the procedure that you took as a board to cancel that advisory committee? What did you do? Do not tell me the reasons why, just the procedure.
Ms Clarkson: The procedure went through the board meeting. It was a proposal made by the executive committee to restructure the committees of the board.
Senator Jessiman: How was the executive committee established?
Ms Clarkson: The executive committee was established as a way of organizing the activities of the board. It would bring things to the board and be able to deal with material, as any executive committee does. We have 11 people on the board, including myself.
Senator Jessiman: Do you have an executive committee of that board, and is it appointed each year?
Ms Clarkson: We have an executive committee, but it is not appointed each year. It has been standing since 1995. All the committees of the board have been standing since 1995 when we restructured the committees.
Senator Jessiman: When you say you appointed an executive committee, how many of the 11 members are on the executive committee? I do not care to know the names but how many do you have?
Ms Clarkson: I am trying to think.
Ms Louise Dubois, Corporate Secretary and Director General, Strategic Planning, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation: There are five trustees who are members of the executive committee, in addition to the CEO and the COO.
Ms Clarkson: Half the board is on the executive committee.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know how many members you require to have a meeting of the board? What is a quorum?
Ms Dubois: It is a simple majority, the same as in the Interpretation Act.
Ms Clarkson: We always ask Ms Dubois, "Do we have a quorum?" If she says, "Yes, we do," then we proceed.
Senator Jessiman: In 1995, you created an executive committee and named those persons. That is seven, because there are some who are not members of the board on that executive committee, is that right?
Ms Clarkson: That is right. I believe that the by-laws of the organization indicate that the committees must have the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer on the committees.
Ms Dubois: Yes, the by-law states that there will be an executive committee and it formulates the membership. It states that it will include the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer.
Senator Jessiman: That is how you abolished the advisory committee in 1995, is it?
Ms Clarkson: Basically we restructured it because we were also getting rid of the acquisitions committee.
Senator Jessiman: I am not trying to play games with you. I just want to know whether it was the board that did it.
Ms Clarkson: Yes, the board did it.
Senator Jessiman: You did not have to go to the government?
Ms Clarkson: That is correct. The board did it.
Senator Jessiman: So you did not have to go to the government to create another advisory committee?
Ms Clarkson: No.
Senator Jessiman: But you waited until 1997 to do so.
Ms Clarkson: We hoped that we would get an appointment to the board that would be able to head that committee. That is what we were waiting for, but it did not happen.
Senator Jessiman: Do your by-laws provide that your advisory committee must have a board member?
Ms Dubois: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Can you refer me to that section?
Ms Dubois: The Chair of all board committees must be a trustee.
Senator Jessiman: I see. Is there reference to an advisory committee?
Ms Dubois: No. The only committees mentioned in the by-law are the audit committee, required by the Financial Administration Act, and the executive committee.
Senator Jessiman: That is the by-laws, is it not?
Ms Dubois: That is correct.
Senator Jessiman: That is not the act. I have the act here. You are limiting yourselves to say that it has to be a trustee. If you have a quorum, you could meet and pass a by-law that you have an advisory committee, and it does not have to be a board member. It is ridiculous to wait until you have a board member, I suggest. You were not informed properly if you thought that your committee was handcuffed by your by-laws. You are the ones who passed these by-laws and you can change them so long as you stay within the act.
Ms Dubois: That is correct, but that would require Governor-in-Council approval.
Senator Jessiman: Do you think you would have any trouble with that? Of course you would not. Let us be honest about this. You people really did not want to have outside people with military knowledge advising you. Now that a controversy has arisen, you say, "Oh, we had better get an advisory committee, but we cannot do that unless we have a board member." You could have gone to the government and said that you wanted to change your by-laws, received Governor-in-Council approval with no problem, and appointed an advisory committee.
Whose position did Colonel Barney Danson take? I have the list of 11 members here; someone's term must have come to an end.
Ms Clarkson: He took the place of Blair Stonechild.
Senator Jessiman: Therefore Colonel Danson will chair the committee because he is the trustee appointed and the others are otherwise.
Ms Clarkson: That is right.
Senator Jessiman: What is the power of this committee? You have an advisory committee. Have we terms of reference of the advisory committee?
Ms Dubois: The advisory committee does not have executive powers.
Senator Jessiman: Do not tell us what it does not have. Just read to us what it does have, please.
Ms Dubois: The functions are in general to advise and counsel the board of trustees and management of the CMCC on matters related to the Canadian War Museum and to undertake any other duties assigned to it by the board. The Canadian War Museum advisory committee is composed of a maximum of 10 members, including one trustee who will chair the committee, representatives of the Canadian veterans and Canadian forces community, the chairperson of the board of trustees, the president and CEO of the CMCC, and the chief operating officer of the CMCC. External members are appointed by the board of trustees on the recommendation of the chairperson of the committee. The director general of the Canadian War Museum is the secretary of the committee. The committee acts in an advisory capacity to the board of trustees. The chair of the committee reports to the board of trustees on a regular basis concerning the activities, deliberations and recommendations of the committee, the relationship with management and staff. The committee receives its information from the president and CEO who, for this purpose --
Senator Jessiman: President? Is that the French title?
Ms Dubois: No, it is "président-directeur général".
Senator Jessiman: I have looked through the by-laws.
Ms Dubois: The term is "director".
Senator Jessiman: Yes, exactly. He is the director and CEO. How does he become the president? I thought it may be that "directeur" in French meant "president" in English.
Ms Dubois: No. I did some research on the term "director" and I believe the Financial Administration Act, or perhaps it was the Interpretation Act, says that whatever the title is of the chief executive officer, that is the director. In our institution, the title is "president and CEO".
Mr. George F. MacDonald, President and CEO, The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation: If I may, the reason for that is that I am the director of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, but I also have a post which is responsible for that and the War Museum, so there was a need to have something which would differentiate me in the role of president, if I was acting in a corporate way, or as director of the Museum of Civilization, if that is how someone was approaching me.
That terminology is used in most of the national museums. The Museum of Nature and so on have the title of "president".
Senator Jessiman: I have read your by-laws. I guess I could stretch it to say that you are the president. I do not think it was intended, because it starts with chairperson, vice-chairperson, director. This is the order of trustees, kind of the order of importance. Then you come to officers. And when you speak of officers like that, one thinks of managers and assistant managers, not of the president.
However, if you want to stretch it, I guess you could do that.
Are you finished reading that?
Ms Dubois: No.
Senator Jessiman: Go ahead.
Ms Dubois: The committee receives its information from the president and CEO who, for this purpose, is supported by other staff members as required. The committee interacts with management in a number of ways; by identifying and communicating actual and potential problem areas, it can act as a constructive critic and as an advisor to management by providing suggestions for follow up. With regard to calling of meetings, the committee holds its meeting at the call of the chairperson.
Senator Jessiman: When you speak of this particular committee, how many are there in total? You could have up to 10. How many do you have?
Ms Dubois: Currently nine.
Senator Jessiman: How many of those nine are directly connected with the Canadian Museum of Civilization over and above the trustee himself?
Ms Dubois: Three.
Senator Jessiman: But this committee is only advisory; it has no power whatsoever. You agree with that? Good.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order. Many of Senator Jessiman's questions are being directed to and answered by Ms Dubois, who seems to be the only person who knows the answers. However, her name is not on the list of witnesses, which suggests to me that she is not a member of the board and therefore has no authority or credentials to be speaking to us.
Ms Clarkson: She is an officer of the corporation and the corporate secretary of the organization.
Senator Cools: A member of the board of trustees.
Ms Clarkson: Her title is "Corporate Secretary".
Senator Cools: Is her job what we could consider to be a clerical job?
Ms Clarkson: She is not a clerk.
Senator Cools: Is her name on the list of witnesses we called this morning?
Ms Clarkson: It was submitted as an option.
Senator Cools: Is she qualified and does she have the credentials to answer on behalf of the Crown corporation to a Senate committee?
Ms Clarkson: She, Joe Geurts and Dr. MacDonald are the three officers of the corporation who are here. Yes, she is qualified.
Senator Jessiman: What I am trying to get at is the fact that this committee is merely an advisory committee and has no power. If you want to take the advice, you can, and if not, that is fine.
Ms Clarkson: All committees are like that. It is important because you are saying "that committee". I am saying all the committees have exactly that same function.
Senator Jessiman: The committee that is being appointed now is the one that concerns us. How you run the Museum of Civilization Corporation has little to do with this hearing. Our concern is the War Museum.
You had an advisory committee before you disbanded it. Of course, you had a perfect right to do that. However, you have now appointed another one. In fact, it was reported in the press that Barney Danson was appointed as an arbitrator.
Ms Clarkson: That was a mistake in the press. He was appointed as a member to our board of trustees.
Senator Jessiman: Are you saying he has no more power than any other trustee who would sit as chairperson of a committee?
Ms Clarkson: That is correct, senator.
Senator Jessiman: The fact that he has been appointed, and that we now have an advisory committee with three or four people with military knowledge does not assure us that you will change your minds.
Ms Clarkson: Basically it is about perception, such as either the bottle is half full or the bottle is half empty. When we formed the development committee, we had as their priority the War Museum. We did not want the War Museum to be marginalized in any way. It is good to have an advisory committee on the War Museum, but it is also good to that it gets the full attention of the board through the development committee. The whole development of the corporation includes the War Museum. It is a priority for us. That is why it is dealt with by the development committee as well, and why it has been since 1995.
Senator Jessiman: In June of 1997, your board held a meeting at which you passed the long-term plan of the War Museum. Within that plan was set out the definition and the mandate of the War Museum. It is already on the record, so I will not read it. Please feel free to refer to it, however.
Witnesses have told us, time after time, that the Holocaust and the amount you are talking about putting in does not come within your mandate. To paraphrase: The purpose of the Canadian Museum of Civilization is to increase knowledge and critical understanding of human behaviour.
I am suggesting to you that, certainly, within the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, you could have a very large memorial or gallery dedicated to the Jewish Holocaust of World War II and all these other 27 or 28 genocides. However, it is not fitting that it be housed at the War Museum and I suggest that it is not within the mandate of the War Museum.
Ms Clarkson: Thank you for your opinion, senator. It is within the examination of war that we have dealt with the Holocaust, as you heard from Victor Suthren. It is a fact that the Holocaust would not have been possible without the domination of Europe by the Nazis. It would not have been possible to have transported people without military domination and without the purpose of war, which Hitler exercised. That is how we find within the mandate: To examine the war and war-related history of Canada. That is where we find the rationale for it.
Senator Jessiman: These victims were not fighting; they were slaughtered.
Ms Clarkson: They were not fighting, but they were part of the barbarism and the terror of the Nazis. That is what we fought against.
Senator Jessiman: The evidence is far from that. I happen to have been a war veteran. I was at D-day. I stayed at the beachhead for eight weeks. I knew nothing. I was 21 years of age. D-day was reschedules to another day because of stormy weather. It took place on June 6. Not one person on our ship or on any of the other ships new anything about the Holocaust at that time.
Ms Clarkson: None of us did, but we do now. That is the role of museums. They bring knowledge up-to-date.
Senator Jessiman: It is not about war.
Ms Clarkson: It is.
Senator Jessiman: It is about annihilation.
Senator Forest: Ms Clarkson, during the week, we heard much disappointment expressed because of a lack of consultation, or what people perceived to be a lack of consultation.
Many of the witnesses we heard expressed the hope and wish that the War Museum could become autonomous and could have its own board. I understood from your statement, and I may have misunderstood, that you would not be in favour of such a change. Could you clarify that for me and give me the reason for that opinion?
Ms Clarkson: I did not express any opinion on whether the War Museum should be autonomous. I was giving an overview of the existing situation.
I did point out that, although it has been recommended by that task force on military history in 1991 that the War Museum become autonomous, it is something that the board cannot do. Only the government can make that change. If the government wishes to do that, we will fully accept that. It is the ministry's decision, not our decision.
We very much value the War Museum. We want to do the best for it. We want to make the Canadian War Museum an important institution that many people will go to and know about. We want to ensure that it has an increase in visitation among all its possible constituencies. However, if the government decides that the War Museum should be autonomous, so be it -- it is the government's decision. The government would have to pass legislation to do that.
Senator Forest: I understand that.
You have been the chair of the board for a number of years. What is your opinion of the value of the change?
Ms Clarkson: I would be very concerned in this period of no money and declining money for museums. Dr. MacDonald, whom you will hear from shortly, will go into that. The War Museum, as an independent entity, would not have enough money to continue.
You have been focusing on the negative aspects of the War Museum and its relationship to us as an affiliate, but the positive aspects are that it enjoys the financial and administrative care of the larger organization. It would have to assume that on its own, as well as funding for its exhibits and for the construction, et cetera.
Of course, I am attached to the War Museum and I admire the commitment of those who work there. I would regret it if they were no longer part of us. The War Museum is a wonderful place and could be more wonderful in the future. However, its fate, is not our decision to make. I hope you understand that distinction.
Senator Forest: I understand that. I just wanted your professional opinion on whether a change in structure would be valuable to the War Museum.
Senator Cools: I should like to thank the witnesses for what I perceive to be an amazing calm about much of the disturbing subject matter before us.
In the interests of pouring oil on troubled waters and in the interests of transparency, I would have thought that, this morning, the responsible persons would have faced this issue head on and directed their minds to it immediately so that we could put the suspicion and doubt to rest. I am disappointed that this subject matter did not form a focal point in Ms Clarkson's testimony this morning.
Several days ago in cross-examination here with Mr. Glenney and Mr. Geurts, I put questions to them about how this controversy had arisen and what they were doing to resolve it. Again, the issues were not met head on, in my view.
One does not like to use words such as "suspicion", "duplicity" or "doubt", but one has to wonder about the "forthcomingness" on the issues.
I put this to you, Ms Clarkson: A document came to us mysteriously. It has been widely reported in the media. I should like the clerk of the committee to give Ms Clarkson a copy of it.
Ms Clarkson: I have that.
Senator Cools: Could you tell us what you know about this document, its authorship, and what is the position of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation on this document?
Ms Clarkson: Chairman, the senator has said that we lack transparency and have not given full information. You have not heard our full presentation. I dealt with my part of it. Dr. MacDonald has not yet given his presentation and, and until he does, you will not have heard the full presentation from our museum. I propose that you hear his presentation, and then we will pick up these questions.
Ms Dubois: Mr. Chairman, may I correct a statement that I made concerning the bylaw? I said that the bylaw required approval by Governor in Council. Actually, the board has the authority to amend bylaws, but copies must be sent to the minister. I was incorrect in saying they required approval by the Governor in Council.
The Chairman: Perhaps that question should be directed to Ms Clarkson. I am sure it will also be directed to Mr. MacDonald.
I understand, Ms Clarkson, that you wanted to leave at a certain time and we have been trying to allow you to complete your testimony before then. If we allow half an hour for Dr. MacDonald to make his presentation, the committee will have no time to question you. I suggest that we continue with questions and answers.
Ms Clarkson: The document that you see, which is a statement, was worked out with Dr. MacDonald and members of the Canadian Jewish Congress to show our openness and willingness to find a good solution to what has become a difficult and contentious subject. That is the intent of that document. It will continue to be worked on, I think, even after these hearings are over. Consultations will continue between the museum and members of the Jewish community. That shows goodwill on everyone's part to find a resolution that will solve the perceived problem. I think that is a step in the right direction.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, basically what the witnesses are doing is using up time. In broadcasting it is called "stretching".
Ms Clarkson: I do not need lessons from you about broadcasting, senator.
Senator Cools: I was not giving you any, madam.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Senator Cools: You said that this document is the product of conversations between you and certain members of the Jewish community.
Ms Clarkson: Dr. MacDonald will answer that. It is not part of conversations between me and the community.
Senator Cools: But you speak for the Canadian Museum of Civilization. You said that this is the product of a conversation between the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Jewish community. You speak for the body corporate.
Ms Clarkson: As represented by Dr. George MacDonald. He is the one who had the conversations.
Senator Cools: My question to you is: In the name of responsible government, and in the name of the public interests of this country, how do you see this subject matter, which is a subject matter of national interest to the entire country, as a sole issue between you and the Jewish community?
Ms Clarkson: I would like to go back to how that document came into being. The document came into being at the request of the chair of this committee. Senator Phillips asked Rabbi Bulka, who is a member of our advisory committee on the Holocaust Gallery, to see if there was something that could be negotiated in an in camera way.
The Chairman: Pardon me. I have to correct your statement. Rabbi Bulka approached me and we discussed it. His concern was that there would become friction between the Jewish community and the veterans community. I told him that if he could produce a satisfactory statement, he would be allowed to read it. I was assured that I would have it before the meeting began. I did not receive a copy to approve, and what I received was unsigned. I do not know whether it came from Rabbi Bulka, whether it came from you, from Dr. MacDonald, or anyone.
Ms Clarkson: It came from Rabbi Bulka with a covering memo. Unfortunately the fax here at the Senate was broken or you would have received it earlier.
The Chairman: That may be the case, but it was to be a statement to defuse any animosity or any anti-Semitic feelings that might occur within the veterans' community. I told him that it was not necessary but that if he felt that way then fine.
Let us bear in mind that Rabbi Bulka is a Jewish chaplain for the Royal Canadian Legion. Therefore it was a matter of special concern to him.
I am glad I did not receive the fax, Ms Clarkson, because the Jewish veterans said that they were not consulted. Various people have told us that their names were used without their being consulted.
Ms Clarkson: Rabbi Bulka, at the same time that he spoke with you, also spoke to Dr. MacDonald -- and I feel at a disadvantage speaking to you about this when Dr. MacDonald is beside me and can answer all of these questions.
Mr. MacDonald: May I say that on the question of the consultation, after that question came up in this session at the beginning of the week, I called Rabbi Bulka, who is in Jerusalem at the present time, and asked him if he did indeed talk to each one of these groups and the heads of these groups. The one group that particularly said they had not been consulted was the Jewish War Veterans of Canada. Rabbi Bulka reported that he had talked extensively with Sam Pasternack, who is the national commander of that organization, and that he had a sick wife and was not able to come to this session. As a result, Sam Pasternack delegated another person to attend on his behalf. By the time the scheduling took place the other person had left on holidays, so a third delegate was put into the position. That was Lou Vandelman, and the briefing for Lou Vandelman did not include the background to the question that was posed: Was there full discussion with the Jewish War Veterans of Canada? But this is Rabbi Bulka's response to that organization.
When B'nai Brith was before this committee, they did say that they were consulted; and the Canadian Jewish Congress, Eric Vernon, was consulted. I also had a conversation with Irving Abella, and I know that Rabbi Bulka talked at least three times with Irving Abella, who is on the Canadian Jewish Congress and also a member of our Holocaust advisory committee. That is being put on the record and can be verified with Rabbi Bulka. It represents his response to the question of whether there was consultation.
The Chairman: All right. I am going to put on the record that Rabbi Bulka told me that he was speaking to the Jewish community, and I am not aware that either you or the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation are members of the Jewish community. I do not know how the conversation drifted to you people. It was not at my request, nor was I informed of it.
Mr. MacDonald: Our name is at the very front of the statement.
The Chairman: I notice that. I can read.
Senator Prud'homme: Madam, let me say -- and I speak as Marcel Prud'homme, long-time member of Parliament, of the House of Commons and the Senate -- that I have a high regard for you personally. That being said, when I say something, I mean it.
I came here as a volunteer because I am not a member of the committee. I am not supposed to be here, for medical reasons, but I thought it was a very dangerous issue so I felt I should show up, as a concerned Canadian senator, as a concerned Canadian.
I am the first one who raised that piece of paper. If the Chairman is interested, I will show it again. It is strange. Therefore, I immediately raised the question: What is this? Is it part of the document?
I started reading it and I was stopped by the chairman. I like facts to be facts. I obediently said, "Yes, okay, sir. It is not yet for distribution." I was concerned about that, because here is a committee of the Senate of Canada that is doing a job that others -- and I am not attacking the House of Commons -- should do. Rabbi Bulka thought that this would become a media circus. Well, the only circus that I know of is the scrum that is taking place every day in the House of Commons. Perhaps he confused the two. But he is right in the centre of all the issues of this week.
We read these four paragraphs; we are confused. I call that a pre-emptive strike, sadly. I have never seen that letter of George MacDonald having strong comments regarding our chairman, Orville Phillips. I do not belong to Senator Phillips's party or religion. He is chairman of the committee and prior to even appearing here he was in strong disagreement. It should have been done here. I call that a pre-emptive strike to defuse the issue that is of such great concern. Madam, I know you understand that. If your board does not, you do. You understand the sensitivity of the issue.
I learned from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, time and time again in the national Liberal caucus always to be careful not to pit group against group, community against community.Certain issues demand sensitivity.
Was there any discussion as to the sensitivity of the subject when the decision was made to have a gallery commemorating the Holocaust, knowing the reaction would be immediate?
I will ask the same question of you, Mr. MacDonald. I was appalled at the lack of communication among those people with a direct interest. Usually we receive communiqués. From a quick reading of this document, I find contradictions. Strangely, you quote Santayana. That is the first man I quoted when I came to Parliament. Rather than glorifying wars on foreign battle fields or embracing the popular image of war, military museums are schooled in the campaign to resolve tension and inspire hope for all Canadians.
I may not, with sensitivity, disagree with that, but that is not the mandate. My brother served during the war as a volunteer from 1939 to 1945. He is a Canadian francais, for those who think that everyone escaped war service in Quebec. It seems that politicians and some bureaucrats forget that Canada is changing rapidly, and that is positive, but we must be sensitive to any new groups who were not consulted.
Has anyone thought of the reaction this would provoke? This is a highly explosive political issue. If people start pitting one against the other, I am afraid our country will suffer.
These three Canadian Jewish organizations seem to be impressed by the fact that Mr. Danson is Jewish. Mr. Danson has been my personal friend for years and I can tell you that he is a Canadian first and then a military man who happens to be of the Jewish faith. I happen to be of the Catholic faith. We have often discussed this issue.
When it comes to the cost of renovations or an expansion of the War Museum, although the figure of $12 million has been mentioned, I would remind you of what happened with Mirabel, the National Gallery and the National Art Centre. Those were supposed to cost a certain amount but they ended up costing a lot more.
You surprise me by saying the figure is not definite, that it could go up or down because of changes in the plans. We do not know exactly what will be included, but we do know there will be a gallery.
It occurs to me that there has been very little consultation with those who have a special interest in this building. I am referring to bodies such as the Royal Canadian Legion. In 1964, when Mr. Pearson announced that there was to be a new Canadian flag I remember the reaction of the Legion. I know very well of their sensitivities.
In this particular context, Mr. Abella has told us that if no alternative is found the gallery will be at the War Museum, their first choice, with which everyone disagreed.
Now you are even pitting people like me against each other. I have spent 35 years of my political career in favour of peace in the Middle East. As soon as that subject is raised everyone says, "Another anti-Semite. The Royal Canadian Legion is anti-Semitic. Everyone who disagrees with the plan is anti-Semitic." This is an extremely important issue. People can disagree without being "anti" something.
I find it difficult to understand why this matter was handled the way it was. People have played games. Yet, I have heard some say that this Senate committee does not understand what is going on.The comment disturbed me very much.
I want the best for Canada, and I want that to be achieved, recognizing the sensitivity of any and all Canadians. A museum or a Holocaust Gallery born out of immense controversy will not have the impact it should have.
I know you were born in Hong Kong. Atrocities took place in that part of the world as well. You cannot display only one item of our military as it relates to Hong Kong without telling kids how that relates to the Asia front. That is why I will take no lessons from the United States of America. They joined in the war effort because they were attacked at Pearl Harbour, not because they knew what was going on in Dachau and elsewhere. They declared war because they were attacked. After that, thank God they were there.
You cannot talk about Asia without talking about the atom bombs. Certainly dropping the second one was inexplicable. That should be included in the museum.
I am of the opinion that a Holocaust museum should be an independent structure.Your statements in that regard are, at best, vague. You repeatedly used the phrase "at this time" in that regard. From that I assume that you have not yet abandoned the idea of including this gallery in the War Museum.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like to welcome you here, Ms Clarkson. I have watched you through the years, as I too am a journalist and a broadcaster, of aboriginal descent.
First of all, I must disagree with your concept of the two founding nations of this country. All of the First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit sacrificed their lives before the European and the Asian immigrants came to this country. We also made a particular contribution in assisting the two so-called "founding nations" to determine their place in what we now know and have always known in the aboriginal community as Turtle Island. We have a lesson here that we must learn, especially from the Métis perspective.
As Métis, we are descendants of both the aboriginal and the European, but we have always been known as the negotiators between the tribes of this country and the European nations who decided they wanted to find us. It is interesting that we have the very same issue today. It is very similar.
It disturbs me greatly that our aboriginal veterans nor any other veterans organizations were ever consulted on this very sensitive issue. I also come from a long military history, and I think that is the most important thing. That is what caused this whole issue; there was no consultation. There was no recognition of what our military past has been.
The mandate of the Canadian War Museum is to stand as a memorial to those Canadians who served in war or who lost their lives as a result of war; to examine war and war-related history of Canada -- not of Germany, not of Europe, but of Canada; we must be proud Canadians -- and its effect upon Canadian and Canadians; and to document Canadian military contribution to peacekeeping and the maintenance of national and international security.
I have heard figures like 25 per cent of the expansion will be used for this gallery, and yet there is no history, no contribution, no display of any aboriginal veterans. The majority of first and second battalions that went to war were aboriginal veterans.
In your discussions at board level, that seems to have been forgotten. You have no representation of the first Canadians, the aboriginal Canadians. I have heard that Stonechild is there.
Ms Clarkson: Gloria Webster is represented as well. We have 2 out of the 11.
Senator Chalifoux: With due respect, I do not know them, but there was no aboriginal veteran representation. This is what I would like to see. I do not see any display within the War Museum regarding the aboriginal veterans. They were excellent trappers. I know you have the War of 1812 depicted and some faces of veterans look aboriginal. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the total contribution and participation made by our men and our women. That must be recognized.
I agree that we should have a Holocaust museum. We have heard this all week, that there must be a Holocaust museum but not within the War Museum of Canada. I would like your opinion on that.
Ms Clarkson: I regret my omission of the first peoples and the founding nations. That was simply in the heat of it because I believe it is a triangular thing.
Senator Chalifoux: I have to remind people. That is all.
Ms Clarkson: I agree with that. I did not mean to leave them out; it was done in the heat of the moment. It was incredibly important. In our war art collection, one of our earliest portraits is of John Norton, 1807, a Métis who fought with Joseph Brant in the War of 1812.
I consider the Holocaust to be a very important part of the whole collective memory of the Second World War and therefore I am glad that we have had, for the past eight years, a section on the Holocaust in the present War Museum.
Moving from that to an idea of a gallery was not that difficult a step for me. I am giving you my own personal view. This is not the view of how it happens mechanically in the museological sense. I personally feel that it does have a place.
That is my personal feeling, but if the community feels the Holocaust is of such a magnitude to warrant a separate museum and if the community wants that, we would be very happy to help that along in every way we could museologically. Definitely we would be on board for that.
This morning, as you heard from Victor Suthren, he took responsibility for the lack of consultation with the veterans. I think he did the best he could given the fact that the War Museum has always been a rather small organization. The consults were generally done with four or five people whom you tended to know, by asking them what they thought. That is how things happened with different exhibits like the Korean War exhibit. Someone else may come along and say, "No, we did not tie up our boots that way; we did it another way." Then you learn that the four or five other people kind of misled you, but that was the way it was done.
We realize now that it is important to have this larger consultation. To answer Senator Prud'homme's earlier point about consultation, in February of last year, we set up our advisory academic committee, as well as our advisory committee, two separate committees, to advise us on everything to do with the Holocaust idea and gallery. That was just the beginning of a process which has been in a way, as we say, interrupted by this controversy.
We intend to continue in consulting. We are listening. When we say that this is a concept, I do not want that to mean "vague." In a dictionary sense, "concept" means "idea". The commitment that we have is that no gallery space will be lost. In fact, we have a memorial chamber. We have all kinds of things proposed for the new, expanded museum which would put it all into value. I hope we will have more for the aboriginal veterans.
Senator Chalifoux: To reiterate then, we have been hearing all week that there will be no expansion for the World War I and World War II memorials.
Ms Clarkson: That is wrong. There will be expansion. We only show something like 1 per cent of our collection, and we have roughly 500,000 items. I want to put this in perspective for senators. We are not hiding things. All the museums in the world, if you were to ask them, show only 1 or 2 percent of their collection. If they show 2 per cent, it may be because they do not have as many things.
We do intend to expand that. We do not intend to cut it down. That is absolutely not correct.
Senator Chalifoux: Is your committee so adamant that they cannot look at another site for the War Museum, such as was recommended here, such as the Connaught Building?
Ms Clarkson: There is no adamant attitude at all. That document was to set that out, between Rabbi Bulka and Senator Phillips. He told him it was not for distribution because he knew it was an in camera document. Rabbi Bulka then spoke to George MacDonald as well. There is room for negotiation and movement in it. We are committed to seeing the best possible solution to which everyone will agree.
Senator Cools: Mr. Suthren was asked a question earlier regarding evidence placed before us, that when Mr. Suthren attended a board meeting in a Canadian military uniform you reprimanded him. Is there any truth to this?
Ms Clarkson: There is no truth to it. Mr. Suthren answered that as well.
Senator Cools: Mr. Suthren answered a different question. He answered the question as to whether or not he was asked to leave. I am asking you a different question. I am asking you now whether you reprimanded him or criticized him in any way for wearing a Canadian military uniform to that meeting.
Ms Clarkson: I did not.
Senator Cools: Good. I am very pleased to put that to rest.
My next question has to do with some evidence which has been put before us all week by many witnesses who suggest that this ill-conceived and ill-executed plan has been driven by fund raising. Yesterday, Mr. Cedric Jennings said that, essentially, the follies and the weaknesses of the plan are driven by fund raising and a search for another group of potential donors. He also pointed out that we had heard evidence of this crass behaviour.
I invite you to comment on that.
Ms Clarkson: No, the contents of the museum and its expansion were not driven by fund raising. It is the other way around. We are raising money in order to create an expansion.
Senator Cools: My last question arises from a letter dated November 25, 1997 from your fundraiser Ketchum to a Mr. A.J. Freiman. It says, basically, that "George" can secure unequivocal endorsements from government. By "government" I would assume he meant cabinet. Who are the members of cabinet who have given you this unequivocal endorsement?
Ms Clarkson: First, Ketchum is not a fundraiser for us. Ketchum is a consultancy firm that was on board a few years ago to target certain kinds of things for us, about which George MacDonald is better placed to answer than I. I will ask him to answer that since he is the person mentioned in the letter.
Senator Cools: Our understanding is that Ketchum is a fund-raising consultant. I am not sure of the exact role but I understand that Ketchum was involved --
Ms Clarkson: They were consultants --
Senator Cools: Let me finish. Our understanding of the testimony that has been put to us is that Ketchum had been widely used by your organization.
Mr. MacDonald: May I answer?
Senator Cools: Go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: Our fundraiser once worked for Ketchum. That is all there is to it. He no longer works for them. He trained with Ketchum and came to us after that. We do not use them extensively.
Senator Cools: Is Mr. Oshry your fundraiser?
Mr. MacDonald: No. Mr. Oshry is a consultant we use from time to time.
Senator Cools: In any event, this is a letter on Ketchum letterhead from Mr. Oshry to Mr. A.J. Freiman. In the second paragraph it says that "George", meaning you, can secure unequivocal endorsements from the government. I am trying to find out from you which members of cabinet were you going to obtain unequivocal endorsements.
Mr. MacDonald: I believe that refers to the fact that Mr. Suthern had received a letter of endorsement from the Prime Minister.
Senator Cools: Could you share that letter?
Mr. MacDonald: That was circulated to this committee three days ago. I believe you have it.
Senator Cools: My last question comes back to what I consider to be the public interest issues. I know that hindsight is fantastic, but it has concerned this committee deeply that this dispute, this controversy, this unpleasantness, has been allowed to develop in a Crown corporation.
Perhaps, Mr. MacDonald, since you seem to have more hands-on involvement in this matter than Ms Clarkson, you can tell us how and why this developed.
Mr. MacDonald: As Mr. Suthern said, I think it happened because of inadequate consultation. The Canadian War Museum has program autonomy and this was their project for which they received a corporate endorsement and resources to ensure success. Mr. Suthern has acknowledged it was his responsibility to carry out that kind of consultation with the veterans. From my perspective, I thought that was happening. I knew that there were constantly conversations through the Friends of the Canadian War Museum and the Organization of Military Museums of Canada, so I saw lots of evidence of discussions going on. I did not check to see whether these were in the category of formal discussions because, as I think has been said, the tradition had been informal discussions.
Let us take as an example the First Peoples Hall at the Canadian Museum of Civilization. We set up a consultative committee with at least 12 aboriginal people on it. They have been working for more than three years negotiating the story line and, in a sense, telling their story. That is a process which, on the corporate level, we endorse. It did not happen within the Canadian War Museum, and we regret that. That is why we made changes. That is why we exposed the plans as they had evolved to that date. That did, of course, launch much reaction. People asked why they were not told earlier.
I must say, however, that we did not get the first response respecting a floor plan from the architect until just two weeks before we held the press conference. He surprised us by turning up with a model, something we had not asked for. We felt that the model would focus attention on the proposed concept. I think that everyone knows the story from there on all too well.
However, I do regret that. It is not a corporate approach to do things without thorough consultation. I believe that now, with the advisory committee of the board and so on, we can ensure that that sort of thing will not happen again.
Senator Cools: I thank you for what you have just said. I found it very interesting when, at the outset of these hearings, Mr. Peters from the department explained at some length the relationship of this Crown corporation with cabinet. He put enormous emphasis on the concept of "arm's length". The committee must note there is no arm's length relationship between any Crown corporation and any minister which supersedes responsibility to Parliament. These are not just principles of responsible government, these are principles of governance that we use. They are also fortified in statute. I believe that section 88 or 89 of the Financial Administration Act states very clearly that your final accountability is to Parliament.
Mr. MacDonald and Ms Clarkson, I understand the anxiety and tension you are feeling. This has been an extremely controversial and painful matter. I come to this issue with very few personal interests. Although I am not one to say that I am black, at least I come from a race where it is obvious. I never feel a need to have to mention this. However, I believe that this entire situation has been very poorly handled. I would hope that we never find ourselves in this sort of situation again.
As Senator Prud'homme has said, when different caring and suffering parts of our community are brought into conflict, it is neither good management nor good corporate planning, and neither is it good public interest planning. I do not mean to be sermonizing, but some of the greatest relationships in life have come to an end over, quite often, nothing more than misunderstanding.
Senator Jessiman: It is true that Mr. Suthren said he did not consult, but surely you are not going to lay the responsibility on him. He works for you people. The board is responsible. Surely you knew what he was doing. I would like to think that you should have to apologize to him just as much as he should apologize to you.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes. I admit that it was ultimately my responsibility. I did say that the Canadian War Museum has been very guardful of its autonomy in the area of public programming. I detected evidences of problems in a sequence of situations. That was why an advisory council was needed on the aspect of the Holocaust and all those interests that have been stated.
Senator Jessiman: But that advisory council did not come about until 1997.
Mr. MacDonald: That is the time I detected that we needed a Holocaust advisory committee.
Senator Jessiman: The advisory council went back to 1967. You had one in 1995. You abolished it.
Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about a different thing. I am talking about an advisory committee on the Holocaust.
Senator Jessiman: I am talking about the War Museum. That is why we are here.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary to the question raised by Senator Jessiman. Yesterday we heard from Dr. Marrus. I do not have to tell you who he is. He is the individual you selected as co-chair of your advisory council on the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery and the form it should take. Dr. Marrus told us that he recommended, and still recommends, against the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum.
You have these advisory councils. Do you heed them in any way, or are you just going ahead with your original plans? All the advice you have received from a person like Dr. Marrus has been against the Holocaust Gallery in the museum, yet we heard Ms Clarkson state this morning that she favours the inclusion of the Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum. Why have these advisory boards if they are going to be ignored?
Ms Clarkson: When I stated that I was in favour of it, I am in favour of it because that had been our policy.
We have two committees for the Holocaust Gallery. We have an advisory committee chaired by Rabbi Pearlson, and we have an academic advisory committee on which many distinguished individuals sit -- Dr. Michael Marrus, Irving Abella, other historians like Jack Granatstein, and our own member of the board, Robert Bothwell, who is a renowned historian. We are listening to them. We have not had a report, but they are having ongoing discussions.
This is not final. There will be disagreements. When you get five historians together, they will not all agree. There are different opinions within that committee. I do not think it is telling you anything that you would not have guessed otherwise. George MacDonald has been at all those meetings, and he can also explain to you what happened and why there is an ongoing process.
The Chairman: You set up the advisory board and the consultation with the Jewish community months ago, but it was not until the veterans' organizations asked this committee to study the announcement that a Holocaust Gallery was going to be included in the expanded War Museum that you consulted them. There is no indication that the advisory board was ongoing and that it had not made a final decision. The announcement was very definite in that the Holocaust Gallery would be in the War Museum. Yet after that occurred, you set up an organization that you said consulted veterans' groups. The three major veterans' organizations refused to join it at that time. Why did you consider it necessary to consult the Jewish community so much earlier than the veterans' organizations, who are stakeholders in the War Museum?
Ms Clarkson: I agree that they are stakeholders in the organization. The answer to that is what George MacDonald covered. As the ultimate person in charge of both the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization, he thought that the consultative process with the veterans was going on. It was not, at least not on the scale required. That was why we had to do something else. We felt we had to reach out to the Jewish community because this was material that concerned them. We knew that had not been done. We assumed, from what Dr. MacDonald has said, that it was being done at the War Museum, and we discovered that it was not.
The long-term consultation plan was also part of that. We had already consulted a large number of people in our long-term plan, as you will see, through questionnaires sent out and returned to us. We took them into consideration in our long-term plan. We felt we had done a consultation at that level for the long-term plan, and the exact numbers are in there. We also consulted people through interviews, et cetera.
We feel, of course -- we regret it -- that that was not enough. That is the reason it did not happen. It is not that we focused on a certain group and not on another. We thought that was covered. We thought that was being done, and we were mistaken.
The Chairman: This morning, the Ottawa Sun carried an article by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in which he indicated his pleasure that the Holocaust Gallery will not be in the War Museum. Was that a cabinet decision? Have you been advised of anything of that nature?
Ms Clarkson: We have not been advised of anything like that and have not heard of that decision.
The Chairman: Did the Minister for Veterans Affairs express any opinion to you personally or to the museum corporation concerning his preference?
Mr. MacDonald: I did have a conversation with him around November. He came over, and we spent perhaps two hours together during a transfer of pieces of the aircraft recovered from Burma, which are now in the Canadian War Museum. A press conference was held at the Museum of Civilization. We talked quite extensively about the Holocaust Gallery, and his attitude was that it certainly demanded and warranted commemoration. However, he did not wish to comment on any particular place either in or outside the War Museum. He supported the concept, and that was the extent of it.
The Chairman: That was another piece of advice you received and ignored.
Senator Prud'homme: A year ago, to my surprise, very coincidentally, there were the statements by Fred Gaffen and Mr. Abella. I am sensitive to pressure or intimidation so, if someone attacks, I respond. Was he speaking for the museum, for you, for your board, when he talked of what that gallery was supposed to include?
Then we get into that immense other territory: Mackenzie King and anti-Semitism. It is a simple phrase, but it means a lot.
[Translation]
French Canadian Quebecers are constantly being accused of anti-Semitism, not to mention that they are the target of an ongoing witch hunt. This is going on as we speak.
People tell me that I should not broach this explosive subject. It is truly tragic to see how Jean-Louis Roux, a gentleman, was treated. This is the opinion that the Catholic Church, intellectuals and Mr. Abella have of us. I am not the one saying these things. I come across Mr. Abella's writings everywhere and they wanted to put all of these into the War Museum!
You seem to be attuned to people's concerns. I am confident of that. All of this controversy cannot help the museum's mission to educate people. I would so like all Jewish communities to join with people like me to explain the horror of the Holocaust instead of casting everyone in a bad light and putting everyone on trial again. We continue to witness atrocities.
I still do not know for certain if you have in mind a plan to let the dust settle and then go ahead with your plans anyway. I will continue to press my case in the Senate, in Toronto and in the most difficult communities. I have no qualms about doing this.
Do you not think that this would make more sense?
[English]
Would it not be better to let the so-called gallery within the War Museum stand on its own two feet, as seems to be the wish of many people? It seems that many Canadians believe as I do, that it should stand on its own two feet. I beg you to rapidly put an end to this controversy. It is like a bush fire, with all of the sad consequences of that. There are elements of division within all these groups who will accuse each other of bad intention. You are in a position to put an end to this controversy and proceed with the expansion of the War Museum, with all your ability, intelligence and dynamism.
Mr. MacDonald just mentioned Burma. What am I to say to a student who says, "I thought we went to fight the Nazis. What has Burma or Hong Kong to do with that?" We have to face that front of education. Where are we going to do it? Perhaps your auditorium could be used in this regard.
In conclusion, I repeat that I have a great admiration for you. I have followed your work over the years. You do not have enemies, although some people in the Senate may disagree with you.
[Translation]
Mrs. Clarkson: Thank you very much for your expression of good faith. I assure you that we will listen carefully to everything that is said here today and in all of the communities. We want to be sensitive to people's concerns. There is no question of abandoning the educational and informative mission of the War Museum. That is the primary reason behind our expansion plans. We want to educate young people who have grown up without any direct contact with World War II or the Korean War. This is very important to us.
[English]
Senator Prud'homme: Was Mr. Gaffen speaking for himself or was he expressing views shared by your board?
Ms Clarkson: I believe he was speaking for himself.
Mr. MacDonald: That statement that came out in the press was exactly the reason we established the academic advisory committee. We knew we needed informed opinion from the best research and universities and so on, rather than the opinion of a single person.
Senator Prud'homme: Do you include military academics?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Ms Clarkson: Jack Granatstein and Desmond Morton are both military historians.
Senator Forest: During these five days of hearings, we have heard and seen a great deal of evidence, some of which has been conflicting. I assure you that, having heard and seen all that evidence, which we now have to sift through and review, we certainly hope that we can make some recommendations or chart some sort of direction which will be helpful so that we can build upon the good historical record we have had with our museums, museums of which Canadians can all be proud.
My particular interest is as an educator, and I know our museums are places from which all of us, especially our young people, can learn a great deal about the history of our country. I thank you for the light that all of you have thrown on the difficulties that we are trying to sift through today.
Senator Chalifoux: Supplementary to Senator Prud'homme's remarks, did I hear it correctly that, no matter what, the decision has already been made that the Holocaust Gallery will be in the Canadian War Museum? Is that what you have stated?
Ms Clarkson: No. I have said -- and it is in our brief to you as well -- that the exhibit that we have in the War Museum presently on the Holocaust will remain there, and that we will have a Holocaust exhibit within the context of the Canadian War Museum.
When we talk about a gallery or Holocaust museum, or memorial gallery, those terms become confusing because the assumption is that we are referring to a building.We are talking about an exhibit at the Canadian War Museum. If it is found to be feasible for there to be another site for the Holocaust Gallery or exhibit, then of course we would help in any way we could to make that happen.
We would always include some element about the Holocaust in the Canadian War Museum. I believe that that is the desire of the museological people there because it is part of the Second World War. That would still be there. The size or dimension of that would be up to them to decide museologically at that point because many other things would come into play if there were a separate Holocaust Gallery or museum in another place.
Senator Chalifoux: Earlier this week we have heard other ethnic veterans say that they want, say, the Ukranian and the Russian holocaust included. We have heard numbers of presentations regarding the Japanese atrocities in Hong Kong. The veterans' associations agree that a Holocaust museum is needed, or a display or whatever you choose to call it. However, the Canadian War Museum is Canada's war museum. If you satisfy one, you must consider the others.
Ms Clarkson: That is the intent of the people at the Canadian War Museum, the people who do the research and are responsible for exhibits. That would certainly be a part of the expansion. We would certainly want to address all of those contributions to Canada's war effort that under the present conditions and space limitations we are not able to address. We want to do that; we did not have to hear that to know that.
Senator Chalifoux: I strongly urge you, all of you, to ensure that you consult with the war veterans. It is very important.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Clarkson. We are aware that you must leave for another engagement. It is the consensus of the committee to continue with the officials. We leave your departure time to your own volition.
Mr. MacDonald: I will try not to repeat too much. I had meant to give this presentation prior to questioning, so I am afraid there will be a little repetition.
I am pleased to attend before this committee and let you know that we do put a very high value indeed on the War Museum as a repository of Canada's extraordinarily fine military heritage. We want the best war museum possible, and I think we share that desire with the Senate committee. We have the same objectives; it is a matter of understanding each other.
The War Museum is putting a renewed emphasis on its role as an educational institution in teaching present and future generations about the role of Canada and Canadians in past and present military conflicts and in demonstrating the techniques of war. As part of our efforts to stress the educational aspects of the War Museum's work, we have been presenting a more rounded portrait of the conflict of war and how it involves families, children, and civilians. I think the recent exhibit on Bosnia was a classic example.
Ms Clarkson has mentioned the War Museum's comprehensive long-term plan which specifically envisions the expansion, renovation and upgrading of 330 Sussex Drive and the eventual replacement of the collection and program facility that we call Vimy House. These initiatives stem from several sources -- the stark realities of dangerously outdated facilities, the imperative of a changing museum population and their needs, the availability of new outreach technologies and the impact of fresh scholarship, and the willingness of veterans and others to assist in the raising of private-sector funds.
There is broad consensus on the need to act to confront the unsatisfactory facilities the Canadian War Museum presently occupies. The task force on military history museum collections in Canada, the 1992 one and the 1995 special examination of the Auditor General of Canada, agreed that our accommodations are inadequate for our public and for our collections. Exhibits are threatened by wildly fluctuating levels of relative humidity and temperature, and facilities are out of date. The static exhibitions, with a low level of public interpretation, are all that were possible when the cramped and outmoded conditions of the exhibits at Sussex were installed.
The declining trend in Canadian War Museum attendance has caused great concern to the museum corporation for a few years now. Attendance at the museum was at 275,000 in 1979-80, and by the end of 1996 the numbers had dropped to just over 100,000. The population of visitors to the War Museum, though smaller in numbers than one or two decades ago, is more diverse now than before. Visitors are younger on average, and a large number of family groups with children come to the museum. We want to make this a living memorial to the sacrifices that veterans have made. If we do not have young people coming to it, it will not survive as a living memorial.
It is clear that the War Museum must find ways of addressing the decline in attendance as well as meeting its needs of the new visitors while retaining the strengths that have made that museum an important part of the national cultural life since its inception. Our accent on education on the human side of war has obviously had some appeal and has expanded the understanding of war far beyond the battlefield.
The expansion proposal seeks to bring a full range of modern amenities and interactive techniques to the museum, which include a multipurpose theatre, a chronological gallery of military history, a climate-controlled gallery to display the War Museum's very impressive, world-class art collection, and a facility for educational outreach that could accommodate 10,000 more students than the museum currently receives.
Ms Clarkson has said how difficult it is to get government funding put aside specifically for the War Museum, let alone for a major restructuring and reforming of the institution. That is why we have committed moneys from our corporate budget -- and those funds are in the order of $7 million in this particular project -- in addition to the other figures that she mentioned.
The museum corporation supported the idea of the Holocaust Gallery as being consistent with an expanded and renovated War Museum that would house a larger proportion of existing collections with dignity and much increased prominence and exposure, especially the large glazed atrium in the courtyard. It has never been the corporation's intention in supporting a Holocaust exhibit as part of an expanded War Museum to diminish the role of the Canadian veteran in our wars. The aim was precisely the contrary. We affirm the importance of the vital contribution of our veterans to our Canadian military history, and it is our firm intention to reinforce the War Museum's role as a centre of national commemoration in full expansion. We hope in our concept of a refurbished and restructured war museum to reflect the experience of generations which have fought our wars and defended our values and to explain to a new generation what their forefathers did for them and for the causes to which Canada made such important contributions.
Thank you for allowing me to present that statement.
We took the position we did about the Holocaust exhibit in the War Museum strictly because that is the only package we could put on the table that we could fund, given our current resources. We do believe now that the people have spoken both through the public media and certainly through this committee. Let me tell you that we have looked very closely at all of the testimony that has gone on here.
We have made extensive notes, not to enable us to retort to what has been said, but to take that into account and to acknowledge there was a missing part in the consultation with veterans. This committee has now accumulated a tremendous amount of material that we could never have afforded to have gone out and collected. We will not waste that material. We will make very good use of it.
The Chairman: I wish to return to the question of taking advice. As I say, you have received advice from Dr. Marrus, who is the outstanding Holocaust authority in Canada, in which he said the two museums were incompatible.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
The Chairman: When did you receive that advice?
Mr. MacDonald: As he indicates in that recent statement quoted from yesterday's testimony, he has gone through an evolution of thinking on this, because this has been very much a moving picture in terms of what participants feel about it. Initially, when we invited him to come on the committee he was well aware of the fact that this was proposed within the War Museum. I agree with his decision that the story is too big to be encompassed within a small space.
He also is very aware of the fact that, in a sense, these are two kinds of memories and the possibility that they do not fit in the same facility. I feel we must listen to him in that regard.
The Chairman: I agree you should be listening, but I asked you when you first received that advice from Dr. Marrus.
Mr. MacDonald: It was through newspapers rather than through committee statements. I am referring to the statement that he absolutely did not want it in the War Museum. For example, he has never indicated he would withdraw from the advisory committee, even though he knew no other alternative was offered. That was the only resource option we could fund.
The Chairman: You are not telling the committee, Dr. MacDonald, that the advisory board does not report to you, are you? Are you saying that you found this out through the newspaper? I would assume that they would be making reports to you.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, indeed, they are. What I was saying is he was never really for it. He always had a position where he would see what the possibilities were, as the concept developed within the War Museum, and he decided, and I respect that, that he feels it does not fit within there. As to coming out with a statement on that basis, that was only done very recently and since the debate became public.
The Chairman: I will be referring to your consultation with the veterans. It is my understanding that, following the 1991 Southam report, the veterans were assured there would be consultation with their organizations before plans proceeded for the expansion of the War Museum.
Mr. MacDonald: I believe that was part of the recommendations and I think we did address the question of what happened to those recommendations.
The Chairman: Did you meet with any veterans' organizations, or did you receive any requests from them to meet prior to the announcement, in early November, that the War Museum would include a Holocaust Gallery?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, we did, sir. I can get a list of those meetings for you.
I do not know if Mr. Glenney, the acting director, has the list with him, but I do know that there were such consultations.
The Chairman: You can supply them to the committee at an early date.
Mr. MacDonald: I will do that.
The Chairman: Following the objections of the veterans' organizations, I believe you did meet with them.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes. In fact, we particularly asked representatives of the veterans' organizations to meet with us, and to come and look at the plans. Initially, it was a battle that was preferred to be fought in the press. We did have a session in which we did manage to convince veterans' groups to come and hear a full presentation, and that was on December 18. The veterans' organizations accepted our invitation, and we had a whole afternoon session similar to this one, with the model sitting in the centre. Of course, they did feel that it was too little, too late in the way of discussions, and had made their minds up that they wanted to pursue the Senate committee approach.
The Chairman: Did you get any support from the veterans' organizations for including the Holocaust Gallery or museum?
Mr. MacDonald: The Legion said that it had been undecided up to that point. But then it decided that it would join the other groups and advocate that it not be included in the War Museum.
The Chairman: That is another case of receiving advice but still proceeding as you planned?
Mr. MacDonald: No, at that time we stopped planning. We did no further planning on the building because of that advice, and we started to look for solutions that could be financially afforded. That process continues.
The Chairman: During these hearings you made a statement to which Senator Prud'homme referred, a statement which I feel was made to undermine these hearing. You said you were prepared to consider alternate sites. Earlier you said you were following the proceedings of this committee, so you must know that during these hearings a number of alternate sites has been suggested.
Mr. MacDonald: We have been unable to afford them. We have actually looked at a number of sites and we have some rough idea of what they cost. Most are old buildings which are required to be brought into museological environments, as well as requiring renovations for health and safety reasons. Of the buildings that we have looked at, the costs have been way beyond anything that we could afford within the budget of the expansion project.
The Chairman: I find it difficult to understand your excuse regarding old buildings. The present War Museum falls into that category and you are extending and modernizing it. The old archives building has been modernized. The Connaught Building is presently undergoing considerable renovations and improvements. As well, I do not think it was too long ago that the research council building was modernized.
Mr. MacDonald: If the time comes when we can afford to do that, you will find no resistance from me. I think this would be the most acceptable solution. What I am saying is, at this time, the corporation does not have the resources for the Connaught Building.
The Chairman: What do you estimate would be required?
Mr. MacDonald: It would be very dangerous for me to try to estimate the costs of renovating the Connaught Building.
However, my estimate would be based on the fact that the Connaught Building is virtually identical to the Victoria Memorial Museum building -- and you will recall that our museum was in that structure at one time. Because of the nature of the collections -- a lot of costumes, and so on; different than rocks and fossils at the nature museum -- we were forced to move out of that building and build a new national Museum of Civilization. The Department of Public Works decided that the type of masonry in those buildings cannot effectively be sealed in terms of vapour barrier. As soon as you pump up the humidity to museological standards, the cement is eroded and eventually the building falls down. That is well established in the museological field.
That is a major problem with the Connaught Building. Some of the other buildings may be different because they can be cocooned inside in a different way than the Connaught Building which is divided into small spaces. It is a matter of practicality. We have looked at options and we wish we could afford an option. We shall continue looking. We are, in a sense, now looking at a broader range of facilities within the Department of Public Works, facilities that could offer a hope.
I have no resistance to the idea of satisfying both groups if we have the resources. The War Museum needs the proper facilities to show the its wonderful collections, particularly the Canadian war art collection which right now has no venue. We do have Vimy House for the big equipment; we have 330 Sussex Drive for costumes and so on. However, we have nowhere for much of the war art collection. We have no walls on which to hang it. Also, if we could dedicate more space to properly tell the story of the Holocaust, including all of the other peoples who have been caught in the same terrible situation of humanity, then we would be pleased.
The Chairman: My knowledge of architecture, like yours, is rather limited. If you cannot put incorporate vapour barriers in the Connaught Building, how are you handling them in the building at 330 Sussex Drive?
Mr. MacDonald: What we are adding to 330 Sussex is new building. We are putting those parts of the collections which are less sensitive in the old building, which will be brought to the top possible standards for an old building. We must segregate the building somewhat in order to do that, because there are some spaces which cannot be resolved in 330 Sussex to top museological standards, but we can adopt that in the new structures.
The Chairman: You may have some discussions with veterans' groups on this. I was told by at least one group that they attempted to obtain your plans and could not. Perhaps we can expect greater cooperation from you in that regard, Dr. MacDonald.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Chalifoux: I have not had a chance to look at all of these books but I can assure you that I shall be reading all of this information. I have started already. Here we have the minutes of the nineteenth meeting of the executive committee of the CMCC board of trustees, Monday, May 12, 1997, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m:
The Chairwoman welcomed Jack Granatstein, Desmond Morton and Jean Pariseau who had been invited to provide comments and advice concerning the Canadian War Museum Long-Term Plan.
On the next page, it states:
G. MacDonald and V. Suthren both felt that the story of the Holocaust would allow the museum to explore the root causes of war for not just Canada but for humanity. D. Morton and J. Granatstein said that this would be useful but that such an exhibition would be more appropriate at the CMC since its message is to touch the broader human experience. V. Suthren asked for clarification on whether his mandate was now to continue or to stop activity on the planning of the Holocaust Gallery given the possibility of relocation of this future gallery. A. Clarkson concluded this part of the discussion by saying that the board would consider the question of whether the Holocaust Gallery should be shown at the Canadian War Museum or at another facility.
I have been hearing from your department throughout these hearings that you had been taking advice and recommendations. Why was this advice from these two well known historians not taken at that time? This was as of May of 1997.
Mr. MacDonald: We did take what advice we could. We do have part of that story in the Canadian Museum of Civilization in special exhibits. For example, we have one opening this year on the Boat People. We have another project that has collected the material in the field from refugees. We are working very extensively now to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the International Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, which handles part of that spectrum. Why we did not move the Holocaust Gallery out of the War Museum is strictly a dollar problem. We were not able to put the dollars up to have the separate kind of facility that clearly people want. We know that people want that.
Senator Chalifoux: I may be mistaken, because we do not have our transcripts yet, but I was given to understand by Mr. Abella that he totally agreed with the veterans and with everything that we have heard here this past week that the Holocaust was so immense and so atrocious that it deserves its own place, not within the Canadian War Museum.
Mr. MacDonald: I would agree.
Senator Chalifoux: They also said that the Jewish community would rally around to help with the financial needs for that Holocaust Gallery.
Mr. MacDonald: I do want to point out that we do not consider a national museum to be there just for the needs of a single community. If there is a Holocaust museum, it will be all-inclusive. It will look at all other examples of this. The holocaust we had chosen as the central focus because the documentation is so clear. It had such an impact on world thinking. It created something of a sea change in the world in terms of colonialism. I could give a lecture on this topic, perhaps, but we did feel that that was the singular event that we could deal with in terms of museological exposure and museological exhibitions and to have all of the others related as they are in the Holocaust museum in Washington. They look at other holocausts. They look at other events in human history that are of that horrific, horrendous nature. We would intend to do the same and we think any national museum has to do that. There could be other kinds of Holocaust museums but that is not what interests us.
Senator Chalifoux: I am hearing you say that the reason you want the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum is just a matter of money.
Mr. MacDonald: No. We do not have the money to offer any alternative at this time. If we had the money, we clearly accept the fact that a separate facility is the best alternative.
Senator Chalifoux: In my opinion, that is the sad state of this department because you are diminishing the importance of two historical struggles within Canada. And that is sad. Thank you.
Senator Forest: In response to that, I would say that the department is not diminishing it; it is facing the fact of diminishing funds and financial support. That is regrettable because I quite agree that our War Museum needs better facilities and better funding for acquisitions. It is also important for there to be a museum that would demonstrate the terrible atrocities of the Holocaust in such a way that we could all learn from it.
I would like to return to the question of facilities. We have agreed that in a wonderful world of plenty of funding we could perhaps have the kind of War Museum we would like and also a museum commemorating the Holocaust. If that were possible and we had room for those, would the present facility at 330 Sussex Drive be suitable for the display of our art collection and war collection?
Mr. MacDonald: It would include a gallery. The art gallery is 4,000 square feet. You cannot hang many pictures in 4,000 square feet. You would have to rotate the collection through that space. A good portion of the collection is loaned out, so it is across the country in other venues. However, that does mean there is not a large space for the war art collection.
Senator Forest: Would that be in the present facility?
Mr. MacDonald: No, there is no space in the present facility. That is new space.
Senator Forest: If everything were moved out of the old building so that the War Museum were in another building, could the old building be renovated to accommodate that without an expansion?
Mr. MacDonald: No, you really need that expansion. The big problem is that there are limits to the site. Canada's military history, its importance to the country and the size of the collection justify something much bigger than what we have here. We only have to look at other countries. We are not as big as Britain, but Britain's Imperial War Museum is expanding. The Australian War Museum is one of the biggest in the world. Yes, we would love to have that type of facility here because we have the collections to support it.
It is an economic problem. We have lost a third of our corporate budget in the last four years.
Senator Forest: I understand that, but I think you may have misunderstood my question.
Suppose we have a different building to accommodate the War Museum and a different building for the Holocaust Gallery. Could the present building at 330 Sussex Drive be brought up to the standards of an art gallery?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I think it could. Paintings are not as demanding in terms of the high level of environmental control that you have for other types of materials. Oil paintings survive quite well in dusty, cold, old castles. I think it is a general rule that wall-hung art is meant to survive the rigours of climactic fluctuation better than some ancient object from the battlefield.
Senator Forest: We should not stop dreaming about those possibilities.
Senator Prud'homme: It seems that attendance at the War Museum has decreased since certain people took over.
Mr. MacDonald: It has been falling for more than 10 years. I would say that is not the situation. The Museum of Man has been responsible for it since 1958. However, I would say that the museum has had many problems to do with the fact that public taste is changing very much in what they expect in an institution, and the poor old War Museum has had many of its exhibits in place since they were first installed in that building in 1967. You need a certain amount of renewal in order to keep people coming to a facility. There have never been the funds to adequately do that.
Senator Prud'homme: My father taught me many lessons, one of which is: If someone insults you publicly, do not accept their apology in private; accept it only in front of the people who were present when the damage was done to you.
Ottawa is a rumour mill. There is a strong suggestion you attended a particular meeting in Toronto either last weekend. Did you hold a preparatory meeting to decided who would say what today?No doubt there are people who have a reason to start a rumour like that.
My father also told me that in life -- and this is the rule in my office -- one should double-check and triple-check. That is why I have survived 34 years against many odds. Always check your facts. Do not trust people who try to contaminate your mind. Go to the sources and find out for yourself. After that, if you are not happy, go ahead and fight, but do not fight before you know who your enemies are.
Mr. MacDonald: That meeting was established six months in advance. It was established after the last general meeting of the advisory counsel. It took a long time to contact and get commitments from various scholars who had gone through the process in the U.S. We were fortunate enough to get someone from the Imperial War Museum. The meeting had nothing to do with this session.
Senator Prud'homme: I am satisfied with that.
Over the years, I have learned to be very precise when dealing with bureaucrats. I have been told that I have been very close to asking embarrassing questions.
I accept that it was not a meeting called for that purpose. However, we have to deal with the coincidence of leaks, announcements and newspaper articles. Was there at least some discussion of what was going to take place this week?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Senator Prud'homme: Officially or unofficially? I have to be very careful with you because you could say "not officially".
Mr. MacDonald: The whole meeting is on tape. Nothing to do with this meeting is part of that meeting.
Senator Prud'homme: I do not want a "yes" or "no" answer. Everything we have done this week is on tape. However, the senators had discussions over dinner last night. I am not talking about what was said officially. Of course you did not talk about it officially.
Mr. MacDonald: Last Sunday our meeting started early in the day. When it broke up at about 3 p.m., everyone left. There were no other meetings.
The one advantage of that meeting is that because of these committee hearings, our trustees are very interested in the issues.
Five of our trustees came to that meeting. One of them is here and perhaps could even comment on that, but I think it was very valuable for our trustees to see a little more of the depth of the Holocaust issue and the world-wide perspective of what is happening around the world in memory of the Holocaust. That was what the session was about.
Senator Prud'homme: You understand why I have to ask this question. The Canadian Jewish Congress has had dealings with me more over the years. It seems unfortunate that the Jewish veterans and the B'nai Brith never came to talk to me personally. They only go on hearsay. They are so precise, so well organized. It is hard to believe that anyone could speak for them without their reacting to it or to that piece of paper with four paragraphs, which was so confusing I had to have a translation, to make sure I understood it. Sometimes the "we" means the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish veterans, the B'nai Brith and the museum, but in the third paragraph, the "we" means you but not them. I had to wonder what kind of a statement this is. Who is "we"? Who has signed it? Now you say you had nothing to do with it and yet it was thrown on my desk like this and I almost made a mistake.
Finally, I was impressed, like everyone else, with the young people who came here. You said the world is changing. Communication is changing, yes. People watch TV today -- too much for my taste. They should read Beaudelaire, or the great political works, such as Talleyrand. But television is such a force now, so let us go the video way. There will be a theatre. Maybe that is the modern way to attract people back to the museum. That has nothing to do, again, I repeat, with the Holocaust museum. That should stand on its own two feet. It is too important to mix it with something else. Where? That is another debate. I would be happy to participate in it and help. But today's situation is maybe one of the reasons attendance is falling. It is not because the displays are lousy. It is because the clientele is changing, and you do not have many people left who still have that military memory. It is very important to retrieve that memory before the people who have it disappear.
In Russia, I went to the museum in Leningrad and suggested that they do what we did in Canada with the local initiative program, which was to put on tape what people could not write. Do you know what they did? All these old women in the Leningrad museum -- now, of course, it is St. Petersburg -- knew more than any history book, although they could not write it down. Oral history is disappearing. Now the Supreme Court is accepting oral history pertaining to the native experience. The natives have passed on history to each other by word of mouth. That is like the oral history of the Jewish community. I hope you will take your clue from these young Canadians -- not those aged 70, or 60, nor from senators. That is the way to catch young people's interest.
Those are my comments. I thank the chairman for his patience with me throughout the week as a non-member.
I would still like an answer.
Mr. MacDonald: I totally agree that you must have that kind of feature. If you are going to renew the audience with young people, you have to communicate in multimedia or in terms that they can deal with. It is exciting that 22 hours of footage of Canadians in the First World War has just turned up. Prior to that, I am told by the National Film Board, there was no more than three hours in total. That is why we need things like a theatre in the Canadian War Museum, to bring that kind of eye-witness experience to those young people. That is why we are putting such an emphasis on our educational programs.
Senator Prud'homme: What about the first part of my question? How can well-organized organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B'nai Brith allow a thing like that to go unsigned?
Mr. MacDonald: I suppose they thought this was something that would be handled in camera, and they put it forward in that format. That is why it was not put out in both official languages, on our letterhead. We initiated the draft, they cleared it through their channels, and that is the way that Rabbi Bulka sent it to you.
Senator Prud'homme: You said you came up with the draft.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, and they passed it around.
Senator Prud'homme: It seems they did not pass it around very well.
Mr. MacDonald: At least the heads of the organizations saw it.
Senator Prud'homme: May I kindly ask you, if I am ever chairman of a committee, as I was in the House of Commons for 30 years, do not ever write an open letter prior to your appearance, as you did for Senator Phillips.
Mr. MacDonald: I will take that advice.
The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses. I remind you of your statement, Dr. MacDonald, that all planning has ceased. However, I should like to say that you might have had your lot surveyed, which should have been done in the first stage of your planning. I do not think anything exemplifies the careless planning and consideration that went into this more than the fact that you had plans drawn up for a building and you did not even know the lot size. I would have hoped that you had done that.
I wish to discuss another matter with the members of the committee.
It has been brought to my attention that Ms Copps, whom we have been inviting to appear for the last month, has now offered to appear Monday at 3:15.
I would point out to the committee, press and media that these senators have been here this week even though the Senate is not sitting. The Senate resumes again on Tuesday. I leave it to your discretion, but my inclination would be to suggest to her that it would be better if she appeared at 3:15 on Tuesday instead of on Monday.
What is your opinion?
Senator Forest: Mr. Chairman, I have a prior commitment in Alberta that I cannot change at this late time, but if the rest of the committee can meet with the minister, that would be fine with me.
Senator Chalifoux: I am at your disposal.
The Chairman: We will meet further on that matter.
Before I adjourn the meeting I should like to thank all the witnesses, the staff, the pages, and all those who helped us out in any way. There were many of you. I should also like to express our thanks to those who, recognizing our time constraints, submitted written briefs. We assure you that they will be considered as well as all those submitted here.
The committee adjourned.