Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence for the morning session
OTTAWA, Monday, February 2, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 11:04 a.m. to begin 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: On behalf of the subcommittee, I should like to welcome everyone this morning. Today we embark on a week of hearings into the future funding and independence of the Canadian War Museum. Before we begin to hear the more than 50 individuals and organizations scheduled to testify this week, clarification on a number of issues is needed.
First, I proposed to the Senate that this issue be studied because many Canadians, veterans in particular, contacted me with concerns about a $12-million expansion launched by the Canadian War Museum. That expansion proposes to take the War Museum in entirely new directions; as a result, many are concerned that these directions are not in line with the museum's spending. It is important that everyone here examine and understand the mandate in this complex debate.
Some would argue that the War Museum is simply a storehouse for guns and tanks. That is not the case. Some would say that this museum is a place for veterans to trade old stories. That is not the case. The museum is best described by its own mandate: to share in the remembrance of and serve as a memorial to those Canadians lost in or as a result of war; to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians; and to document Canada's continuing commitment to peace-keeping and the maintenance of international security. Those words will be our compass in our search for answers to the simple question: Where should the War Museum be heading?
Ultimately, when those Canadians who fought in or lived through the war and who know of its loss and sacrifice are gone, they will no longer able to tell their story. It is then that institutions like the War Museum should be able to tell their story to future generations for them.
Honourable senators, our first witnesses this morning are from the Department of Canadian Heritage: Mr. Bill Peters, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Arts and Heritage; and Mr. Chuck Gruchy, Director General of Heritage Branch.
I will begin by explaining to the witnesses that we are under tremendous time pressures. I ask you to make a presentation touching the highlights, leaving time for questioning.
Mr. Peters, please begin.
Mr. Bill Peters, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Arts and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage: Mr. Chairman, my presentation, which will cover some of the legislative bases for the War Museum, as well as the other national museums, will be fairly brief. We would then be pleased to answer any questions you may have, within our ability to do so. Dr. Gruchy and I will be at your disposal for that purpose.
On behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage, I am pleased to participate in this Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs study on the future of the Canadian War Museum.
In order to help frame your review, I would like to provide you with some background information on the legislative context within which the Canadian War Museum operates and also which guides the Department of Canadian Heritage's relations with the national museums within our minister's portfolio.
Specifically, I will be discussing the federal Museums Act, the role of museum corporations, and the nature of the relationship between the minister, the Department of Canadian Heritage and, in this case, the Canadian War Museum.
I understand that museum officials will be appearing before your committee later today and during the week. In that case, I will not be touching in detail on matters having to do with the operations of the Canadian War Museum or specifically its expansion plans. We will, however, answer to the best of our ability any questions you may have in that regard.
With respect to the national museums, as I am sure you already know, there are four national museum corporations within the Canadian Heritage portfolio: the National Gallery of Canada, which includes its affiliate the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography; the Canadian Museum of Civilization, including and of interest here today, of course, its affiliate, the Canadian War Museum; the Canadian Museum of Nature; and the National Museum of Science and Technology, which has as its affiliate the National Aviation Museum. Several of these national museums and their affiliated museums date back to the late 19th century, an indication of the federal government's early recognition of its responsibility for preserving and making accessible to Canadians a national heritage that is important to Canadians across the country.
The Canadian War Museum, this country's flagship military museum, traces its origins as far back as 1880 with the establishment at that time of a small military museum in the Ottawa garrison. While circumstances forced that particular museum to close in 1897, the First World War then sparked a renewed interest in military history and talk of creating a national war museum. In 1942, the Canadian War Museum was officially opened, its collection built on war trophies and military materials which had been collected by the Public Archives of Canada.
In 1958, supervision of this museum was transferred to the National Museum of Canada. In 1967, the government attempted to centralize and coordinate federal museum activities and policies, at that time under the purview of a number of ministers and of the Secretary of State, through the creation of a single museum corporation. In 1968, the War Museum, then a division of the National Museum of Man, became part of the National Museums Corporation.
The next significant stage in its evolution came in 1989 when, in response to recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, the Minister of Communications introduced legislation aimed at increasing the administrative autonomy of the museums previously governed by the National Museums Corporation. The 1990 Museums Act is the instrument that provides the current legal framework for our national museums.
The foundation of the Museums Act is its declaration in section 3 that "the heritage of Canada and its peoples is an important part of the world heritage and must be preserved for present and future generations." The national museums collectively play an important role in preserving this heritage and promoting Canadians' enjoyment and understanding of it.
The 1990 Museums Act established four Crown corporations and gave each specific purposes, capacities and powers. In section 7(2) of the Museums Act, the Canadian War Museum was included as an affiliated museum of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The CMC itself was given the broad mandate, in its legislative authority, to:
...increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of and appreciation and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.
It is within the CMC's broad mandate, therefore, that the Canadian War Museum operates. The War Museum's specific mandate -- to be a national memorial to Canadians who served in war, to present the military history of Canada, and to document Canada's peace-keeping efforts -- has been defined by the museum and approved by the government through the CMC's corporate plans.
Part II of the Museums Act details the organization common to the four museum corporations. Each corporation has its own board of trustees, as well as a director of the museum who operates as the chief executive officer under the direction of the board of trustees. The Museums Act, by the way, contains no specific reference to the organization or management of affiliated museums.
I should like to touch on the role of Crown corporations and speak about the concept of the so-called arm's length principle.
As Crown corporations, the national museums are subject to the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, Part X. According to the FAA, Crown corporations are accountable to Parliament through their appropriate minister -- which in the case of national museum corporations is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In establishing the national museums as Crown corporations, the government adopted a model which is designed to give those museums a degree of autonomy from the minister, not normally experienced within a department of government. Crown corporation then operate at what is described as "arm's length" from the minister and the department. In practice, that means that the board of trustees of the museum oversees the management of the businesses, the activities and affairs of the corporation, and determines, for example, the corporate procurement and contracting policies, classification levels, salary and hiring policies for the corporation. As a result of the role of the board and the authorities provided to the Crown corporation, the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not intervene in the day-to-day operations and decisions of the corporation.
It is worth emphasizing that the arm's length relationship extends to the cultural activities of the museums. Section 27 of the Museums Act ensures that no directive can be given to museums with respect to their cultural activities, including, in section 27(b) of the act:
...its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications.
In including this section in the Museums Act, the government's objective was to ensure that our national museums could function as cultural institutions without political and bureaucratic interference. And that remains, of course, the policy of the government to this day.
With respect to the minister's relationship with the War Museum and the other national museums, the minister has an important role to play relative to the Crown corporations within her portfolio because she serves as the link between the corporation and both cabinet and Parliament. It is through the minister that the government communicates strategic directions to the corporation and it is through her that the corporation reports to the government and Parliament on its plans and on its performance.
The minister's major powers, duties and functions relative to the Crown corporation include making recommendations to the Governor in Council on the appointment of the chair, the chief executive officer, and the board members of the corporation; recommending approval to Treasury Board and the Governor in Council of the corporate plans and budgets of the corporation, and recommending approval to Treasury Board of the annual reference level updates; tabling in Parliament the annual report, the corporate plan summary, and the operating and capital budgets; and finally, answering questions in Parliament on matters relating to the Crown corporation.
The department, as needed, provides information and advice to the minister on matters concerning the museum corporations. We assist the museums by providing information and assistance in the development by them of their corporate plans, Treasury Board submissions, and other documents requiring approval by the minister.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of the legislative basis for the nature of the operation of the national museums and a quick summary of the sort of relationship that pertains between the minister, the department, and the corporations themselves.
I realize that I ran through that information fairly quickly. I would be pleased to answer questions concerning my summary, as well as, of course, any other questions honourable senators may have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much Mr. Peters. Before recognizing honourable senators for questions, I should like to indicate that we are very pleased to have with us retired Senator Jack Marshall who, for a number of years, was chairman of this committee and who has taken us through previous hearings of this nature.
Although Senator Marshall always had questions when he was chairman, he allowed the other senators to utilize his time for their questioning. I will not guarantee that I will have the same forbearance as Senator Marshall.
I should also like to welcome Elsie Wayne, who takes a great deal of interest in veterans affairs, from the House of Commons. Some of you will be pleased to know that she is particularly interested in the Merchant Navy.
I have also just been advised that Mr. Peter Goldring, the veterans affairs critic for the Reform Party, is present.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your remarks. Is it correct that the Canadian War Museum, rather than being a museum on its own, is under the Canadian Museum of Civilization, that it is an affiliate?
Mr. Peters: Yes, senator, that is correct. It is an affiliate museum of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
Senator Jessiman: In the paragraph in your brief headed "Minister's/Department's relationship to the museum," you say that the corporation is connected to the cabinet and Parliament. You are really speaking there of the Canadian Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Peters: That is correct, senator.
Senator Jessiman: Have you been around since 1991?
Mr. Peters: Yes, senator, I have.
Senator Jessiman: Are you familiar with matters going back that far?
Mr. Peters: I joined what was then the Department of Communications in 1991, just after the completion of the task force and its recommendations.
Senator Jessiman: When you speak of the task force, you are referring to the task force that published recommendations in its 1991 report, co-chaired by G. Hamilton Southam and Denis Vaugeois; correct?
Mr. Peters: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: You are familiar with their recommendations?
Mr. Peters: I am, senator.
Senator Jessiman: We are talking now about the War Museum being an affiliate. The task force to which I referred spent about seven months travelling the country. I have not read the report in its entirety, but I have certainly read the summary. I believe that they did a tremendous job. I will read parts of it to you, in order that you can tell me whether you agree or disagree with it, as well as why something which was recommended in this report has not happened.
On page 32, it reads, in part:
Almost without exception, we were told that the answer lies in the CWM's subordination to the Canadian Museum of Civilization...
That was a problem in 1991.
We have been advised, for example, that although the CWM accounts for 15 per cent of all visits to the CMC, it receives only six per cent of the budget and one per cent of the acquisition fund.
But since the CMC's mandate is to preserve and display the panorama of Canada civilization, along with material from other civilizations, we --
-- that is the committee --
-- believe that it could rarely if ever give our military heritage adequate treatment in context, setting and interpretation.
In short, we consider the administrative status quo of the CWM to be unacceptable. The institution should be accorded separate status if it is to take its place alongside other federal museums as a recognized centre of excellence.
On the next page, we see Recommendation 16:
We recommend that the Minister of Communications introduce legislation in 1991 to establish the CWM as a separate museum within his portfolio.
Can you tell me, if you know, why that recommendation was not implemented? What is the reasoning behind that?
Mr. Peters: I can certainly give you some information about it, senator. The recommendation from the task force, like all of the recommendations in the task force, were examined at the time. The decision of the department at the time was not to proceed with that recommendation. My understanding is that there was a discussion or consideration of the recommendation by the CMC board at that time and it was decided not to proceed with that recommendation.
Senator Jessiman: By the board itself?
Mr. Peters: That is correct.
Senator Jessiman: I can understand why the board might not want to lose it. Do you know whether it was considered by cabinet or Parliament?
Mr. Peters: I do not believe that that recommendation was considered by cabinet, senator. The department's position at the time was to concur with the view of the board of trustees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
With respect to that and other recommendations from the task force some of those recommendations got -- if I might put it this way -- swept up in what shortly after that became the government's process of reducing budgets and operations through the program review process. That process had a significant bearing on the implementation of the recommendations of the task force.
Senator Kelly: My first question was covered adequately by Senator Jessiman. I have one question, however, following up on his last question. The implication that this situation developed as a result of program review suggests that it is was based on funding. Is that true?
Mr. Peters: My intent was to say that it had a bearing on that and other recommendations. It was not the sole factor, however. Certainly, though, as the government's fiscal situation developed, it did have a bearing on future implementation of recommendations from the task force.
Senator Kelly: I do not mean to be cute, but if it were not the sole reason, can you think of other reasons that may have contributed?
Mr. Peters: I was, of course, not privy to the deliberations of the board of trustees, so I really cannot speculate as to what other considerations might have been taken into account at that point.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I would like the opportunity to ask further questions later.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I do not wish to take up too much of my colleagues' time. This is my first outing in several months. Although I am not a member of this committee, I decided to attend because the subject interests me.
[English]
In your statement, you talk about the role of the Crown corporation's arm's length principle; and in the next paragraph, you talk about the department's relationship to the museum.
[Translation]
On the one hand, you have the "arm's length principle", while on the other hand, you have the minister's responsibilities.
[English]
Please explain to me what you mean by "arm's length principle."
You go on to say:
The minister's major powers, duties and functions relative to the Crown corporation include:
-- recommending approval to Treasury Board and the Governor in Council of the corporate plans and budgets...
[Translation]
Is it not a fact that all the minister can do is make recommendations?
[English]
We have arm's length principles on the one hand; and on the other, recommending approval of the corporate plans and budgets.
The minister has the authority not to recommend; correct? If the minister does not approve of the plan, he or she must have other plans. If the minister has other plans, the minister is less at arm's length than the definition implies.
Please enlighten me and members of the committee.
Mr. Peters: I will try to do so. Perhaps the best way of beginning to respond is to indicate that the intent of the arm's length principle is to provide the minister, and the government, if you wish, with the ability to provide strategic direction to the Crown corporations, or to set the policy framework within which the Crown corporations function. That is done in a variety of ways; part of it, of course, through the establishing legislation itself and part of it through the requirement that the Crown corporations, in setting out their strategic direction, are required to submit for government approval a variety of documents -- their annual corporate plans, their performance reports, et cetera. Those submissions establish the manner in which the corporations propose to implement their strategic direction over a set period of years. It is with respect to those broad directions for the corporations that the minister makes recommendations for approval to cabinet.
In other words, what is intended is that the government has the ability to say "yes" or "no" or to modify the strategic plans of the corporations and, of course, their budgets which flow from them. The minister does, senator, have the authority to modify, or to ask the corporations to modify, the plans as they are submitted for her approval by those Crown corporations.
The intent of the arm's length principle is to distinguish, as clearly as possible, between the ability to provide broad strategic directions and the approval of long-term plans and budgets from what we have described here as the day-to-day operating decisions of the corporations. The arm's length principle, as it is spelled out in the legislation, is intended to prevent the occurrence of what some people would call direct involvement or interference in the operations in a daily sense, and some of those senses are spelled out as I recounted in my remarks.
So the corporations have the ability then to make those business decisions themselves, and the business decisions of the Crown corporations in this case, the museums, do include the cultural activities of those institutions.
That is intended to be the responsibility of the Crown corporations themselves and not the direction of the government through the minister or the department.
I am not sure whether I have been clear enough in my answer; I will summarize it. The arm's length principle is to distinguish between broad strategic direction and the sort of daily operating decisions of the corporations.
Senator Prud'homme: I will have supplementary questions later.
Senator Kelly: You have made it clear that the CMC's broad mandate includes how the Canadian War Museum operates. You have said:
The War Museum's specific mandate to be a national memorial to Canadians who served in war --
That is correct so far.
-- to present the military history of Canada and to document Canada's peace-keeping efforts, has been defined by the Museum and approved by the Governor in Council...
Until this moment, those have been exactly the boundaries within which the War Museum has been mandated to function, have they not?
Mr. Peters: Yes, that is correct, senator.
Senator Cools: The term "arm's length" is frequently used. Some would say it is frequently over used, and some would even say it is frequently abused. Where does this term find legal existence, in what statute?
Mr. Chuck Gruchy, Director General of Heritage Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage: It is defined for the museums.
Senator Cools: I am not trying to put you on the spot, but according to everything you have said, from the role of Crown corporations right through to the minister's relationship to the museum, Parliament has no role whatsoever. Explain for me the legal history and the legal meaning of "arm's length." There are places where you have used the term "arm's length" not to mean arm's length, but to mean artistic independence. For the sake of the committee, and for the sake of people on all sides of the issues who have concerns, I would like to be crystal clear about Parliament's true role in these matters.
Mr. Peters: If I may, senator, I am not sure that I have the complete answer to the legislative basis for the arm's length principle. I can say, however, as I noted in my remarks, that in the case of the national museums, section 27(b) of the Museums Act ensures that no directive can be given to museums with respect to:
its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications.
With respect to the museum Crown corporations that is the operative legislation.
Senator Cools: Is that particular section of the Museums Act speaking more to the sense of artistic freedom and artistic independence than to the relationship of responsibility and accountability to both the minister and to Parliament?
Mr. Peters: Yes, of course, senator, I think I agree with you. The existence of the arm's length relationship is not intended to interfere with the accountability to Parliament for the operations of the Crown corporations. The documents which I refer to in my earlier remarks, the annual corporate plans, the budget submissions of the Crown corporations, are specifically intended to be reviewed and approved through the normal processes within government, which means submissions to the Treasury Board for approval, so that those operations which are financed through those submissions are in fact subject to government review and approval. Of course, I would add that Crown corporations, like any other government operation, are subject to annual review and to appearances before committees such as this to explain, present and justify their operations.
My understanding or interpretation of the legislation with respect to arm's length is that it is intended to remove from the direction of a minister, a department, or the government, the specific day-to-day operations, the cultural activities, et cetera, that those are intended to remain within the purview of the corporation itself. What I am trying to define then is the dividing line between those activities and the documents, the submissions, the operating plans in a strategic or long-term sense of those corporations, which are specifically intended to be reviewed and approved by the government and ultimately by Parliament.
Senator Cools: I just wanted to be crystal clear that we were not confusing or obfuscating the issues of accountability to Parliament, particularly financially, with the issue of executive interference, because I have a real preoccupation with the difference between the executive and Parliament and with parliamentary responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peters has raised some very important issues. The witness has referred to the provisions of the Financial Administration Act. The role of Parliament is not only legislative but administrative, particularly in the area of fiscal or financial accountability. In the long run parliamentary control means control of the purse. Perhaps, if not this week then some time in the future, we could have a witness who can speak precisely on the issues of the Financial Administration Act and Parliament's control of the purse in respect of Crown corporations and their affiliates.
The Chairman: Concerning the arm's length operation, I suggest to you, Mr. Peters, that if one of the museums put on a display interpreting the minister's remarks in a way that that minister did not consider to be factual, the arm's length would become very constricted and very short.
Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, might I speak briefly to the point you have raised?
It is of course the case, and one can think of examples, that individual national museums have produced exhibitions or displays that have been quite controversial. The intent of what we have described here in terms of the arm's length relationship is to provide the authority to those corporations to do exactly that. There are examples in recent memory where exhibitions at our National Gallery and other museums have aroused considerable controversy, and the intent of this legislation is to ensure that there is the ability to do exactly that within our national museums.
Senator Forest: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, if I may, of Mr. Peters. The first goes back to the affiliated status of the War Museum and to the earlier report in which the task force recommended that it become an independent museum. They cited the relative importance of the War Museum with its number of visitors vis-à-vis its financial funding. Would you know, Mr. Peters, whether that situation would be the same today with respect to the number of visitors and so on, that the War Museum might not be receiving its fair funding or what could be construed as its fair funding?
Mr. Peters: Senator, you are asking whether the ratio between visitors and the size of the appropriation for the War Museum is equivalent today to what it was at the time of the task force report?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Mr. Peters: I would have to say I do not have those numbers off the top of my head. We would be pleased to provide that information for the committee. I know the information is available; I simply do not have it at my fingertips today.
Senator Forest: My other question is with respect to that affiliated status and the board of the museum having the final say. I would like to know whether there is provision on the board for members who have perhaps a special interest, expertise on experience with regard to the War Museum. Is there any provision on the board for a member who is there on behalf of the War Museum?
Mr. Peters: I stand to be corrected by Dr. Gruchy, but I do not believe that to be the case. Again, we can verify that point for you.
By the way, with respect to your previous question, since the committee will be hearing representatives from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, we could arrange for the information that you requested to be provided when they appear.
Senator Forest: Fine, and perhaps the criteria for the appointment of board members to the Museum of Civilization. That is what I am interested in.
Mr. Peters: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: What are the criteria to appoint board members to the Canadian Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Peters: I apologize, senator, I do not have the explicit criteria with me.
Senator Jessiman: For how long are they appointed?
Mr. Peters: The terms are normally for four years, senator.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know how often they meet?
Mr. Peters: No, I do not. I know that the board meets fairly frequently but I do not have the schedule. I am sure the representatives of CMC could tell you that.
Senator Jessiman: Are members of this board paid?
Mr. Peters: Yes, they are.
Senator Jessiman: Are they paid an annual stipend plus an attendance fee, or do you know?
Mr. Peters: I do not have that specific information. We will ensure that that information is made available, perhaps by the representatives of the CMC when they appear before you.
Senator Jessiman: What I would like is the criteria that is used in determining the length of time they sit, what is their term, and whether board members can be elected or appointed again?
Mr. Peters: Yes, that is correct, a member can be reappointed to the board.
Senator Jessiman: How long has this board been in existence?
Mr. Peters: This board, under the status of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, would have been in existence since 1990.
Senator Jessiman: A little better than seven years?
Mr. Peters: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know off hand the terms of the board members; is it a seven-year term, a five-year term, a three-year term?
Mr. Peters: No, it is normally a four-year term, senator.
Senator Jessiman: Of those who were first appointed, how many were reappointed?
Mr. Peters: I cannot tell you offhand, but we can certainly generate that information for you.
Senator Jessiman: Is the chairman of the board appointed under the legislation, or do the members of the board themselves appoint or elect their chairman?
Mr. Peters: The chairman, as provided in the legislation, is normally appointed by the Governor in Council.
Senator Jessiman: Is that a full-time job?
Mr. Peters: No, it is not.
Senator Jessiman: The chairman would be paid something in excess of a board member?
Mr. Peters: Yes, although I do not have the specific numbers.
Senator Jessiman: You will get that for us as well?
Mr. Peters: If you wish.
Senator Jessiman: Does the chairman receive more in the way of a stipend for each meeting that he or she attends?
Mr. Peters: We will ensure that information is made available also, senator.
Senator Cools: Senator Jessiman has put to you a series of questions concerning the recommendations of the Southam report, entitled the "Task Force on Military History, Museum Collections in Canada," and quoted the document itself. What is clear, upon reading this report, is the overwhelming consensus of the reporters of the task force that, in point of fact, the War Museum has been grossly neglected and grossly ignored.
The language is really quite strong in the report, which urges that the Government of Canada, the responsible minister or ministers or someone take the matter in hand. The report also says, again in very strong language, that the War Museum should be maintained, preserved and strengthened and in some of its recommendations insists, quite strongly, that the official name and even the term "War Museum" be maintained and preserved. There is quite a weight of support for the enhancement and the strengthening of the museum in the life of Canada.
When Senator Jessiman put his questions to you, you suggested that the reason some of these recommendations were not acted upon by the various departments was essentially fiscal constraint. I believe that is what you said.
Mr. Peters: I said that that was a major influence; it was not of course the only one.
Senator Cools: Precisely, but in your response to Senator Jessiman you never said there were any policy constraints. What I heard you say was that the limitations were purely financial. Therefore, as the financial fog of government seems to be lifting, it would seem to me, now, that there are no obstacles whatsoever to prevent the department from moving readily, hastily and speedily into following these recommendations.
Mr. Peters: Senator, while some of the recommendations of the task force were not implemented -- and of course several senators have observed the one with respect to the autonomy of the War Museum -- perhaps I was negligent in leaving the impression that there has not been follow-up to many of the recommendations of the task force, with respect to both the War Museum and the other military museums in Canada. The department, the government and the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation have taken a number of initiatives and measures in order to enhance the status of the Canadian War Museum and to provide a broader base of support for other military museums in Canada. As I said earlier, some of those initiatives or hopes envisaged at the time the task force made its report were constrained by the realities of the fiscal framework. I think I can say there is no policy held by either the museum corporation or the government that would hinder the view about the importance of the commemoration of this country's war history as represented in both the Canadian War Museum and the military museums across the country.
What I am trying to clarify is that there has been follow-up and implementation on as many of the recommendations of that task force report as were deemed practicable in the circumstances.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to make the point that I do not think any of the responsible departments or ministers had any quarrel with the substance of some of these very important recommendations.
Senator Jessiman: Further to that, maybe you could provide us with a list of those that have been followed from the report and also those that were not followed only because of finances, and if those that were not followed for some other reason than finances, what were the reasons?
Senator Prud'homme: The mandate of the War Museum was described by our chairman earlier, and I feel it is important to read it again:
to share in the remembrance of, and serve as a memorial to, those Canadians lost in, or as a result of, war:
to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians; and
to participate in the search for effective mechanisms of a secure and lasting peace.
I think we agree that is the mandate.
I had the honour to sit as a member of the House of Commons for 30 years and received no less than a thousand visitors a year. I still do as a senator. That is why I cannot give up so easily. My interest in Veterans Affairs was fuelled by the Honourable Jack Marshall, who is totally devoted to the remembrance of veterans. They are getting older, and it is in the nature of things that the younger you are you may pay less attention to the War Museum and those who went to fight for us.
Do you have an actual record of people who visit the War Museum compared to the other museums? You must be careful with figures because if you have, for example, at the National Gallery a Rembrandt exposition, you will have hundreds of thousands of visitors, which may cause an imbalance. I am thinking of the averages.
What I want to know, and I am sure you are in a position to provide it, is the percentage of people who visit each of these museums and the exact budget attributed to each of these museums. You may have the beginning of an answer, but we in the Senate are patient. We do not give up easily and we do not rubber stamp matters either, and I should hope that we will continue in that way.
Mr. Peters: Your request is very clear, senator. We will be able to provide those numbers. They are available with respect to the War Museum and the other members of the national museum family. I take your point that there are blips, if you wish, caused by major exhibitions, and we will attempt to clarify those.
I would point out in terms of major attractions that , for example, the War Museum has benefited remarkably by the observance of Remembrance Day and that sort of special commemoration. On the fiftieth anniversary of D-day a couple of years ago there was a very large increase in the attendance at the War Museum. We will attempt to take account of those sorts of occurrences as well.
Senator Chalifoux: As a senator with a long family military history, I have several concerns. First, in Canada, all our young people are looking for heroes, and we have thousands and millions of heroes that we never talk about. This is one opportunity where we, as Canadians, can learn about our heroes and about our proud history.
I remember my dad talking about the First World War. Canadian soldiers, not the Americans, took towns and rescued people. I remember the Second World War and our proud history, as well as the Korean conflict. I left friends in Korea. I left school chums and friends in France, Belgium and elsewhere. Yet our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren do not know about that history. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have to demand that our heroes be named and honoured in such a museum as the War Museum.
What qualifications do your board members have to speak on behalf of and to work towards a War Museum that our young people can go to and be proud of -- a place where they can name names and heroes? Are they qualified to speak about this very important part of our history?
Mr. Peters: I am not sure I can respond as precisely as you might wish because I cannot speak to you about the history of the families of the individual board members. The intent is that the appointment to the board of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation reflect a comprehensive understanding of the mandate of that particular museum and, of course, specifically of the Canadian War Museum itself.
If your intent is to ask whether the board members of the CMC Corporation have that sort of family connection with the war experience, I cannot answer that question for you this morning. You might wish to pursue that line of questioning with representatives of the corporation.
I can assure you that it is the intent of the board to honour, to recognize and to make as available to Canadians as we possibly can the memorial and the heroic nature of the war experiences you have described.
Senator Chalifoux: The intent is always there, but unless you have a special interest or the qualifications to speak on a number of issues relating to a museum such as this, then I am sorry to say that it is sadly lacking. This is why it is important that the qualification for board members must be there, at least for one or two board members.
I see you have four affiliates. Are there other special groups speaking on behalf of the affiliates? Maybe there are, but I do not see them.
If you could find answers to those concerns, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Peters: Yes, we will.
Senator Forest: We are speaking about the desired autonomy for the War Museum. Earlier I asked the question about the relationship between the number of visitors and the budget.
My other question would be with respect to the size and the value of the collection. There must be some relationship between the museums with the largest and most valuable collections and the budget they receive. Do you have any information in that respect?
Mr. Peters: We certainly could attempt to generate that kind of information. I am not sure if the results will be precise in showing correlation between the size of the collection and the size of the budget. The nature of the collections held by the various national museums may vary a great deal in terms of numbers and value, but we will attempt to see if there is some correlation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Peters.
We will adjourn the committee until 1 p.m. this afternoon.
The committee adjourned.