Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence for the afternoon 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 1:13 p.m. to continue its study of all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. Our first witnesses this afternoon are Mr. Joe Geurts and Mr. Daniel J. Glenney.
It is my understanding that both of these gentlemen will make a presentation now and then we will hear from them again when they explain their expansion plans using the model in the centre of the room.
Senator Jessiman: Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the only representatives who will appear before this committee from the Canadian Museum of Civilization are these two gentlemen? Will others make a presentation at a later time?
Mr. Daniel J. Glenney, Acting Director General, Canadian War Museum: My understanding is that Dr. MacDonald, our chief executive officer, and our chair, Mrs. Clarkson, will be making presentations on Friday afternoon.
On behalf of my colleague, Mr. Geurts, and myself, it is a great pleasure and an honour to be addressing the Canadian Senate. This is certainly a part of the Canadian parliamentary and democratic process, and we are extremely proud to be involved.
Before I start the formal part of my presentation, I would like to reiterate that everything we speak about here today will be in reference to the mandate of the Canadian War Museum. To review, it is the mandate of the Canadian War Museum:
To stand as a memorial to those Canadians who served in war or lost their lives 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 Canadian military contribution to peace-keeping and the maintenance of national and international security.
Our presentation in this particular section includes a brief visual presentation on the Canadian War Museum and how we have arrived at the place where we find ourselves today from a programmatical and museological point of view. Mr. Geurts will speak, from a corporate point of view, on the finances and the administration of the museum.
My slide presentation begins at the end of the First World War. We heard Mr. Peters talk about the history of the institution earlier this morning. It was originally planned in 1919 that Canada would have a grand, national war memorial museum on the scale of that being built in Australia. Accordingly, giant works of art were commissioned. The war trophies board went overseas and brought back all sorts of military artefacts. The idea was to have a large museum on Nepean Point. When the Parliament buildings burned, funds were directed to repair them; and at about that time, Canada went into an economic depression.
The lower right side of this slide shows the War Trophies Building, near where the Canadian War Museum is located today. In the centre area are fountains, gardens and an enlarged museum.
The next slide shows the heyday of our physical plant back in the late 1970s when the Canadian War Museum was occupying the archives building on the right. On the left, we had the War Trophies Building which was opened in 1942. The buildings are surrounded by a large, open space, with ample parking for visitors and tour buses.
The War Trophies Building was demolished to make way for the National Gallery of Canada in the 1980s. We lost our display facility which enabled us to show large artefacts like tanks and artillery pieces.
The next slide is representative of the situation today. The Canadian War Museum is now surrounded by the Mint and the National Gallery of Canada. Our parking is gone. That gives us several operational problems -- which I will describe later.
Over the last few years, changes such as the loss of parking have had a negative effect on our visitation. We had a very welcome increase back in 1993, 1994 and 1995 because of our anniversary and commemorative programs regarding the Second World War.
Veterans have been a very major part of our presentations, both emotionally as well as actually. Unfortunately, the veteran population is not as able, as it once was, to visit and support our museum.
This next slide shows the residence of museum visitors presently. You can see that they come from Ontario, the national capital region, foreign countries, and all over. Essentially, our visitation is very much like any other national museum in Ottawa.
Over the years, as the veteran population finds it more difficult to get around, simply because off the ravages of Father Time, their representation among visitors falls. Veterans now represent, at maximum, about 5 per cent of the visiting population. About 45 per cent of visitors come on school tours. The rest are casual visitors, the post-war baby-boomers with their children, family groups, and that sort of thing. While veterans represent only 5 per cent of the visitation, they certainly remain our most important emotional clients, with whom we want to continue to have contact for years to come.
We will talk later about the proposed addition to the Canadian War Museum, which would increase our exhibit space by 70 per cent. The green area shows what we have now and the red area shows what we hope to have when the new museum re-opens in the year 2000.
This slide shows the present War Museum on Sussex Drive in the only archives building. Below it is our warehouse operation on Champagne Avenue here in the city of Ottawa. We will talk about plans for the integration of both of those buildings in our programming.
The Canadian War Museum is a museum that deals with a thousand years of military history. We have, for example, displays about Canada's native peoples such as the Iroquois who, in the War of 1812, fought as allies with the Canadian and the British militia.
One of the most popular exhibits is related to the Second World War. This example shows Canada mobilizing in 1939 for the war effort.
One of our most popular artefacts is Adolf Hitler's Mercedes limousine. We have installed adjacent to that a small exhibit on the Holocaust. Only 5 per cent of our visitors are veterans. Many more visitors are younger people who do not know much about the history of the Second World War. I have actually heard children come in and remark on the "neat car", as well as the "neat uniform" of the SS officer depicted nearby. We quickly point them to the other side of the hall and tell them that this is what those people stood for -- death, destruction, the master race, the Holocaust, and those types of lessons of war. That area has become important in our museum program.
Since the museum examines both war and war-related history, it is important to touch on the social effects of war. I direct honourable senators to this diorama which depicts the important role played by women in the Second World War, how that changed society's view of the role of women, and how Canada was one of the main industrial producers for the war effort. In 1943, Canada devoted 80 per cent of its GNP to the war effort.
I direct honourable senators to another dioramic view of a Bofors Gun made in Canada manned by a crew of the Royal Canadian Navy.
The Air Force also played an important role. We do not own the national aviation collection, those war planes are owned by the National Museum of Science and Technology, but we occasionally borrow an airplane from them for exhibition purposes.
Our Hall of Honour is a most important area that I should like to talk about for a moment. When the taskforce report was written in 1991, The Canadian War Museum had not had the opportunity to make many improvements. Military history stopped at D-day, June 1944. Nothing much went on after that.The support of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation enabled us to complete the chronological story of Canada's military history from the earliest period to the modern day. We are now able to present a complete picture of our military history. We focus on the human side of war.
The slide I am showing you depicts our Hall of Honour. In 1990, the museum displayed a collection of about 4,000 medals which was of great interest to collectors, but we quickly became aware of the fact that 95 per cent of the viewing public did not understand its significance. We, therefore, replaced the medal exhibit with this Hall of Honour which depicts the military careers of Canadians.
For example, one display is devoted to Billy Bishop. This includes a written biography describing how he became Canada's leading allied flying ace in the First World War and how he won his Victoria Cross. It also includes some important artefacts.
Adjacent to the Billy Bishop display is one devoted to Michael Ralph, an outstanding soldier. Most Canadians have never heard of Michael Ralph. He was the first Canadian killed in Bosnia in 1992. In one of the most incredibly emotional ceremonies I have ever participated in at the War Museum, Michael Ralph's widow and two young daughters presented us with his uniform and medals.
This room is devoted to our Canadian heroes from the earliest days to the modern day. Some won the Victoria Cross, and will be familiar to our viewing public, but some of them are unknown. They are symbolic of the millions of Canadians who have served, and the 114,000 who died.
One of your committee members made the point that we should be able to put names to our heroes. This is one vehicle where we are doing just that.
We have temporary exhibits so that we can rotate the display of our half a million artefacts, an incredibly large collection. We have 11,400 works of war art. This example of "Vimy Remembered," is a retrospective of 80 years after the Battle of Vimy Ridge. The medals in the centre are those awarded to Lord Byng of Vimy, and were loaned to us by a collector who purchased them recently.
The demography of our visitors is changing. Often, half of our visitors are children. This slide depicts our Discovery Room. This is a hands-on room for young visitors who come with their parents to learn about our military history as well as what is happening today.We have what we call "replicas" or "robust originals." Instead of insisting that small children do not touch the displays, in this area we encourage them to handle all the equipment and uniforms.
We are heavily involved in special programs and commemorative events. This particular slide shows a program we put on last summer with National Defence to depict Canada's modern military. It gave us the opportunity to showcase the modern military, and it put DND in a very positive light.We hope to continue that relationship.
We are involved in a wide range of commemorative events. These slides from 1995 depict parades and other commemorative events to honour the memory of 50 years ago when the Second World War ended.
We were recently privileged to be part of the recovery of the DC-3 that crashed in Burma. I went to Burma for the funeral. Our planners are considering an exhibit to honour those six men who perished. They are an example of the sacrifices made by Canadians in the Pacific theatre.
At Vimy House, our warehouse, which is an annex to the War Museum, we have 11,400 works of war art which we display during travelling exhibits and in the museum. A visit to 330 Sussex Drive will not be complete unless a visit to Vimy House is included. One can do any kind of research in the library. We have 18,000 books and 5,000 reams of archival material.
This next slide shows one of our favourite guests, Hartland Molson, who has donated very generously to the museum. He is one of our patrons and a former Hurricane pilot. He helped to set up our new library.
Senator Cools: Not a Hurricane, a Spitfire.
Mr. Glenney: Thank you.
Formerly, our large artefacts were locked away in the warehouse, but we have initiated a program to keep our warehouse open. It is Operation Open House in the museum rectangle and there we display our large artefacts such as machine guns and heavy weaponry.
The next slide depicts our collection of Second World War trucks which were built in Canada and supplied to all the allies.
That is a quick overview of programming at the Canadian War Museum. When I return later in the afternoon, I will outline for you where we hope to be in the year 2000.
Our plan is to build on the successes of the past. With the cooperation of our donors and volunteers, we have made some progress in the last five years. We hope that will continue.
I will now ask Mr. Joe Geurts to give us a administrative and corporate overview of the Canadian War Museum.
Mr. Joe Geurts, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice-President, Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation: Unfortunately, I always have to give you the dry part of the presentation, that is, the numbers. It is certainly not as entertaining as Mr. Glenney's areas of discussion.
In response to a number of questions asked last week and the commentary I heard this morning, I have put before honourable senators a set of four tables which explain the Canadian War Museum budgets since 1990-91 to 1997-98. I will try to place that in a corporate perspective in terms of government funding and some of the other issues surrounding budget decisions.
I shall attempt to take you through graphical depictions of three of the lines on the first page of the package we have provided. I will then be available to answer any questions you may wish to ask about any of the other associated material.
The first item I should like to draw your attention to is the subtotal under the line, "Canada War Museum budgets". In 1990-91 when we became a corporation, the Canadian War Museum's budget was $3,096,800. In 1997-98, the budget is $3,013,415. There have been some adjustments and changes over this period.
Senator Jessiman: Is that in present day dollars or in 1991 dollars?
Mr. Geurts: Present day dollars for the year the budget is allocated.
Below that I have also indicated that there has been a number of changes in addition to the basic operating budget.
As Mr. Glenney mentioned, on the next line you will note that the corporation added $1.7 million over the period 1993-94 to 1995-96 to assist the War Museum in refurbishing or adding to its galleries. On a third chart at the back there is a list of what we did with those monies.
I would ask now to move to the next slide.
This slide reflects our total government funding on an annual basis since 1991 -- and, again, these are in current dollars. In 1990-91, when we became a corporation, the total amount of government funding provided to our corporation was $39,934,000. You will see that in the first line under the bold heading "Government Funding" on the very first page of your package. You will note that in the year 1997-98, government funding, excluding moneys that we now get for our properties, since we have now taken on responsibility for those, is $29,121,000. Thus, since 1991 the corporation has suffered cuts in excess of 30 per cent to its government funding -- and those are detailed on the next page in your package to show you the individual amounts, which we can discuss if you wish, as well as how they were allocated by individual museum.
In that particular chart, I indicate that of the total reduction of some $13 million since 1991, $12.7 million has been inflicted on the CMC and $488,000 has been taken from the CWM funding.
The final thing we can draw to your attention -- again to demonstrate the point I have been trying to make -- is that in terms of the Canadian War Museum and its percentage of the government funding which we receive, which has been on a steady decline, it has risen from an amount of 7.75 per cent in 1990-91 to an amount now, in 1997-98, of 10.3 per cent.
That is a very quick overview of these charts. As I say, numbers are always very dry to explain.
I would like to recap the three points. The current budget of the Canadian War Museum for direct operating, without any one-time capital expenses or special projects, is basically the same as it was in 1990-91. However, as the honourable senator points out, it is obviously worth less today than it was then. In addition, the corporation has suffered cuts of some 30 per cent in its basic operating funding since 1991. During that period, we have attempted to maintain the Canadian War Museum at its basic level because of the fact that, as was identified in the long-term strategic plan we provided to you last week and in the corporate plans we have tabled in Parliament, the corporation believed that the war museum needed support and needed to be a priority of the corporation.
We have tried to do the best we can within the environment that I present to you of 30-per-cent budget cuts.
That concludes my presentation.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you for your presentation. Assuming that we increase the museum to the size that is planned, will there be enough space to display all that you have presently in storage?
Mr. Glenney: No museum ever displays everything at once. You want to have a reserve and you want to be able to rotate things because of the wear and tear of just being on display.
There is a two-prong thrust. First, the exhibit space on Sussex Drive would increase by about 70 per cent, and that will give us more space for large artefacts as well as delicate things like war art. At the same time, we have also opened up our warehouse, Vimy House, to the public. That will give us another 30,000 square feet of exhibit space for the large artefacts.
Right now, we are displaying a little over 1 per cent of our collection. Many major national museums, such as the Imperial War Museum, might think they were doing very well if they were displaying 5 or 10 per cent of their collection. With our added exhibit space and what we are able to offer at Vimy House, as well as through such programs as special guided tours in areas of the collection which are difficult to open up wide, such as the art vault, we are able to show much more. It would be difficult to give a percentage, but in the year 2000, the average visitor would have much more to see than he or she does now.
Senator Jessiman: You said the average museum shows about 5 per cent of their total?
Mr. Glenney: Yes, 5 per cent or less.
Senator Jessiman: You show about 1 per cent?
Mr. Glenney: Right now, without taking Vimy House into account.
Senator Jessiman: When you increase the space, can you suggest what percentage you will be showing? Will it be 2 per cent or 1.5 per cent, or what?
Mr. Glenney: It is difficult to estimate the percentage because Vimy House will display large artefacts. One hundred tanks and artillery pieces fill a large amount of space, while we may have 3,000 medals in a vault one-quarter the size of this room. I think I can safely say that we will easily double the amount on display.
Senator Jessiman: So 2 per cent?
Mr. Glenney: Perhaps 2 or 3 per cent. We would be moving towards a more acceptable scale in the museum world. It is difficult to state a figure because we have the problem in designing our galleries right now. Currently, we display a Spitfire aircraft. That is one artefact. However, if we took that out, we could display, say, 30 paintings or 100 medals. That is also a comment on the wide range of our collection.
Senator Jessiman: You spoke of the plane that went down in Burma. Do you know whether there is anything on display regarding the approximately 60 men who were killed in Ostend in 1944 as a result of an explosion which blew up about 12 motor torpedo boats, including eight or nine Canadian boats?
Mr. Glenney: We do not have anything on that right now. I do not know if we have anything in our collection that refers to it, but it certainly sounds like an interesting chapter of history. I would like to learn more about that.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know for a fact that there were only two Canadian flotillas of motor torpedo boats? One was the 65th Flotilla, eight boats, known as "longs," with four torpedoes each, and the other was the 29th Flotilla, eight boats with two torpedoes each, all of which by the end of the war were gone, either by mines or by enemy action, such as being hit by shells from destroyers, trawlers, or whatever. I have tried to look for information on them. I do not think there is anything about those two flotillas.
Mr. Glenney: There is nothing on display. We could check in the collection. Perhaps I could speak to you at the break and get more information.
Senator Jessiman: I assume you have lots of information on the Corvettes.
Mr. Glenney: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: And on the mine sweepers that swept the channel before D-day?
Mr. Glenney: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: And on the one aircraft carrier we had?
Mr. Glenney: We have a nice model of the Bonaventure, yes, sir. That is on display on our third floor.
Senator Jessiman: And, I assume, on other coastal craft like Fairmiles?
Mr. Glenney: Those things are interpreted from time to time, yes, sir.
The Chairman: Mr. Glenney, I think you just found out how important it is to veterans to have the story told of their particular unit. As you can gather, Senator Jessiman served in those squadrons to which he was referring.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Glenney, thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions about your role. You are Acting Director General?
Mr. Glenney: That is right.
Senator Kelly: You are the major guide on the way in which the mandate of the war museum will be carried out.
Mr. Glenney: I would be responsible to the Chief Executive Officer and then through him to the board for that, yes.
Senator Kelly: I am trying to get you placed in the hierarchy. You are responsible to the Director General of the Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Glenney: Yes. I am responsible for all aspects of the daily operations of the War Museum. I report directly to Dr. George MacDonald, the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. My colleague Mr. Geurts is our Chief Operating Officer, and he gives me functional guidance and great assistance. We are on a daily basis operationally in touch with each other. Dr. MacDonald is responsible for all of that to our board of trustees.
Senator Kelly: I understand the hierarchy. I am not trying to corner you on anything. I just want to understand.
This morning we were given a description of the mandate of the Canadian War Museum. I should like to go over that mandate again, to be sure that I understand it. As we understand the museum's mandate, it is: 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.
Mr. Glenney: Basically, that is it.
Senator Kelly: All right. When you start putting together advice on how that mandate should be carried out -- and you must be a key figure in that -- with whom do you seek counsel? You are a young man. I do not think you served in any of the big wars.
Mr. Glenney: I am a post-war baby boomer.
Senator Kelly: With whom do you seek counsel? Do you talk with members of the legion or with veterans of both wars?
Mr. Glenney: That is a good question. I have been in this position for a relatively short time. I have also been Director of Operations and Director of Collections and Research at the Canadian War Museum.
We have done several things in the last ten years. First, we have our "Friends of the Canadian War Museum." You will hear from them later. They are a good resource because some are veterans and some are modern peace-keepers or NATO types. In addition, we have had some good ad hoc relationships, with everyone from members of the Royal Canadian Legion to various veterans' groups.
We have had good relations with individual veterans, depending upon the project. For example, when our Korean War gallery opened, we held a large opening ceremony and invited all the Korean War veterans. We had a relatively ad hoc relationship with them up to that point. Selected veterans spoke to us and gave us memorabilia for the gallery.
Senator Kelly: You did talk to some of those people before you prepared the demonstration?
Mr. Glenney: Yes. This is an evolutionary thing, too. Today, in the museum world, consultation is a more organized thing than it was in past years. That is a direction that we have moved towards in the last several years.
Senator Kelly: But you agree that it is important.
Mr. Glenney: It is extremely important. As the other honourable senator mentioned, there are all sorts of stories with which we are unfamiliar. For example, occasionally one veteran who works in our workshop gives me a lesson on the artillery used in the Second World War. The other day, he showed me how to strip a Thompson submachine gun on my lunch hour.
Senator Kelly: That is great. I could have shown you that also.
In thinking about the audiences that you are trying to reach, would you agree that, in particular, young people should be a target group?
Mr. Glenney: I agree 100 per cent. Young people are our most important target group, for several reasons. First -- with no disrespect intended -- the veteran community is declining rapidly. I say that with all due respect and affection.
Senator Kelly: We are "reducing in numbers," not "declining"!
Mr. Glenney: Point taken.
Children and non-veteran adults represent approximately 95 per cent of our visitors at the museum. We must tailor our program to them because they are relatively unaware of what happened in our military history. For many of our visitors, the Second World War represents their grandfather's time period. To them, the First World War and the Boer War might as well be the War of 1812.
If we are to offer commemorative programs, first, we must educate our visitors. It is not enough to put an artefact on display and let it speak for itself. We must say: "Do you realize what "this" is? Do you realize that it was made in Canada and was used by Canadians here, here and here. This is from your grandfather's time, but the reason for you being here today in this manner is a result of this." There is that whole preamble before you can present, in some cases, even the most simple of artefacts. If we do not do that, our visitation will continue to decline, the museum will not be seen by younger people as relevant to the 21st century, and the memorial will be lost for all time. This history is not being taught in schools. Our museum is one of the few places where you can learn about it.
Senator Kelly: I am not trying to use up all the time here, but I am interested in how proactive you are. If you believe that young people represent an important part of our community and you see school visits declining, what can you do about it?
Mr. Glenney: First, about five years ago we began a guided tour program where our "Friends" helped to provide services such as guided tours. School children can come to the museum and speak to a veteran, or a member of the modern Canadian forces, or a military history buff. Approximately three years ago we started an education department. We have hired former teachers to develop curriculum relevant to the Canadian War Museum and to provide guidance in relation to the curriculum that is established by Quebec and Ontario. In addition, we have our Internet web site, which is very popular with younger people. We can reach them all across the country. With everything from school visits, to the museum, to the electronic media, we are rapidly trying to target that younger audience. It is one of the most important things that we can do.
Senator Prud'homme: We received a document which states, in part, that the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Jewish War Veterans of Canada would like to make a joint statement in response to the controversy.
Who sent us this document?
The Chairman: That is not part of their presentation.
Senator Prud'homme: Senators Cools and I should like to know more about it.
The Chairman: I distributed that document for discussion later. I had hoped to have it for distribution at our in camera meeting but I did not have it at that time. When I received it, I had the document distributed to the committee members.
Senator Prud'homme: That changes my approach to this week of debate concerning the museum. I can now ask about the other interests I have concerning this subject. I am glad you stopped me in time.
I am pleased to hear that you concentrate on young people. One of the most important things that I do when I welcome children who are visiting Parliament -- and I have been doing so for 34 years this week -- is that I take them to The Memorial Chamber here. I am extremely professorial when I do that. I demand total silence. I tell them that it is a chapel and I explain about it. I have done that for over 30,000 people. They do not know about it, as you have said.
Do you have a similar explanation at the War Museum as we do in The Memorial Chamber -- that is, where we demand silence and we explain that 60,000-plus Canadians died in the First World War, 45,000-plus in the Second World War, and 526-plus in the Korean War? We even have a corner for Newfoundland, which was not then a Canadian province. After 1949, we made a special book for those veterans from Newfoundland. We now have the Merchant Navy. We explain the significance of their participation.
Millions of new Canadians know nothing about Canada's participation for freedom in Europe. My oldest brother served as a volunteer. He quit school in 1939 and served in Europe until 1945. It does not matter if veterans are diminishing. Some people call them many names, some of which are horrible. Of course they are dying out and are growing old -- some graciously and some with great difficulty. That does not matter. It does not mean that there should not be an interest there. The Canadian War Museum should teach visitors about these veterans and put the emphasis on Canada and the Canadians who went to fight for freedom.
New Canadians -- and I say this with respect because half of them were my electors -- must know where we stood. You must know what it meant, in the First World War, to send 1 million people abroad. It is unbelievable, taking into account the small population that we had at that time. At that time, our population was less than 15 million.
You can excite young people by exciting their curiosity about things they do not know. That is what the museum should concentrate on. You said something about that unfortunate Nazi car. If there is no explanation about that car, of course children will think it is a nice car. They have to know that it is the car of a monster.
How do we do that? Well, there are many ways. Children are not taught about this today. They do not know, and they must know, about the participation of everyone in Canada in the great wars. They do not know about les Canadiens français or the Indians or the Métis. Who will tell them? That is all we have here -- the memorial.
You have a big responsibility to concentrate on Canada's participation in the world wars so that people, from generation to generation, will know about that participation.
I have seen people come to Parliament Hill every year to look at the names of the dead in the book located in the Peace Tower, and they cry. The names there could be your grandmother, your grandfather, your uncle, or your father. The names of the fallen are in the book, and every day a page is turned. However, the children do not know about that. Who will tell them? That is why we have museums.
Many people go to see the Rembrandt exhibition, for example, but the people who knew him personally are diminishing in number also. That is what you said earlier. The people who have known war are diminishing.
I would hope that by the end of this week you will know that you have a group of supporters in the Senate. Our job is to watch these developments.
You have that kind of program. That was my point.
Mr. Glenney: I can best answer by saying that I agree with your sentiments.
In my next presentation, later this afternoon, I will tell you more about our new memorial chamber and other things that we would like to bring into the new Canadian War Museum.
When a group of children come in, the first thing we do is take them to our orientation area where we have large photo blowups showing Canadian soldiers from around the world in all wars. There are slogans on the wall in the orientation area. One of them says, "114,000 Canadians have died in the 20th century alone in warfare." Another slogan says, "War affects everyone." There is a picture of a Canadian soldier helping a little French child in the First World War, for example. You have to bring the children in, sensitize them, and tell them that they are almost in a sacred place. I say that in all seriousness. Once you have done that, it is incredible the attention they pay, as we take them through our various exhibits.
Now that we are actually able to take them through all the wars right to the modern day, they certainly have a good foundation when they leave.
I agree with everything you said. This is why we are so excited about the potential of an addition to the museum so we can do an even better job in the future.
Senator Forest: I was interested in the declining amount of funding for the museum and in the state of the collection. However, just out of curiosity, how did you acquire the "neat" car?
Mr. Glenney: That is a very interesting story. It was captured by the Americans at the end of the war. It had been badly shot up by small arms fire and 20-millimetre cannon fire. It was then brought to the United States, and somehow a private collector acquired it and then sold it to another private collector who restored it. In the early 1970s, that collector donated it to the Canadian War Museum, and it is been on display ever since.
Senator Forest: I understand that you can only display a certain amount of the collection at one time. I am wondering about the state of the collection that is not on display. You talk about a warehouse plan. Is it deteriorating because of the lack of funding? Do you have the wherewithal to keep it in a state that is proper for viewing?
Mr. Glenney: The two strongest corporate priorities at the moment happen to be the addition at Sussex and acquiring better quarters for our collection. At Vimy House right now, we are holding our own. The art vault, for example, is climate-controlled, although it is fairly cramped. Our large artefacts are stored in the warehouse, which used to be a bus barn. They are out of the weather; they are stable.
Every year, one of our staff is involved in a major restoration. For example, we now have about 30 of our heavy vehicles in running condition, all the way from a 1936 Ford half-track to vehicles used in peace-keeping. We are doing quite a good job at the moment, but I think we can always do better. In a museum, you would always like to do a better job.
The artefacts are not in peril at the moment, although the corporation has indicated very strongly they want to get us better quarters to assure us that the collection survives into the 21st century and ultimately the 22nd century.
Mr. Geurts: For the information of the committee, the corporation had attempted to replace Vimy House, as we call it. In 1994, we made a very strong commitment to the War Museum by putting forward a Treasury Board submission to acquire a site called the Land Engineering Test Facility, which is out in the east end of the city. Unfortunately, they gave it to the RCMP, who could afford it. There is a dilemma in that the estimated cost of replacing that facility is somewhere between $15 million to $20 million.
We are in the midst of preparing yet another submission to look at other options to replace the leased facility with another leased facility, but not at $15 million to $20 million. It may be $1 million a year, or something of that nature. We are exploring another option, to see if it can be afforded. It is an identified priority, as well, for the corporation.
Senator Chalifoux: Who advises you? You say that you are ad hoc and that you have veterans. Did you look at the PP Veterans Association or the Queen's Own Rifles Veterans Association?
As you might surmise, I was not in favour of changing the uniforms and getting rid of all of our proud history of the regiments. Do you have anything in the museum regarding our different regiments and the part each one played, such as Royal Edmonton Regiment? The list goes on and on. What about the Royal Winnipeg Rifles in Hong Kong? Have you done anything in that regard?
Mr. Glenney: For the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Hong Kong, we opened a special exhibit gallery -- a permanent gallery -- on the Battle of Hong Kong. Both regiments -- the Royal Canadian Rifles and the Royal Winnipeg Rifles -- are mentioned there. That exhibit was recently augmented by the donation to us a few years ago of Company Sgt. Major John Osborne's Victoria Cross, who was killed at Hong Kong.
Other regiments are featured. A few years ago we put together an exhibit called "Tradition of Valour," which highlighted the role of the Princess Patricia's and the Van Doos. At another time, we focused on the war art of the Canadian Cavalry, the Strathcona and other regiments. At times, we will zero in on specific regiments.
We have memos of cooperation with about 15 military museums and institutions. We are also a strong part of the organization of military museums of Canada. That means that we have an automatic plug-in to all these groups. Depending on the priorities of the moment, we will get a little team established and go after them.
For example, when we did "Tradition of Valour," we established a team, which included myself, other museum staff, and members from both regimental museums. We shared artefacts and programs back and forth.
In addition to looking at the Canadian Forces as a whole, we will look all the RCAF. As I said earlier, we had a program about RCAF air crew in Burma. We have done the Royal Canadian Navy. We try to zero in on these groups.
With the advantage of 500,000 artefacts, we have rotating exhibits for years and years to come without ever getting stale or repetitive.
The Chairman: I should like to enter into an argument with you about the value of Hitler's car, but I will leave that for a private argument. I have already publicly expressed my view that I do not think it is of much value in telling Canadians about the contributions of servicemen.
A few years ago I was going through the museum with my two brothers who are both veterans, one of them of the Korean War. In the Korean section there was a video showing of the Princess Pats, accompanied by a couple of tanks, digging into the side of a hill. I thought that was an excellent idea.
Ahead of us was a group of Korean veterans who recognized one of the soldiers in the video and said, "There's Charlie." He said that Charlie would be surprised and pleased when they told him they had seen him in the video. Someone else said, "No he won't, because I will remind him that he had hair then and did not have a pot belly."
While films may not be of that much interest to veterans, I think they are an excellent means of teaching school children. Senator Kelly was asking earlier about the displays on your tours for school children. I should like to see more of them, and I would advise you to use actual film footage. There is lots of footage from World War I and World War II. I will admonish you, for God's sake, do not get Galaxy and the McKenna brothers in this. Keep them out.
Senator Cools: I should like to welcome the witnesses. I wish to support what Senator Phillips said about The Valour and The Horror. The subcommittee, led by Senator Marshall, that studied the issue of the treatment by the McKenna brothers of Canadian veterans in The Valour and The Horror concluded that Senator Phillips' view was and is still widely held among many veterans.
In the past several days we have seen enormous interest in the newspapers in these hearings. The Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs holds many meetings and there is rarely any interest in them. However, there is much interest in this topic. The entire press gallery seems to be out today, which is somewhat unusual. To them I say, "Welcome. Come again and again."
This morning the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Heritage Canada, Mr. Peters, went to some length to describe to us the independent relationships that exist between ministers and such Crown corporations as yours. The premise is that your corporation is an independent one with very wide leeway for its own action. Some of us only poke our noses in when we think something is going terribly wrong. Bearing in mind that you have that independence of action and that considerable resources are placed at your disposal to conduct yourself independently, I should like to know what this controversy is about. You are an independent group, you say. I should like to know why and how this controversy has arisen and what you plan to do to resolve it.
Mr. Glenney: That is a very complex question, as I am sure you can appreciate. I will attempt to give you a good answer to it.
There are a number of things. Part of it is about the fact that each generation interprets history in its own way for its own requirements as to what it needs to learn from it. A question that might be of relevance to one generation may not be as important to another.
It is certainly about the survival of the War Museum. I have been gratified to see the amount of attention paid to the museum because it shows us that all the work we have been doing for the last several years has not been in vain, that people care deeply about the War Museum. I also think it is about the fact that in our country veterans often feel that they are not as well known as veterans may be in other countries. My perception is that British or American veterans may feel that they are more welcome in their own country. In Canada, men and women went to war and fought bravely and nobly for years. When they came home and took their uniforms off, their efforts were forgotten. Because the war happened somewhere else, it is not as well known here. In many ways, Canadian regimental histories are better known in Holland than here.
I think this is about the fact that Canadian veterans and historians feel that Canada as a whole does not yet give enough credit to military history in general. This is about ensuring that military history is put forth properly and that, if anything new is added to our existing program and mandate, it fits with that.
As to how and why this controversy came about --
Senator Cools: Perhaps you could tell us exactly what the controversy is about.
Mr. Glenney: In very brief terms, the Canadian War Museum is proposing, through our corporation, to make a major addition to the structure on Sussex Drive and, within our existing mandate, to expand several programs. Most of the controversy, as far as I have been able to deduce, centers around whether the Holocaust, in the form it is being proposed and as I will explain later today, is relevant in there.
We have had the Holocaust as part of our World War II story for eight years and it has been well accepted. We did a special exhibit on Anne Frank which was well accepted. Two out of three of our visitors in recent surveys have indicated that they want to know more about the Holocaust as part of World War II. Part of the question may be what is the appropriate scale. Our corporation has one view. Various people have their own views on whether it is enough, not enough, too much, or whatever. I do not think it is so much about whether the Holocaust is a relevant topic as it is whether it should be at the War Museum and how much space should be devoted to it.
On the philosophical side, Canadian veterans rightfully feel ignored in this country. Canada does not pay enough attention to them compared to what other countries do.
As to how this came about, we have been working on the proposal for the addition. We chose to go to the public very early in the process with our proposed concept to ask for feedback. We did not have a lot of information about the colour of the walls and what artefacts would be displayed because it was too early in the process. Currently, we have an academic committee working to establish the historical foundation of the Canadian relevance of the Holocaust. Therefore, I cannot tell you what it will look like or exactly what the themes will be. This is difficult for some people. They want to know exactly what would be in a Holocaust gallery. We chose to tell the public about this early, before we had much information, so we will have to wait and see. Many people would like to know immediately what it will look like and we cannot tell them that right now.
We plan to resolve the issue through sessions such as this. We have had several briefing sessions with veterans groups, museological groups and other concerned groups to explain what we are doing and why and asking for feedback and advice.
At one presentation some people were very critical of the Holocaust element. At another presentation the main concern was the structure of the roof because we have just come through the big ice storm. The concerns of people depend upon what groups they are from and what is important to them.
In order to resolve the issue we need more communication and further research to give people an idea of exactly what we are proposing. It is. These sessions are part of a logical, healthy process. We are gathering information and feelings. I believe that the final product will be a good one.
Senator Kelly: That was a good answer to a very difficult question. However, I would like to examine your answer further.
You acknowledge that we do fall short of explaining the military history of Canada to Canadians, that perhaps the lack of interest stems not so much from the nature of Canadians but from the nature of the effort or the lack of effort we have made. Nonetheless, the key issue of your mandate is to be a national memorial to Canadians who served in the war and present the military history of Canada, and we are deficient in that.
No one can argue, here or anyplace else, about the extreme importance of not losing anything in terms of the Holocaust and the hideous chapter it wrote in world history. There is no question about that. My question does not diminish that position; that is a given.
Given the fact that it was clear to you that we were not doing a good enough job in presenting the story of our military history, how did you decide, in moving towards an expanded facility, that the Holocaust would have a more desirable location there than having its own very important monument but not there?
I know this is leaping into the centre of the argument, however I cannot relate the two things. You acknowledge, at the beginning and throughout, the importance of our doing a better job in dealing with the military history of Canada -- the people who signed up, wore uniforms, went out, did all the various things that needed to be done. However, in the same breath, when you have had a chance to expand, you said "let us set that aside for the moment and deal with this, which is really a separate issue."
Mr. Glenney: To clarify, when I say that we have not done a good job, I mean we as a country. George Stanley wrote a book entitled Canada's Soldiers: The Military History of an Unmilitary People. That is basically the ethic I am talking about. Within the Canadian War Museum, we have raised our exhibits to a certain standard and level. We will be expanding the existing program. We will take what has worked in the past, keep the best of the best, and expand other features -- for example, more heavily into the memorial side of our interpretation of military history.
As part of the expansion, a Holocaust Gallery was thought to be a good idea as an element. However, the idea is not just to add a new area to the museum and plunk a Holocaust Gallery in there; it is part of an overall plan.
If you were to go to the War Museum today, you would see certain elements and remember them. If you came in the year 2000 or 2001, when we open, you would see the best of those elements recycled and improved. You would see more emphasis put on the memorial aspect; another gallery would be a Holocaust Gallery, to talk about why it was so important that Canada fought in the Second World War, and just how evil the Nazis were. Even that basic fact, the evil nature of Nazi regime, to many young people is just news; they never heard it before. That was the idea. It is all part of an improved program. Certainly the idea was not to improve the Holocaust Gallery and not to do something about the First World War or the Boer War.
Senator Kelly: What you are saying is that you agree that the Holocaust installation is important because people are not sufficiently aware. I agree totally. However, you go on to say that you want to build an empire to be sure you can capture it and not have it stand at another place. You want to build it into your bailiwick. I do not find it in your mandate, that is the problem.
Mr. Glenney: It terms of our mandate, I would direct you to the phrase "to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada..." As in all civilized countries, the impact of the Holocaust had a tremendous effect upon us as a country, in terms of our looking into such things as human rights, investing in ourselves on policies of racism, and that type of thing.
As part of the history of the Second World War, it is part of the global story. One item we may have to talk about in a new museum is what was occurring on the Russian front, to put the whole aspect into perspective. It is part of being involved in a global war.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Glenney, you and I have both been involved in empire building -- I on the sidelines and you in the centre. You have just described the route perfectly: Let us get a little outside the basic mandate and grab a little more and a little more. In the process, you blur the central issues that are all being lumped together. Nothing seems to come through. You have a grab bag. It is like a midway. That is not what the War Museum is supposed to be.
Mr. Glenney: Perhaps when I give my presentation later, where I will be showing you the model in more detail, many of your concerns will be clarified. We will show the proportion and basically what a visitor to the museum would see in the year 2000. The point is well taken. I understand what you are saying. It is a valid comment. It will be clearer when I explain how it works in the whole aspect.
Senator Cools: Perhaps when you return, Mr. Glenney, you could amplify what Senator Kelly has raised, which is the issue of the museum as a commercial enterprise or the commerce of museum-building and empire-building and the need for departments to expand. We know a significant amount about this subject in this place, as senators. Perhaps, when you return, you could address that head-on.
The business of a museum, as far as I am concerned, is the relation and the narration of history, and there are places where very reasonable compromises must be made between what I would consider truth and expedience.
Mr. Glenney: Yes.
Senator Chalifoux: I have some grave concerns. Your mandate, in part, as Senator Kelly has so eloquently stated, is to examine Canadian war history. However, nothing has yet been mentioned about the War of 1812, on the Fur Wars of the Northwest and Rupert's Land; and nothing has been mentioned about aboriginal veterans or Métis veterans, on the issues surrounding aboriginal veterans and what happened when they lost their status, their land and their identify, because they fought for Canada. I should like to know if you are considering addressing that issue.
Mr. Glenney: Yes. Thank you for mentioning that. To clarify one of the earlier slides, one of the dioramas I am very proud of in the War Museum right now is a diorama of a native warrior from the War of 1812, an Iroquois warrior who fought, typical of the hundreds who fought, in the War of 1812.
Currently in the War Museum you can go through all the galleries starting with the early contact, when the Vikings first came to North America, the War of 1812, the Seven Years' War, all through. The aboriginal period is certainly something in which I am very interested, as I did my master's thesis on the Indians in the War of 1812.
The role of Canada's native people is extremely important. What we did with the mannequin of that warrior from the War of 1812, to show the continuum, was that when we went up to the Second World War gallery to depict Canadians in the Italian campaign, we used the same Iroquois warrior casting for the face of one the Canadian soldiers. Many Native Canadians enlisted and fought with great distinction in the Second World War, and in Korea as well.
In our Korea Gallery, we have a wonderful photograph -- I am just using certain examples that come to mind -- of a father and son sniper team and they are both Canadian natives. The father is a veteran of the Second World War; the son is about 19. In the photo I referred to, they are standing looking at the sniper rifle. You can tell that the father is extremely proud to be there in service with his son.
In terms of other Canadian groups, we have a very interesting photo of Japanese Canadians in the Canadian Army in the Second World War. We use that as a jumping off point to talk about how the Japanese were interned in the Second World War but that by the end of the war they were integrated into the army and actually did very well in the last phases of the war.
Again, we are limited by the amount of space we have. Even with our addition, we are only scratching the surface. However, I do guarantee, both from my personal interest as well as museologically it is the right thing to do, that the history of the early period, the aboriginal warriors, not only 200 years ago, should be addressed.
Senator Chalifoux: The Métis faced resistance while fighting for Western Canada.
Mr. Glenney: When we redo our galleries, we will be doing a better job of our 1885 area. We will be telling both sides, I hope objectively and fairly. We have acquired recently some very interesting Métis artefacts from 1885. For example, there is a nice Winchester rifle with brass tacks that was taken at Cut Knife Hill. Artefacts such as this will be able to show both sides museologically. You can show them to young kids and say, "This was actually carried by a Métis warrior who fought for what he believed in 1885," and that type of thing. I agree that it is something that is important to us.
Senator Chalifoux: I have a musket from that era.
Mr. Glenney: We will talk later.
Senator Phillips: Thank you very much, Mr. Glenney. We will be hearing from you later on in the afternoon.
Our next witness is General Ramsey Withers from the Task Force on Military History Museum Collections in Canada. We have asked him to confine his remarks to the Southam task force in 1991. I believe General Withers was a member of the task force. He has also submitted a private brief on his personal views. Please proceed and tell the committee about the task force.
General (Ret'd) Ramsay Withers, Task Force of Military History Museum Collections in Canada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you about the task force. In the time available, I think we have to do an overview and then see what questions you might have.
I must start a little while before it began. Why did it occur? Why was there a task force? The starting point, in my view, was the 1988 Dominion Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion in which a strongly worded resolution was passed decrying the sad state of the Canadian War Museum. At this point I would ask how many of you saw the museum back in 1988, both sites, 330 Sussex and Vimy House.
Senator Phillips: I did not see Vimy House.
Mr. Withers: I will then go into detail as to why we said what we said.
At the time, the Canadian War Museum was ill-equipped and ill-funded to properly preserve and present our military heritage. At the 330 Sussex site back in 1988, history ended with D-day. There was nothing about the Italian campaign. There was essentially no air force story. The battle of the Atlantic was not there. The Korean War was not there either. Three decades of peace-keeping and then what has become more the operation of the forces today, peacemaking, situations such as Bosnia which are very close to conventional war, were not there.
Furthermore, some 40 per cent of the display space that the museum did have was lost in 1983 to make way for construction next door of the National Gallery of Canada. The War Trophies building was demolished, and therefore you could not show any large artefacts at all.
The building at 330 Sussex lacked the proper environmental conditions required for a museum. There was, in 1988, no space or place to sit down a group of students and show them some of the great film footage that is available. You could not do that in the museum back in 1988. You could not do any audio visual, and you could do no interpretative presentations or talks. There were not even any visitor facilities. You could not hang up a coat, but you could go to the bathroom.
Vimy House, the warehouse for most of the collection and in fact a recycled Ottawa Carleton Regional Transpo garage, was lacking in basic fire safety and climate control parameters to the point of being assessed as high risk. The only proper, climate-controlled, custodial space in the building was the art vault which held $1.5 billion worth of Canadian war art, a collection which the National Gallery decided in the 1970s was not appropriate for it to keep.
The staff side of the museum was similarly short-changed. In fact, if it had not been for the devoted contingent of principally veterans and former service volunteers working on the collection at Vimy House, the situation would have been much worse.
In 1988, the National Museums Corporation, then responsible for the CWM, was preoccupied with two major construction projects: the new national gallery and the Laurier site of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The National Museums Corporation had little time, money, or concern for the Canadian War Museum. Its board of trustees counted neither a veteran nor a member with military experience or interests.
Furthermore, governments over the years since the end of the Second World War have not really placed much priority on dealing with military heritage matters. Speaking as a Korean War veteran, I illustrate this by the fact that Korea's years, 1950-53, did not appear on our national war memorial until 30 years had passed. We did not get this Korean War discharge button until the late Honourable George Hees was Minister of Veterans Affairs in the mid-1980s, and the Korea Volunteer Service Medal was not struck until the late 1980s.
That was the situation in 1988 when the minister responsible, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, acted by having a veteran appointed as a trustee and by creation of the Canadian War Museum advisory committee.
As you know, the 1990 Museums Act created four new Crown corporations. You heard about them this morning. Responsibility for the Canadian War Museum was at that time passed to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. The first board of the new corporation included two veterans, the late Dr. Duncan Fraser, a distinguished Nova Scotia scholar and veteran of the Second World War, and most particularly the Italian campaign -- and Duncan would never let you forget it -- and me, a Korean War veteran. Most important, the chairman of the board was Mr. Peter Herrndorf, who is currently CEO of TVOntario and who spent his boyhood in the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation living in a home two doors away from Gestapo headquarters.
The board gave its immediate attention to the plight of the CWM. It appreciated that, in light of the severe resource constraints looming on the near horizon, cuts were coming and that there would need to be a specific definition of the needs of the museum in a form which would command a top-level government commitment. Accordingly, the board recommended the creation of this task force and that it be under the authority of the three ministers most involved -- communications, veterans affairs and national defence.
The approach was accepted. However, as you have already observed -- because I think you have had copies of the task force report to read -- the mandate was considerably broadened, not only to deal with the issue of the CWM but also to deal with the history of all of the military museum collections in Canada. You have seen the results. And while I shall restrict my remarks this afternoon to the Canadian War Museum part of it, I should also say that identification of the 160 collections that exist from coast to coast is a valuable product of this report.
We held very extensive investigation and consultation right across the country -- and that includes visiting 89 sites, having 15 round-table meetings, individual meetings with many other people, and interviews with senior federal officials, with provincial officials, representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Museums Association, provincial museum associations, and others. A questionnaire was sent out to 2,000 people, to which we received 200 responses; as well, we received a large number of written submissions from many people. We submitted our report in 1991. It took us seven months. We were originally given six months. We were late by one month.
Unfortunately, I think the biggest outcome was a great photo opportunity for the three ministers. The desired top-level government commitment never came about. There was no new money to implement the recommendations. It seemed that the task force's opinion that the institution was the embarrassment of Ottawa's museological scene and the down-at-the-heels flagship for museums with military history collections would continue.
In fact, the funding system of the corporation as a whole got worse, as fiscal year 1991-92 saw the first cut to its reference levels, followed by a constant stream of other cuts. When I finished my term as trustee in 1995, the cumulative total of cuts to the corporation was $7.5 million. Incidentally, from that point on, there was no longer a veteran trustee on the board; nor was there any member on the board with long military service. The Canadian War Museum Committee was not continued, and it has only recently been re-established. There was a gap of two or three years.
However, I was pleased by the fact that even though funding was being reduced and we really got no concrete action from this report the people who did take it to heart were the members of the board. Under the diminished funding circumstances, they said that the war museum is the number one priority, and they stood by it. So while the resources are much less than we had hoped for when we submitted this report, substantial progress has been made, in my view, at the 330 Sussex site. Today, if you were to visit, you would find exhibitions presenting our military heritage right up to 1996. The Italian campaign is there -- Duncan Fraser would be pleased; the Battle of the Atlantic is there; Korea is there; peace-keeping and peacemaking are there for all of us to see.
In collaboration with the corporation, to meet some of the funding problems we are talking about here, the Friends of the Canadian War Museum organized a very ambitious private-sector fund-raising campaign called "Passing the Torch." That campaign is making steady progress towards its goal. The corporation has replaced what we thought was going to be a much more modest expansion under Passing the Torch with what you have been briefed on today. I do not need to say anything more on that.
Let us talk about Vimy House. Over the years since the submission of the task force report, the corporation has made a number of attempts to find a replacement for Vimy House. When the Department of National Defence announced that it would be closing the Land Engineering Test Establishment in Orleans in the National Capital Region, there was a potential for a perfect site to replace Vimy House. The LETE is a very modern facility and, even more important, has enough land to permit a fully operational presentation of the many vehicles in the collection. The collection has First and Second Word War vehicles that run, and so we could have done re-enactments that would have been wonderful.
The fight was lost at Treasury Board. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police won because they were offering more money.
However, significant improvements have been made to Vimy House, to the point that it now can be open to the public; it can play a much needed role in making our military heritage more accessible.
In conclusion, while I cannot be but disappointed that the high hopes we had on the task force some seven years ago have not come to pass, I am heartened by two facts: The first is that since 1988 the CWM has been enhanced and now presents evidence of all our military heritage right through to 1996; the second is that the expanded model will more than adequately allow, finally, for the first time, a gallery for the war art, will provide a proper theatre for all sorts of presentations and interpretive events for the education of current and future generations, and will vastly improve its conservation capability.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will do everything in your power to see this new goal achieved through the work of this committee -- a goal that will satisfy much of what my colleagues and I wanted to see when we did this.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Withers.
Senator Jessiman: Is it true, sir, that the recommendations that were made were unanimous?
Mr. Withers: It is, indeed; yes.
Senator Jessiman: On page 32, the task force report reads as follows:
...since CMC's mandate is to preserve and display the panorama of Canadian civilization, along with material from other civilizations, we believe that it could rarely if ever give our military heritage adequate treatment in context, setting and interpretation.
Then skipping a few lines, the report continues:
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 it place alongside other federal museums as a recognized centre of excellence.
Then Recommendation 16 itself reads:
We recommend that the Minister of Communications introduce legislation in 1991 to establish the CWM as a separate museum within his portfolio.
Would you not agree, sir, that that would be a goal that we should strive to achieve?
Mr. Withers: In the longer term, yes. I say that because I would not want to see anything diverted, in terms of resources, from achieving the goal that we set out to achieve. I think the substance, in other words, of what we can get into the museum and display to all Canadians and use to teach young Canadians is more important than anything else. This recommendation is for later.
Senator Jessiman: You said that when the Canadian Museum of Civilization was first set up there were two persons who had some military background, yourself and Duncan Fraser. I looked very quickly through the list of trustees today. I do not know whether they are related to veterans but certainly none of them, that I could see, have anything to do with veterans.
The veterans are still here. They are older, but they are here. You would think that they should have it separate. You recommended it, provided the resources were there. You would still recommend it, if the resources were there. Is that not correct?
Mr. Withers: Let me back up to what I said earlier. I said we had three. We had two trustees. Peter Herrndorf, the chairman, grew up in occupied Holland. There were three people -- including a fairly important person, namely, the chairman -- who were totally devoted to doing what they could for the Canadian War Museum. Therefore, seeking legislation for independence, in a very dry funding climate when you have that kind of top level support, did not seem important to me.
In 1995, Peter Herrndorf was no longer there; Duncan Fraser was dead; and I retired. My term was up in 1995. To the best of my knowledge, no veteran has been appointed since. For a time there was no Canadian War Museum Advisory Committee. It has recently been re-established, I understand. There was a gap there.
Senator Jessiman: I am suggesting that, if resources were there for the Canadian War Museum, it should have its own corporation and its own board of governors. Most of the members of the board of governors should have some connection with past wars or wars that are going on today. Would you not agree with that?
Mr. Withers: That would be the best of all possible worlds -- that is, if the resources were available. The problem is that there has been no political will to do anything.
Senator Jessiman: That is why we are here.
Mr. Withers: That is what it all boils down to.
Senator Jessiman: We are politicians and we are trying to do our best.
Mr. Withers: Well, good luck!
Senator Forest: I wish to clarify what you said. I understood you to say that in the long term it would be preferable to have the Canadian War Museum as an autonomous group?
Mr. Withers: Yes. However, when I say that, I raise another issue, namely, what about the National Aviation Museum? The air force memorial is located in the National Aviation Museum. Some say that the real thrust of the National Aviation Museum is civil aviation and the telling of Canada's civil aviation story. I would then opt for a new Canadian War Museum that would bring that together. I would want to see some changes in the National Museum of Science and Technology Corporation. I would also want to see us being able to do something more about the naval side of the Canadian story. It is very hard to do that in Ottawa.
Yes, ideally, there should be a more comprehensive approach.
Senator Forest: Did I understand you to say that you would not want anything to derail the future of this expansion now, namely, what you are talking about?
Mr. Withers: I would not want to see this current project in any way threatened, and I would not want to see a dollar go into administration that could go into exhibitions.
Senator Forest: I would certainly second what you say about the naval history, having been married to a naval veteran.
Mr. Withers: The museum has entered into some good memorandas of agreement or cooperation which have the effect of doing as much as they can, within their limited resources, for two coastal museums: the maritime museum in Halifax and the maritime museum in Victoria, B.C.
The Chairman: General Withers, I am a bit puzzled by your recommendation that the full implementation of recommendation No. 16 be left for later on, as I believe you described it.
That recommendation was made over seven years ago. You, as a person who signed that recommendation, are now appearing before us and saying, "Yes, I would still like to see it, but further in the distance." I find that to be most confusing and contradictory. If it was an adequate recommendation seven years ago, what has happened in the mean time to make you change your position and say, "Yes, I still want it, but I want it further in the distance." Will you explain that to me?
Mr. Withers: It is perfectly clear. It is also perfectly clear that they did not do anything about increasing the resources, either.
Why should we devote our energies to an administrative matter when there are other things that are of a higher priority at this time? If we had received the commitment to a new Canadian War Museum with a replaced Vimy House, which is the principal recommendation, then we would have been happy. Recommendation No. 16 is a good recommendation that is still valid, provided there is a concrete answer to the questions in this book.
The Chairman: You have intrigued me by saying "concrete answer" to the real problems in this book. I have gone through it fairly thoroughly. I will not ask you to go into any great detail on them, but I would like you to name what you consider to be the real problems, please.
Mr. Withers: With respect to the Canadian War Museum, the principle recommendation was No. 15, which states that the minister recommends, by 1995, that we refurbish and extend the Canadian War Museum building on Sussex Drive for the interpretation of Canadian military history and the display of the museum's collection of war art and construct a new building near the National Aviation Museum at Rockcliffe to house the museum's research collections and its library, research, curatorial, conservation and administrative functions. That is to say, a replacement for Vimy House. These are the two most important recommendations in the whole book.
The Chairman: You say "construct." Later on, we will hear from an individual who sent me a fax concerning his views after the committee was established. He suggested that we have a look at the Connaught building. I will not ask you to comment on that before this individual gives us his testimony but could another building, such as the Connaught or what was formerly part of the archives on Sussex and is now used by the National Research Council, be obtained to keep the cost down? I anticipate that we will run into that problem for the next few years.
Mr. Withers: Yes, sir. We looked into this on the task force. There was a development plan done for the museum before 1988. In that development plan, a number of sites were examined along what we might call the ceremonial route or, in other words, in the heart of Ottawa. One such site was the present archives building on Wellington Street. I do not think we looked specifically at the Connaught building but we certainly looked at the NRC building.
I suspect that if we looked at the Connaught building we would find much the same result as we did when we looked at the NRC building. Namely, the cost of providing climate controls and all the other requirements which experts say are properly required for a museum -- the kinds of things that exist in the National Gallery and in the Museum of Civilization -- would be higher than tearing it down and starting over again.
I am also told that one feature of the new plan for 330 Sussex Drive requires new construction to meet environmental standards, so that a significant portion of the completed site will be satisfactory. The Connaught building is fine but I think its renovation would be very expensive. The other problem is that its usage would not answer the Vimy House problem.
The Chairman: What about the NRC building with its grounds?
Mr. Withers: That would really be a Sussex replacement. That is the building that we examined, and we found that the cost of making those changes would be hideously expensive.
The Chairman: What about the grounds on that site compared to the present grounds around the War Museum?
Mr. Withers: It is certainly a prettier site. It would possibly also have the attraction of easier access to the Ottawa River, if the museum ever did get itself a naval vessel. Back in my day, the museum looked at getting a minesweeper, when the bay class minesweepers were laid off on the West Coast. As a matter of fact, considerable work went into that project, thanks to the volunteerism of one retired admiral Dan Mingie. The plot was to bring that ship around here in her original war paint with the original equipment on board and operate her as a living naval vessel, rather like as the HMCS Sackville is operated in Halifax.
A great deal of work was done and the study went through, but we foundered on the question of cost. It would have been too expensive to try. As far as it concerns the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, and speaking as a member of that group, we are presently facing a major challenge in getting to the financial goal that we set for "Passing the Torch." It is essential that we do so to keep our part of the bargain in getting this addition. I guess we will have to leave out that project, but it would be a possibility on that site. I think it is a little closer to the water.
The Chairman: I believe that as a member of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, you were consulted regarding the planning of the proposed expanse to the present museum?
Gen. Withers: As friends of the organization, yes, we most certainly were consulted.
The Chairman: Thank you for a very interesting and forthright presentation. We appreciate hearing you because of your long association and experience with the task force and with the museum.
We have back with us Mr. Glenney and Mr. Geurts. I will ask them to proceed.
We have been joined by Mr. Mark Muise, MP for West Nova. We welcome him. Also, the two MPs who were here this morning and had to duck out for Question Period were kind enough to return.
Mr. Geurts: Thank you very much, sir. We would like to present an overview on the evolution of the architectural program that we unveiled in November here in Ottawa. I will start with a very short description of where we have been to arrive at this model and then Dan will fill you in on the existing plan for the renovations in the sense of what programs and tools will be provided with it. I will quickly go through some slides, of which you have been given copies.
From November 1993 to March 1994 we conducted an initial feasibility study on the program for Sussex Drive to determine whether it was possible to construct an addition at 330 Sussex Drive. That study determined that it was possible. Several options were put forward, carrying a $6-million price tag.
Around July of 1994 we started the process of assessing LETE as an alternative for Vimy House. We completed a Treasury Board submission in the fall of 1994, and the government rejected our request for that particular site. At the same time, in the fall of 1994, the Friends of the Canadian War Museum began planning for a $6-million fund-raising campaign. At that time, it was believed that there was a significant level of support within a variety of communities and that it was possible to raise the entire $6 million for the addition at 330 Sussex Drive.
As they moved into the planning of that and got into the June 1995 period, realism took over once again and we identified, together with the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, that a more realistic fund-raising target would be $2 million.
At that time, the corporation made the commitment to the friends. A board resolution was passed committing the corporation to provide $4 million of its own resources and funding levels to this project when it was appropriate.
In January 1996, the Canadian War Museum began to plan the development of the use of this new space that would be added to the building. I bring that forward to point out that the planning of this addition and its programs only started two years ago.
In June 1996, the friends officially started "Passing the Torch." That campaign has been highly successful. At the present time, it has raised $2.5 million in pledges and cash. It has only been underway officially since June of 1996, or for some 20 months.
In September 1996, we produced the first draft of the floor plans for the new addition, which at the time was considered to be a box or an addition on the back. I think some of you saw the RFP put out in April 1997 in search of an architect for this particular addition. Those floor plans are in that RFP. This is when they began to emerge, in September of 1996.
Senator Jessiman: Does the RFP refer to a proposal or a tender?
Mr. Geurts: A request for proposal.
In April 1997, we did, in fact, put out a national tender for selection of the architect for the addition. As you all know, in June 1997, Jack Diamond of Toronto was selected as the architect for this particular project. As a consequence of Mr. Diamond joining the project, we then moved to a new concept, which was developed with the Canadian War Museum. After meeting with the team at the War Museum and all of the staff, as well as the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, we reassessed the environment for fundraising based on the program the War Museum put together. We established a new budget for this project of $12 million, of which $5 million was to come from fundraising through the "Passing the Torch" campaign, and $7 million from the corporation.
Again, the board of trustees or the board of directors of our corporation passed a resolution. It was "official," if you wish, that the corporation would commit a certain level of resources to this project, when it began, and when it would be completed.
That is a quick view of how we got to where we are today. I would ask Mr. Glenney to describe the present plans for the content of that new building.
Mr. Glenney: Senators, with your permission, I would like to move to the middle of the room and speak about the model. This is the model prepared by Jack Diamond & Associates to give us a good three-dimensional view of what the new museum will look like.
I stress that this is an architect's proposal. There are no detailed design drawings or anything like that. This is an idea from the architects with respect to how we can proceed. It is an imaginative concept, but it is still a design concept and proposal.
We want to stress two words within this new Canadian War Museum -- the first is "commemoration" and the second is "education." In the 21st century as the memory of war recedes, only by education can we ensure that commemoration remains alive.
I will go through this and give you an example of what a visitor coming to the new Canadian War Museum would see sometime in the year 2000.
Over the years, the staff at 340 Sussex Drive have worked very hard to overcome several limitations to the building. The first limitation is the lack of space. After we lost the trophies building, we could not display large vehicles or heavy artillery. Another problem is the lack of environmental controls. The humidity in our building goes from dryer than at Death Valley in the winter to almost tropical in the summer. This plays havoc with a lot of delicate artefacts.
We also have a problem with wiring. If we have an opening or a reception in some of our exhibit galleries, we have to turn the lights off to boil a kettle to give someone a cup of tea. We are dealing with wiring from the 1920s.
The final problem is a lack of presence on Sussex Drive. When most people who are unfamiliar with us drive by, they think we are an office building for the mint or some kind of storage building for the National Gallery. That is because we are set too far back off the main route.
Sussex Drive is a good location because it is on the ceremonial route. Since Canadian military history is so important in Canada, it is fitting that the museum be on the ceremonial route in Ottawa in the downtown core. It is also a good location for visitor access, but there are many problems.
I will tell you why we are so excited with Jack Diamond's proposal. He has allowed us to work within our existing mandate to improve on the best of what we have been doing. We will not be adding new things to our mandate because we do not have to. There is a lot of potential for us within the existing mandate to offer new and exciting programs.
The general concept calls for a second L to be built. Initially, when the architect designed the old public archives building, this part was built before the First World War and the other part was added in the 1920s. Originally, he wanted to build another section here to make a box. Unfortunately, the Depression and the Second World War intervened.
Jack Diamond's proposal calls for us to build a wing on the side and a wing on the front. That covers our courtyard with a modern glass roof. That will provide many benefits, which I will describe in a moment.
The concept will enlarge our exhibit space by 70 per cent. Overall, we will have a space that allows us a 12-month operational focus. The concept enhances the heritage features of the building.
First, we will have an enhanced presence on Sussex Drive. The building at the front will have a facade. You can see the bronze rectangle.
If I could draw your attention to the painting on my right, the Canadian War Museum represents a thousand years of Canadian military history. We want an artistic commission established so we can create an heroic crest or a sculpture that would instantly identify us, not only as the Canadian War Museum, but as Canada's national military museum that interprets all of Canadian military history. That is one example of how it could look. It has men and women from a thousand years of Canadian military history in a long line or a parade. That is just one option with respect to what it could be.
You see large stone work on the front. One option to enhance the memorial aspect is that we engrave the names of 114,000 Canadians killed in wars in the 20th century. We could also add the names of men and women killed in peace-keeping, thus enhancing the commemorative function. Other visitor amenities include a boutique, admissions and a general orientation area.
Moving inside to our covered courtyard, we have a number of options. The other painting shows an artist's concept of how the new covered courtyard would allow 12-month programming. We could hang aircraft from the ceiling. We could display other large artefacts. There could be an orientation to military history. We could bring many of the large items over from Vimy House and say, "If you like what you see here, come over and see our Vimy House program as well."
On special occasions such as November 11, we have commemorative programs for Remembrance Day. This and other special days, such as June 6, could be held indoors without worry of inclement weather.
That would be further enhanced by a new theatre. We would be looking to establish a 200- to 250-seat theatre, which is also a multi-use area. The advantage of the theatre is that it is on the same level as the courtyard, so that people can flow in and out for a commemorative event such as on November 11.
Another advantage of the theatre is that it could show the many accurate documentary films that are available, as well as other footage, such as Canadian army newsreels.
The National Film Board has just uncovered 11 hours of original First World War footage; as well, there is Boer War footage. We have had the opportunity to do lectures with scholars and museum staff. With the modern satellite links available, along with modern electronics, we can link up with schools and institutions to have a lecture in Ottawa which is broadcast around Canada or perhaps to or from other museums such as the Australian War Memorial.
In other areas, we will be building a memorial chamber. Honourable senators, we were speaking previously about the Book of Remembrance. We are looking at an option in which The Friends of the Canadian War Museum are interested, that is, an electronic book of memory, where we record the names of the 114,000 war dead, and add photographs, service records and details of the engagements in which they fought. This program could be upgraded continually to make a moving commemorative program which would be educational for young people coming in to see activities that these men and women were involved with, and how they gave their lives. With modern electronics, this could be striking.
The Hall of Honour that I mentioned earlier, the descendent of our new medals room, would be moved to the first floor to further enhance the memorial feature, relating the story of 42 Canadians and what they did to win their medals. That adds to both the memorial and the educational function. We say what they did was important for Canada -- here is what they did, how they did it, and their story.
Temporary exhibit space would also be located in this area and in the large area as well so we could rotate more of the collection. The Holocaust exhibit area would be on the bottom floor of the old wing. Just to give you some context, that would be approximately in the area now taken up by the War of 1812 and the Rebellion of 1837.
To return to the Holocaust concept and to clarify how this all started, first of all, about eight years ago, we put some Holocaust-related artefacts next to Hitler's car to show the dark side and the real face of the Nazi regime. That was well accepted by the public, who thought it was important that it be there.
We displayed an Anne Frank exhibit in 1992. It was an extremely well received educational program, about not only the diary of Anne Frank but also the Holocaust in general, and even into such fields as racial prejudice.
We have done surveys which indicate that two-thirds of the people visiting the museum want to learn more about the Holocaust. Basically, since this has evolved in this manner, it was part of a program we had done for many years, and we felt it was an important part of the program and would enhance the overall commemoration of the Second World War by saying how important it was that we fought there.
The Discovery Room I mentioned earlier, the children's hands-on area, would be moved to the first floor as well. The first floor would then include the overall orientation to the museum, the concept of commemoration and education, and why it is important to have a military museum and why Canadian military history is important. On the second floor would be our chronological gallery.
If you have visited the Canadian War Museum lately, you will know that you can walk through a thousand years of military history but that the problem is that it is on three floors. When a guide takes a school group through, they go first to the first floor, get them nicely oriented, get them in the right frame of mind, starting with the earliest Native Canadian warfare, the Seven Years' War, the War of 1812, and end up with the Battle of Vimy Ridge. One goes next to the second floor for the Second World War.
The problem is that you lose two or three members of the school group along the way. They get fighting back and forth with each other, they lose their focus, and you must take a few minutes to get them settled down. Even if you are a casual, very interested visitor, it breaks your train of thought.
In the new museum, our chronological galleries, for example, we will take those parts of the galleries that work the best. We will improve them by redesigning them, by using modern electronic aids, and by rotating some of the artefacts we have acquired over the last few years, and we will install it all on the second floor. Thus, when you get off the elevator, you will go through a thousand years of military history in a loop without breaking your train of conversation.
On the third floor, we are further enhancing that area by installing an art gallery, where we can display, on a rotational basis, some of our 11,000 works of art. Our art collection contains works from the Group of Seven, who were war artists in the First World War, to Second World War artists like Alex Colville. We will be able to have rotating exhibits there. Our office and other workshop areas will be housed on the third floor.
In the back will be a memorial garden area where we can do re-enactments. We do not have much parking space at the museum, but we do have arrangements with the National Gallery, for example, allowing us to look after that problem.
In conclusion, we are looking at taking the best of what we have done, while continuing to improve the mandate of education and commemoration, to provide a fantastic opportunity for visitors in the new millennium to learn more about the importance of military history and to ensure that it remains a viable, world-class museum, able to compete with other museums in a modern way.
Senator Jessiman: The subject of Hitler's car, the story of Anne Frank, and the Holocaust are all related, and there is no question in my mind that they should be together. However, the question is: Should they not really be in a museum of their own?
I was hoping, in your answer relating to Hitler's car, that you would tell us that it was Canadians who captured it. However, the Americans did that. Someone was kind enough to buy it and give it to us.
I would be interested in seeing the information on the Holocaust. I am sure it is an attraction, and will continue to be so; however, it does not really follow the mandate for the War Museum itself.
Mr. Glenney: If I may reply, sir, it is certainly a good argument that you are making. The problem is, though, that if we are talking about the generations who lived through the horrors of the Second World War, they instinctively know and understand the evil face of the enemy that was encountered at that time. The problem is, my children's generation do not know that. They do not understand that.
If we were to have a Canadian War Museum where we only had the Canadian side -- I will use another example, and I do not mean to put them in the same league at all. To understand the War of 1812, we must understand what was going on in the minds of the Americans, what their army was all about, and how they were trained and equipped. If we are going to understand a war -- granted, the emphasis and the main concentration must always be on Canada and Canada's forces -- we must also understand the face of the enemy.
As we move further away from that period, and as those who were there are no longer able to help us that much, we have to rely more on the museum's educational aspects.
Previous generations would know remember that, instinctively; however, my children's generation does not. They must be taught that. They need significant education because it is so distant to them.
Senator Jessiman: Without question, they should be taught about racism and the elimination of a race. That could be housed in the Museum of Civilization, or in a museum of its own. To the extent that some Canadians were responsible for releasing some of those who were in those camps, it is necessary; but that is a very small part. If you are going to make it 15 or 20 per cent of this complete museum, it is out of proportion.
Mr. Glenney: In terms of the proportion, let my clarify. The only thing we have done, in terms of actually designing that area, is to say that we would require about 5,600 square feet. Of the proposed new structure in the year 2000, that would be represent approximately 6 per cent of the floor space. Certainly, we had never thought of any more than that. We want to have much more room than that for the chronological story of Canada. There will be more room than that for the courtyard, for the large artefacts, and what have you.
Senator Jessiman: Those are much smaller figures than I have read. I hope you are correct. I was reading more like 15, 20 or 30 per cent.
Mr. Glenney: You may be referring to the Imperial War Museum in London, England, where the figure is much higher.
Senator Jessiman: No, but I have read about that as well.
Mr. Glenney: The concept is 6 per cent of the floor place, including the old and new facilities.
The Chairman: I would ask you, on behalf of the committee, to give an explanation of how much is taken up by the Holocaust Museum and so on. There are many stories. Frankly, when you say 6 per cent, I find it difficult to believe that, and I would like to have a more thorough explanation.
Mr. Glenney: Mr. Geurts has more figures.
Mr. Geurts: I think this sheet was provided to all committee members two weeks ago.
The Chairman: Yes. Unfortunately, we did not get much cooperation in getting that material beforehand. It arrived this morning when we started our meeting, which is a little late.
Mr. Geurts: I understand that this piece of paper was provided in the book that was passed out to all senators, and it was provided last week.
These figures are self-explanatory. Mr. Glenney made reference to the 560 square feet. These figures are in net square metres.
Senator Jessiman: Sorry, you did say square feet, and I would understand that more easily.
Mr. Geurts: I understand you simply multiply by 10.
The existing building, in net square feet, is 38,000 square feet. That particular space consists right now of 3,000 square feet of public space which is the public amenities and educational space. There is 22,330 square feet dedicated to exhibition space for both temporary and permanent exhibitions, and there is 12,440 square feet for administration, offices and those kinds of things.
After the expansion, we will be going from approximately 38,000 square feet to approximately 60,000 square feet. What is being increased significantly is the public amenities, including the public theatre. Educational space is going from 3,000 square feet to 7,700 square feet. We are more than doubling the amount of space. Mr. Glenney has highlighted that the biggest addition is the theatre for 200 to 250 people. We would add significant space, from approximately 22,000 square feet in dedicated exhibition space to 32,600 square feet of exhibition space, and that does not include the Holocaust gallery. That includes the additional space dedicated to the permanent exhibitions, which is the chronological gallery on the second floor and the addition of an art gallery on the third floor. We do not now have any space where we can regularly rotate our art.
In addition, there is 5,600 square feet for the Holocaust gallery, or 560 square metres.
Senator Jessiman: Can you tell me how much the new addition will be in feet?
Mr. Geurts: The total increase in the new addition is approximately 22,000 square feet.
Senator Jessiman: What is the present building now?
Mr. Geurts: The present building now is approximately 38,000 square feet.
Senator Jessiman: When you were talking 6 per cent, you were talking about 6 per cent of the whole building.
Mr. Geurts: Once upon a time, we were talking about gross. If you are focusing on net, if you look at the numbers, the 560 would represent, approximately, according to my math, about 9 to 10 per cent.
Senator Jessiman:It represents close to 25 per cent of the new addition.
Mr. Geurts: Approximately, yes.
Senator Jessiman: We hope this will not happen, but let us assume that it does and that we have a Holocaust gallery. What about the Russian people who suffered in Leningrad and Stalingrad? What about people from other parts of the world? We are a multicultural country. Certainly there is no one more sympathetic to what happened in the Holocaust than myself. However, I think we are opening a real can of worms if we put this gallery in there and that it will create problems with other people. I am certain that you could get a lot of sympathy and raise money if you build it as part of the Museum of Civilization, and it will be well accepted.
Mr. Glenney: We do deal with some other holocausts, such as Rwanda, which is included in our peace-keeping gallery with an exhibit on General Roméo Dallaire. We will approach it with a team of scholars who are familiar with holocaust issues and world political and historical issues. They will do a history essay for us and tie it together and tell us how this relates to Canada, what should be commemorated to give it a Canadian perspective, which is important to our people. We do not want to copy what is done in other countries. We want to do something that is special to us.
In terms of square footage and interpretation of military history, do not forget that, over at our warehouse, we are continuing to increase the program of accessibility. Starting this summer we will be open five days a week and maintaining that, giving us an additional 30,000 square feet of exhibit gallery over there. It is not high tech. It is an old bus barn, the floors are uneven, and it is not fancy tile, but people can come in and see the large artefacts. We are adding more interpretation to them.We are commemorating the Royal Canadian Armoured Corp and the work of factory workers who built the trucks and made them among the best in the world. We have that 30,000 square feet which is not even included in the figures that my friend was mentioning. Basically, we are adding more and more all the time to try and put it all in focus. I hope that clarifies it a bit.
Senator Jessiman: Once this is finished, how would we compare with Australia in remembering our veterans?
Mr. Glenney: The Australian War Memorial has the advantage of a purposefully built building in a mild climate with indoor-outdoor spaces. They built at the end of the First World War and spent a lot of money. In terms of programming, however, our educational programs and commemorative programs will be every bit as good as what they are doing. They have the flagship building that everyone else would like to have. Even the Imperial War Museum is in a building which was once an insane asylum. It is not really the nicest of all buildings.
As we are opening our warehouse, so too are the Australians, and it is interesting to see the parallels. Back in 1967, as was mentioned earlier, the aviation collection was taken from the Canadian War Museum and given to the Science and Technology Museum. The Australians have the national aviation collection as well. They also have all the military archives, which in Canada are at the National Archives of Canada.
Senator Jessiman: Is the answer 25 per cent or 50 per cent?
Mr. Glenney: We are easily 50 per cent, if not more.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question on the space. You include the enclosed courtyard as space?
Mr. Glenney: We have that as exhibit space and it is also for commenorative areas.
The Chairman: What percentage of total gained space, that is space gained by the addition, is accounted for by the enclosure of the courtyard?
Mr. Geurts: I am looking at the numbers to see if I have it broken out here, and I do not. I can get you an answer by tomorrow morning. I do not have the number with me.
The Chairman: We would appreciate having that in the next day or two if we could, please.
Mr. Geurts: In terms of the measurement of the plaza itself, yes, I can.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Glenney, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation, it was good and clear. I withdraw my suggestion that you are just patching things together; you have a clear idea of the whole that you see as being the ultimate objective.
I do share with Senator Jessiman concern over the Holocaust part of the addition, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I think the Holocaust must be properly presented. I am not sure that it can be done justice in the amount of space that is allocated, and I see the problem arising where you either must find more space there or they, in a year or two or three, move someplace else.
Let me ask you this: If that allocation went someplace else, what would you do with that now available space? Would you have some use for it?
Mr. Glenney: Indeed, we would.
Senator Kelly: Would that improve the ability of following the mandate to create a national memorial to Canadian veterans, et cetera?
Mr. Glenney: For example, if we were to do that -- I am just crystal ball gazing -- what we might do is put in a gallery of 19th century military Canada and then have 20th century on the second floor. That is one possibility. We might use it to display another area of the collection. Basically, if somehow we could magically acquire a war museum four times that size, I could easily fill it and still have room wanting.
Senator Kelly: I understand that, but the point here is that you are contemplating a certain amount of space which currently will be allocated to the Holocaust. If that decision were to be made differently, that space would be available to enhance the mandate that you have.
Mr. Glenney: Here is another way of looking at it: as we just acquired the war art collection in the early 1970s, if we assumed that we had never acquired that, we would still be able to use that space, too, that will now go to the art gallery. I agree with you.
The point is that the reason we are doing so much at Vimy House is that we do have so much to show the public. We want to share it with them, and this is why we are looking at a new Vimy House to expand where we can run and operate the vehicles. The potential is mind boggling.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I wanted the opportunity to withdraw any suggestion that I felt you were being careless in carrying through your responsibilities. You have made it clear that you are not, and you are doing a great job. I just do not happen to agree with you.
Senator Prud'homme: I never try, really, to have the best relationship with the press, but they have a job to do and so do I. Prior to your call to order about that little document, I had spoken with one journalist, and I know that the others are very upset. You cannot be more open than this. I apologize to the others, but as soon as you put on that embargo, I stop. That is open, that is clear, and I want to apologize to those who might feel offended by that.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, you may have to direct your mind to this matter, and the committee may have to direct its collective mind to it.
The Chairman: That is why I want to have an in camera meeting afterwards.
Senator Cools: We should be mindful as well that there are several journalists back here who are dutifully attempting to do their job and they are aware that there is something, so I think that we should attend to our meeting about this matter with dispatch.
The Chairman: You can talk to them after the in camera meeting, it will not be long. I am sure, Senator Cools, they will wait for you.
Senator Cools: One of them has spoken to me, and he is concerned that other journalists may have already seen this document. In any event, I was bringing it forward in a transparent way.
There are those of us who find some of these matters very troubling and feel a moral imperative to at least clear the air on some of it, and we should proceed.
You said that in the fall of 1994 the Friends of the Canadian War Museum commenced planning for a $6-million fund-raising campaign. I am very mindful, gentlemen, that you keep using the word "viability," the viability of the museum. All of us are committed to the viability of the museum and to its success.
Can you tell us who the Friends of the Canadian War Museum are? Can you perhaps give us a list of individuals and organizations, and then, too, can you share with the committee the amounts of money that have been raised by the friends, by group, or by individual, or by organization? Can you share that information with us?
Mr. Geurts: I make the respectful request that I not be asked to answer either of those questions because the two witnesses following us are Jerry Holtzhauer, President of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, and Murray Johnston, who is the head of the Passing the Torch Campaign. Your questions should be posed to those two individuals. I know the answers to the questions, but I think you should get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Senator Cools: Hold on. If you have the answer to the question you may have a duty to tell us, and I do not mind hearing it twice. I would go with the chairman, but I do not mind the repetition.
Mr. Geurts: The Friends of the Canadian War Museum are a non-profit organization which has been in existence for approximately 10 years. The witness following us can tell you precisely how many members they have. They have been involved with the Canadian War Museum for some 10 years, as I say, in their volunteer program. As we demonstrated in our presentation, they recently committed to becoming heavily involved in the museum and to raising moneys for the War Museum only. They initially started on a fund-raising campaign on their own.
Senator Cools: You told us they have already raised $2.5 million.
Mr. Geurts: That is right.
Senator Cools: That number is out before the report.
Mr. Geurts: With assistance and cooperation. We have a development group that is assisting them with the rest of it. They have done a very good job at that and they continue to support the Canadian War Museum. They consist of a variety of individuals from a variety of age groups, a variety of backgrounds. I cannot talk about that matter. Mr. Holtzhauer would be much better suited to respond to that point. I know he also has the figures that will tell you, by group, as to where the $2.5 million has come from. He will be able to respond to those questions.
Senator Cools: Very well.
This $2.5 million that they have raised, are they still in possession of that money?
Mr. Geurts: Any money received, in cash or in cheque, is deposited in the corporation's bank accounts.
Senator Cools: So the corporation has been receiving part of that money. Perhaps you could give us the details.
Mr. Geurts: I do no not have those figures but I can provide them to you by tomorrow. Those moneys are held in separate accounts in the corporation, are managed separately from all our operating funds, and can only be used and will only be used for the construction of the addition, in accordance with the wishes of the donors. We have a responsibility to do that both from a legal perspective and obviously from a public perspective.
Senator Cools: No one here is questioning your integrity in this regard. Our interests in the matters are quite political.
The Chairman: I would like to return to your expansion plans. I looked at your document, and did some calculations, based on permanent display. I feel that in your presentation, Mr. Glenney, you are mixing apples and oranges. Perhaps that is to distract us a bit, and I do not think I am being unfair in that suggestion. You get 950 square metres of new, permanent display area; is that correct?
Mr. Geurts: Can you refer us to the numbers? I have a number of square metres 346 for an increase in permanent exhibitions, and a number of 681 square metres in temporary exhibitions, if you are using this sheet.
The Chairman: I went back into the documents. Maybe I erred. Can you tell us what you have for permanent display space?
Mr. Geurts: What I have is: permanent exhibitions presently occupy 2,014 square metres. It is proposed that after the expansion the number of square metres for permanent exhibition will be 23,600 square feet or 2,360 square metres.
The Chairman: I would refer the rest of the committee to the Canadian War Museum floor area.
Mr. Geurts: That is the floor area on this sheet.
The Chairman: That gives you around 900 metres for permanent display, and of that, 560 metres will be taken up by the Holocaust gallery, so you gain a total of 340 square metres of permanent display for $12 million. Is that correct?
Mr. Geurts: My answer to that would be, first of all, that the Holocaust gallery final design as to permanent and temporary space is not yet complete. Those figures could be correct, but the fact of the matter is, for $12 million, you have an additional 468 square metres of educational and public space added to the building. You have 1,027 square metres of dedicated exhibition space added to the building. You have a 560 square metre Holocaust gallery presently projected to be added to the building. You have 120 square metres of administrative space to be added to the building. That totals 2,175 square metres, so we get 21,000 square feet for $12 million.
The Chairman: I can see by the way you answer questions that you have appeared before parliamentary committees before.
Mr. Geurts: Sir, I have attended a number of them.
The Chairman: Let me get back to my question. Take out the Holocaust gallery from your permanent display space, and what do you have left?
Mr. Geurts: If you consider those two numbers together, of the permanent display space 350 square metres are being added.
The Chairman: Actually, then, the permanent display space gained by this project is divided between the Holocaust gallery at 560 square metres and the War Museum at 340 square metres.
Mr. Geurts: No, that is all part of the same War Museum, sir, in our definition.
The Chairman: In your definition but not in mine.
Mr. Geurts: Yes, and we have agreed to disagree on that subject.
The Chairman: I wanted to point that out. How much additional space do you gain in the chronological space?
Mr. Geurts: That 346 square metres or 3,500 square feet would be basically in the chronological gallery.
The Chairman: I want to point out to Mr. Glenney that, when he talked about putting the face of the enemy forward, I think veterans will remember artillery fire, anti-aircraft fire, torpedoes. These are the faces of the enemy that the veterans remember.
I find it rather strange that, all of a sudden, we are changing the face of the enemy. This is what scares me about bringing in interpretation and revisionism. I prefer that your presentation be factual, rather than interpretative.
Mr. Glenney: First, with respect, in terms of changing the face of the enemy, as I said earlier, we have had an element on the Holocaust for at least eight years. We have always had exhibits of what the Nazis did, and some of the atrocities they committed. I would like to quote from a magazine called "Flap," put out by Royal Canadian Air Force, 39 Reconnaissance Wing. This is written on the occasion of the liberation of the death camp at Belsen. It reads as follows:
Belsen concentration camp will not soon be forgotten by the men of 39 Wing who saw its horrors. If we do not wish to see this war fought in vain, we must make sure that we will never allow the seeds of prejudice and intolerance to be sown among us. Time will tell if the Germans have learned the lesson of Belsen. We must make sure that we have learned that lesson also. It will take unwearying vigilance and clear thinking to make sure that this does not happen again anywhere, ever.
That was written by the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1945. We are not changing our focus. With the greatest of respect, I would say we at the Canadian War Museum are not revisionist historians. We are proud to display the medals of Billy Bishop. We are proud to have our veterans come and visit us. We are going along with the views of this writer 50 years ago.
The Chairman: I do not want you to go back over material you have already covered in a previous answer. We are pressed for time. I will comment in reply to that letter you have just read. I find it a coincidence that it came out in the press this morning.
What additional space does World War I receive? What additional space does World War II receive?
Mr. Glenney: In the design of the new chronological gallery, we have to determine that. I can tell you that there will be an upgraded First and Second World War gallery, just as there will be an upgraded War of 1812 gallery. We are looking at taking out several artefacts and rotating them out.
For example, we have Lord Dorchester's coach that we may remove in order to free up some space in that area. The question of whether we will display Hitler's car in the courtyard, the Holocaust Gallery or the Chronological Gallery still has to be worked out. Certainly there will be good treatment with the amount of space we have. We have a major amount of floor space, percentage-wise, for both the First World War and Second World War.
The Chairman: I think you have already told me that we are not obtaining any additional space.
Senator Jessiman: I am sure you both know Mr. Fred Gaffen. He is an historian at the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Glenney: That is correct.
Senator Jessiman: Is he also the curator of the Holocaust exhibit?
Mr. Glenney: No, he is not the curator. Fred Gaffen has done a lot of research on the Holocaust and he will probably be part of the team that puts it together, but we do not have anyone with that title.
Senator Jessiman: To whom does he report?
Mr. Glenney: To me, sir.
Senator Jessiman: Are you the person who told him that he was forbidden to speak to this committee?
Mr. Glenney: Sir, I did not tell him he was forbidden to speak to the committee. I told him that the corporation had decided that Dr. MacDonald, Mrs. Clarkson, Joe and I would appear here to cover the various points from various levels of our expertise and that if Fred or other people were to speak it would be repetitious.
Senator Jessiman: We have a letter from him in which he says "I am forbidden." I am assuming that you are the person who told him that.
Mr. Glenney: I made it very clear to him that he was not forbidden. I do not mean to be playing with words, but that was not the intent. The intent was that it would be covered by management.
Senator Cools: You say "it would be covered." The committee wrote to Mr. Gaffen twice and invited him to appear before us, and he has declined. Obviously, if the committee wrote to him, it was because the committee believed he had something to say. You have concluded that whatever he had to say would be covered by you, and in an exchange between you and him he took it into his head that you did not want him to be here, and he has declined our invitation. I would be very interested to find out whether you advised him not to appear or whether you forbid him. Perhaps we could get some clarification because this is a very important matter.
Senator Jessiman: His words to us are that he was forbidden unless he received a legal subpoena and he does sign, by the way, as the curator of the Holocaust Gallery.
Mr. Glenney: I am sorry, I have not seen the letter.
Senator Jessiman: You said that he is not the curator, yet he thinks he is.
Mr. Glenney: He has been told. We have talked about that. We have gone through many steps in establishing how that particular project may unfold. We discussed it with Fred some time ago at a very early stage. We subsequently decided to do it a different way. We decided not to use the title of curator and what it implies at this time. The issue of who should appear before you was discussed among Mrs. Clarkson, Dr. MacDonald and me. We agreed that it would be best if I represented the museum and spoke for Fred and the other staff who also asked whether they should appear.
There was no threat or coercion used. We simply determined that from an operational point of view it was better if I spoke because I have more of the facts than he has.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, with the committee's permission I should like to read our letter to Mr. Gaffen into the record, along with the response. Perhaps we could table the letter. It is dated February 1, 1998.
Mr. Fred Gaffen Historian Canadian War Museum 330 Sussex Drive Ottawa
It is signed by the clerk of this committee, Tônu Onu. It reads:
Dear Mr. Gaffen:
Further to my letter of January 30, 1998 inviting you to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs in the framework of its examination of the future of the Canadian War Museum, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the Honourable Orville Phillips has asked me to reiterate the importance the Subcommittee attaches to your appearance before it.
Therefore, I am requesting that you contact me as quickly as possible at 993-4874 so that we may arrange a time for your appearance before the Subcommittee.
Thank for your co-operation.
Yours sincerely, Tônu Onu Clerk
Mr. Fred Gaffen wrote back to us as follows on February 2, 1998:
Mr. Onu,
I am forbidden to speak to the committee about our wonderful veterans and their great contribution in World War II, including their liberation at camps, unless I receive a legal subpoena.
Thank you for your attention.
A proud Canadian!
Fred Gaffen Military Historian Curator, Holocaust Gallery
I am asking you very clearly: Did you forbid him to appear before this committee?
Mr. Glenney: No. As I have said, I did not forbid him. I told him that I would handle it on behalf of the museum and express the view of my level because I was in possession of more of an overall view than he was, and we left it at that. I did not coerce or threaten him with disciplinary action or anything like that.
Senator Cools: I take it that when you return to the museum and speak to him about this matter, you will also have no threat or coercion or disapproval of him.
Mr. Glenney: Fred has been my colleague for ten years.
Senator Cools: Mr. Chairman, I should like to table this letter with the committee.
The Chairman: I take it from your replies, Mr. Glenney, that there will be no objection to Mr. Gaffen appearing at a later date.
Mr. Geurts: Again, let us make it clear. As Mr. Glenney has said, Mr. Gaffen has not been forbidden to appear before this committee. The position which Mr. Glenney has advanced to Mr. Gaffen is that Mr. Glenney is far better able to answer the questions because he has more of the facts. One of our concerns is that Mr. Gaffen would provide opinions without all the facts available to him. Mr. Glenney is far better suited to answer questions.
Senator Cools: I will tell you why I raised that, gentlemen. Every committee of Parliament obviously has what we call inquisitorial and judicial powers. We can bring people before us. However, as you know, those are powers that we use rarely. Life is so much better if things are done in a trustful and cooperative way. One believes that there should be trustful cooperation between public servants and Parliament. None of us are eager to subpoena Mr. Fred Gaffen, but it would be very nice if he could appear before us. Perhaps when you speak to him next, you could suggest to him that it would be nice if he would accept our invitation.
Mr. Geurts: We could do that.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Glenney, your presentation was extremely well done. Has this presentation been given previously to any parliamentary committee, or is it because of the controversy that we suddenly find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation? Has there been any presentation or explanation made before?
Mr. Glenney: As Mr. Geurts indicated, there was an earlier version of this presentation done with essentially just a box on the back.
I will start from the fall of 1997. Ministers Copps and Eggleton visited the Canadian War Museum on October 10, 1997, when we received the $1 million from General Motors. They were presented with the model at that point. That was before this issue became controversial. We had a press conference on November 13, 1997, where the model was presented and the various viewpoints were aired on what we were doing and why. On December 18, 1997, we did a presentation for the veterans' groups. Many of the gentlemen are here. I did a presentation several days ago for the museum committee. It has been done before but not for parliamentarians.
Senator Prud'homme: Basically, there has been no input from, and no knowledge imparted, to backbenchers.
There is also the pending sad and terrible controversy where -- all I will say, bluntly, is that we do not need Americans to tell us how to cope with the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I want to be on record as saying that before Wednesday.
Therefore, members of this committee have never seen this information. Members are unaware of the plans of the special wing, so no reaction therefore.
Mr. Glenney: When Ministers Copps and Eggleton saw it, they said "yes." There was very little discussion.
Senator Prud'homme: What I do not understand is that, to me, the Jewish Holocaust stands on its two feet as one of the most horrible crimes. If you speak to an Armenian, he or she will say that the Armenian Holocaust is at the forefront of their minds. I hope your historians will accurately reflect that. We go from one horrible chapter to another; worse and worse.
The Holocaust can stand on its own feet as the Canadian War Museum stands on its feet. I am of the strong opinion, and I could be wrong, that we are dividing Canadians, and it is very sad. Neither one should take precedence over the other, or one will be diminished. In my view, they are both important, but totally different.
When people visit your auditorium, it is good to represent all the horrors of war. As an ex-British colony, do you talk about the Boer War? I do not like it, but do you understand what I mean? I do not like it, but I speak about this issue. Canada used to be a British colony, so Canadians fought. You must slowly explain what Canada is all about.
We ought also to reflect the horrors of the atomic bomb, two of which were dropped on Japan by the Allied Forces.
Where is the money that is being raised? It has changed over the years. We hear about figures of $2 million, $4 million and now $5 million. Are you telling me that corporate resources of $7 million will not be forthcoming, on the eve of the year 2000 to honour the people who made them big corporations? Our veterans played a great role in the reshaping of Canada's corporations. The stories are unlimited in number. You know that better than I.
Are you telling me that $7 million of corporate resources could not be redirected for the expansion of a new museum even though the Holocaust would be somewhere else?
I have been carrying on another discussions on the Middle East for 30 years in the House of Commons.
The horror of the Holocaust stands on its own two feet. We are in the midst of a controversy. Some ministers, for reasons that I question, were not aware of it. However, veterans are coming to the fore. It is very difficult to extinguish the fire of misunderstanding, each community going after each other's community and going after each other's throat. We do not need that in Canada. This is a multiculturally sensitive country. We are now in the middle of a controversy where both aspects of the argument are equally important.
Can you go ahead with your museum, knowing that there may be another alternative for the Holocaust museum somewhere else?
Mr. Glenney: Mr. Geurts should speak to the issue of finance, but I will do the best I can with whatever resources I have. Mr. Geurts could tell you more about the "what if" question.
Mr. Geurts: The response to that, senator, is that the established budget for that particular construction project is $12 million.
Senator Prud'homme: When you say "particular project," what are you referring to?
Mr. Geurts: I am referring to the 21,750 additional square feet.
Senator Prud'homme: The auditorium and the Holocaust? It means it is a package deal; correct.
Mr. Geurts: That is right. This package deal is $12 million, the estimated project cost, $7 million being contributed from the corporation and $5 million expected to be raised by fund-raising.
If we do not attain fund-raising targets of $5 million, we do not have $12 million. Our corporation will be severely stretched to be able to dedicate $7 million to this project. We decided to make the commitment based on Mr. Diamond's design, particularly around street presence, the addition of the theatre and the addition of the space. The idea of covering in the plaza was not part of our original concept when we talked about $6 million. The project has evolved over time.
The corporation believes that this concept of stretching to the street, of having a covered plaza, is the ultimate goal for 330 Sussex Drive, to establish the Canadian War Museum as a national museum on Confederation Boulevard.
What it contains has obviously created a controversy. But putting that aside for a moment, from a construction or an architectural point of view, the War Museum and everyone who sees this model believes that this is the way to go. Everything we look at says $12 million is the number.
Senator Prud'homme: If I show you a nice cake, complete with all of what could be tempting you, that is the proposal. You go to the corporation and say that it will be a good project, that it could cost $7 million, and so on, right on Sussex Street, either they will buy it or they will not buy it.
In this case they did. Were they to propose something else, who knows if they would still contribute or would continue with a gesture for the year 2000 of $12 million.
The Chairman: I thank the two witnesses. I would love to continue with you, but unfortunately we are already half an hour behind. We will move on to our next witnesses, the Friends of the Canadian War Museum, represented by Colonel Holtzhauer.
Colonel, as you realize, we are running behind. I would ask you to highlight the main points of your brief and allow time for senators' questions. Please proceed.
Colonel (Ret'd) J. W. Holtzhauer, President, Friends of the Canadian War Museum: The Friends of the Canadian War Museum is a group of individuals who are intimately involved with the museum on a day-to-day basis. We are troubled by the current controversy over the issues related to the published expansion plans for the museum.
Specifically, the "Friends" are concerned over the potential effect that these criticisms will have on the future of the museum and the effect that they are now having on the ongoing fund-raising efforts of the Friends that are being conducted for the expansion plan.
In our time before the committee today, we will provide you with our opinions on these issues that you are undertaking to review. As part of our presentation, I will speak a bit about the background of the organization and the aims of the Friends, some of the background on our fund-raising campaign called Passing the Torch, the question of the name of the museum, the rationale for the expansion of the 330 Sussex Drive site, the need for replacement of the storage facility at Vimy House, the keystone of the current controversy -- namely, the Holocaust exhibit -- and the call for the museum to become an independent institution.
While we may disagree in detail with some of the positions we anticipate other interested parties will present to you, we fervently believe that all of the presenters have the same aim: the enhancement of the museum's ability to present and communicate Canada's military history to the public at large.
As members of the committee, you are faced with a task similar to that faced by Solomon: how to reach a conclusion that will satisfy all of your petitioners. We anticipate and expect that you will reach a conclusion you believe will be in the best interests of all Canadians. I hope our presentation will help you achieve that aim.
Our organization is national, non-profit, and public. As of today, we have slightly more than 1,400 paid-up members from across Canada and the United States. We also have some in the U.K. and other countries in the world. The organization was founded in 1987 by a group of concerned citizens as a means of providing a public voice for the museum. Their concern was based on a perceived state of neglect of the War Museum then being exhibited by the federal government.
The aims of the organization are to promote and stimulate interest and give support to the Canadian War Museum, promote understanding, communication and cooperation between the people of Canada and the military museums of Canada, to provide interested persons and organizations with an opportunity to share and develop the museum and the benefits which it may offer, to provide volunteer help to the Canadian War Museum for both the organization and the general public, to promote and organize special events compatible with the approved themes and objectives of the museum, to encourage and support research into the study of Canadian military history, and to promote specific projects or initiatives which may be agreed to by the Friends of the Canadian War Museum and the museum from time to time.
So far, all of our efforts have been expended in supporting these aims. However, for the past five years, we have also expended considerable efforts in a fund-raising campaign in direct support of our desire to improve the museum's ability to undertake its mandate.
In 1991, as you are well aware, there was considerable concern about what was happening with the museum. As a result, there was a task force report. The authors of the report stressed that museums are by their nature accountable to their publics, and how a museum defines its public is vitally important to how it defines its interpretative functions. This assertion acquires specific relevance in light of the various surveys conducted as recently as 1966 and 1967 showing that 67 per cent of museum visitors in recent years have been under 40 years of age. Unlike the past, they also tend now to be family groups and structured school groups.
With regard to its interpretative function, the report concluded that the Canadian War Museum did not as a rule provide a social, political, economic, or military context for exhibits. Not only were there identified large gaps in the museum's coverage of Canada's military history from just before the end of World War II to the present, but it concluded that wars and conflict involve universal issues inextricably related to the history of all peoples and that we need knowledge of past conflicts if we are to understand the present or respond to the future.
The report concluded that the vision of the authors was an institution that continues its respectful role as a memorial to those who have suffered and lost their lives, improves its objective and comprehensive portrayal of Canada's war experience, and develops as a forum for the exploration of a search for a secure peace.
Due to the climate of fiscal restraint of which you are all aware, not much was done with that report. As a result, the Friends decided that they would undertake a fund-raising campaign to improve the infrastructure of the museum. As part of the planning, a firm with fund-raising expertise was hired to determine if there was sufficient public interest to make our campaign worthwhile. The outcome of their survey was positive, and it was decided to proceed. Mr. Geurts said that it started in 1996, but it was officially launched at our annual general meeting on May 8, 1995.
Initially, our plans were based on raising funds through specific recognition initiatives. For example, the Dutch Canadian community was asked to achieve a target of $2 million for the new 250-seat theatre which would be named the Netherlands Liberation Theatre. Similarly, the Jewish war veterans organization was requested to target $1 million as their goal for the Holocaust and Jewish war veterans memorial gallery included in plans for the renewed and expanded museum.
So far, not all of our initiatives have been successful, and our plans have evolved accordingly in order to achieve our objective. You have heard some discussion as to how that has evolved. However, the generous donation of $1 million by General Motors Corp. has resulted in the naming of the forecourt after this company.
It is important for this committee to understand that the success achieved to date would not have been possible without the outstanding support provided by the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Early in our campaign, it became obvious that the Friends lacked both the initial funding and expertise to run such an ambitious campaign. As a result, the campaign became a joint venture between the Friends and the CMCC. In addition to ongoing financial management and administration assistance, CMCC announced it would allocate $7 million from its budget towards the estimated $12 million cost of the expansion. This allocation has made our appeal to the private sector much easier.
Currently, as of today, the campaign has raised just under $2.4 million from the private sector. This amount has been donated by the following contributors: Corporations, $1.25 million; foundations, $798,000; the general public, $323,000; veterans' associations, $24,000, for a total of $2,396,729.
Currently the campaign is virtually at a standstill. Only negligible funds have been received since the opposing views over the Holocaust surfaced late last year. Potential donors are telling our campaigners that they are delaying their decisions due to the uncertainty brought about by the controversy.
Briefly on the name of the War Museum, the report recommended that it not change. There have been some discussions as to whether it should include "peace" and other things. The majority of people that we have canvassed, including the Honourable Sheila Copps, the Royal Canadian Legion, the veterans' associations, and the Friends all say that the name should not change. I believe assurances have been given publicly by both the minister and the chairwoman of the CMCC that it will not change.
My next topic is the expansion of the Sussex Drive building. After considerable examination of the alternatives, the report recommended retention and expansion of the museum's current Sussex Drive site. The Friends continue to support this conclusion.
You have had explained the expansion plans in detail so I will not attempt to do so. However, the new structure and the enhanced old structure will provide improved exhibition, route and space. The new theatre, the covered courtyard, the new gallery and the electronic outreach program will provide our veterans and other Canadians with a memorial facility of which they can be proud.
We implore you not to revisit the question of the site of the museum. We have been too long delayed in getting something done there. The current design has been accepted by all of those who have been briefed on it to date. I say: Let us get on with it.
As to the Vimy House replacement, you are aware of what it contains and its original purpose. A new and modern building should be found. It must be large enough to meet all of the tasks now carried out by Vimy House but on an expanded scale. It should also have space to house much of the administrative staff now in the Sussex Drive site. That would free up additional space at that location for exhibits. As Friends, we continue to push for a replacement for Vimy House.
Next is the Holocaust exhibition. Most of the current controversy over the planned use of the expanded Sussex Drive site concerns the usage of the Holocaust Gallery. The initial concept for the Holocaust Gallery was developed by the Director General of the museum, Victor Suthren, who stated in a paper:
The Special Place will offer the Canadian War Museum a chance to bring home to over 250,000 visitors a year the price of ignorance and hatred in human affairs, and the history of the Jewish people in the face of such evil as a metaphor for all humanity seeking respect, peacefulness, and tolerance. It will allow a ringing statement about the Holocaust, and the courage and sacrifice of Canada's Jewish veterans to our country. And it will make clear in powerful terms why peace is something Canada must always stand for and fight for.
As official policy, the friends support the inclusion of a Holocaust exhibit in the planned expansion of the museum. However, this support is not unanimous amongst members. To date I have received eight letters on the subject. Two were in favour; six were against. In addition, there have been verbal comments both for and against. You will hear the veterans' positions. A number of them who are members of the Friends organization will be stating their positions to you over the next few days.
It appears that the predominant reason for not wanting the Holocaust exhibit in the museum is that veterans had not known about the Holocaust before they went to war, and therefore it had nothing to do with Canadian military involvement in the Second World War. The various veterans' associations who oppose the inclusion of the Holocaust exhibit in the museum have also stated arguments of a similar nature.
It is undoubtedly true that there were myriad reasons why individuals went to war and continued to struggle through to 1945. However, we must be clear that Canada as a free nation had explicit war aims that related directly to the Nazis' treatment of Jewish and other minority peoples. Canada quickly endorsed the Churchill-Roosevelt Atlantic declaration of 1941, and a few months later signed the Atlantic charter condemning Hitler's genocidal policies. These commitments led directly to the formation of the United Nations with its emphasis on human rights and humanitarian concerns. Those concerns are one of the many reasons why we continue to do peace-keeping. In fact, the universal acceptance of the concept of unconditional surrender in 1943 reflected the allied, and specifically Canada's, view of the nature of the Nazi regime.
One of the most compelling accounts of the relationship of specific war aims to the sacrifice of many thousands of Canadian soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women was provided by the chairman of the Imperial War Museum, himself a veteran and past Chief of the Defence Staff of the U.K. forces. Field Marshal Lord Bramall gave two reasons for creating the permanent Holocaust exhibition which he launched in April.
Speaking as a veteran of the Normandy campaign and the final assault on the Third Reich, he said it was the allied forces' discovery of the Nazi death camps throughout Europe which more than anything had convinced them that they were fighting a just war and that Hitler and his most evil regime had to be beaten once and for all.
The second reason was that the Holocaust constituted an integral part of Hitler's war aims and the thousand year Reich he wanted to establish. That thousand year Reich of course included the invasion of North America and the establishment of his policies here.
Although there had been other ghastly examples of man's inhumanity to man, there had never been such a cold, calculated exercise as the Holocaust to wipe out a whole people, organized by tidy staff officers who went home to wives and children in suburban homes, carried out and perpetuated in a most callous and depraved way possible by officers and men who actually got applauded, promoted and decorated for these ghastly crimes.
I know that time is limited so I will simply say that the Holocaust Gallery in the Imperial War Museum is supported by the then prime minister, John Major, the then leader of the opposition, Tony Blair, and it has received congratulation from the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, for its plans to include a Holocaust Gallery in the museum's exhibits.
Senator Jessiman: Could you give us the amounts you have raised so far?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Corporations, $1,251,475.
Senator Jessiman: I missed that one. Veterans, $24,000?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Approximately.
Senator Jessiman: You said that you went to the Jewish community and asked for $1 million.
Mr. Holtzhauer: What was done was they hired a fund-raising committee.
Senator Jessiman: Are these professional fund-raisers?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: You paid them a fee?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Are they still working?
Mr. Holtzhauer: No, they are not.
Senator Jessiman: Was it Victor Suthren who suggested you go to the Jewish community?
Mr. Holtzhauer: No. When they originally started the discussions, it was to determine where money might be raised and what it could be raised for. Murray Johnston, who was the chairman of the fund-raising committee, can speak to that.
Senator Jessiman: Was he one of the people who was paid to try to raise funds for you?
Mr. Holtzhauer: No. He is a past president of the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. He was president at the time and took on the role of chairman of the fund-raising committee when I became president.
Senator Jessiman: Am I correct, though, that when you went to raise funds, someone suggested that what you might raise from the Jewish community is $1 million?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes, that is correct, initially.
Senator Jessiman: Of the $2.4 million approximately that you have raised, how much is designated as have come from the Jewish community for the Holocaust Gallery?
Mr. Holtzhauer: To date, there are Holocaust Gallery pledges of $225,000. Of that, $62,000 has been received.
Senator Jessiman: I am assuming that when you say approximately $2.4 million is raised that you mean it is pledged?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: If you take away $225,000, then you have $2,175,000 available for the veterans, without the Holocaust Gallery?
Mr. Holtzhauer: That is correct.
Senator Prud'homme: You are very welcome here. People who give their time for worthy causes should be thanked publicly.
Mr. Holtzhauer: Thank you. We have many hard-working volunteers.
Senator Prud'homme: Welcome to controversy. I have known 35 years of controversy on similar issues.
Mr. Holtzhauer: The Canadian War Museum has seen more publicity and more interest over the last four months than it has in the last 40 years.
Senator Prud'homme: Perhaps something positive will come from this at the end of the day.
Mr. Holtzhauer: We are looking at this as a positive process.
Senator Prud'homme: As am I.
[Translation]
During the course of your discussions, did anyone close to you draw your attention to the controversy that might erupt?
[English]
That means, in a few words, were there enough people with enough sensitivity to recognize that you were getting into something controversial here and that you should consult more widely? Or, as people of good faith, did you just go ahead with a good plan?
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes, we were perhaps naive. We did let our friends know in our winter 1996 newsletter that we were planning a Holocaust Gallery. There was no controversy. A member of the Legion executive sits on our board of directors. Various members of veterans' groups are patrons of the campaign.
From my personal knowledge, we received no feedback, no comments, until last October 31 when I happened to hear Mr. Chadderton on a talk show expressing grave concerns about it. In all our innocence, we were proceeding along. No one seemed to have a problem with it until that time. As I say, that is from my personal knowledge.
We are now caught in a controversy in which we do not wish to be found by any means whatsoever, as I am sure you do not. Certainly when we started this, we intended no disrespect to the veterans. My father was a veteran. I spent 35 years in the military. My daughter served. My son-in-law continues to serve. We did not intend anything but to try to build a better museum. That was our goal and it is still our goal. Whatever happens, whether the Holocaust Gallery is in there or not, we will continue to work to put that addition on our museum. That is our goal.
Senator Prud'homme: How does one become a Friend of the Canadian War Museum?
Mr. Holtzhauer: I will get your name and address, sir. We will forward an application.
Senator Prud'homme: I am asking on behalf of everyone.
Mr. Holtzhauer: We have an application form. We appear at different military shows and at exhibitions such as the CDA. Our charges are $15 for a yearly membership and $20 for a family membership. The Canadian forces have recently put out several hundred thousand bookmarks in which they advertise the Canadian forces on one side, and they very kindly advertise the Friends on the other side. We have been trying to develop a better relationship between the war museum, the regular Canadian forces, and the Friends.
Senator Prud'homme: I am impressed with your efforts. You need friends.
Mr. Holtzhauer: Yes.
Senator Cools: We should thank these witnesses for their candour, but we should also thank them for their commitment and the efforts that they have extended personally on behalf of the War Museum.
As we are all here struggling to find some resolution to this controversy which has blown up in our faces, I am very struck, as you describe it, by the naiveté with which you walked into this.
With due respect to you and to the veterans, I am personally hoping, as we continue through our hearings that we will discover that this is all a misunderstanding. Perhaps we can restore some stability or encourage the restoration of stability. We are dealing here with two different expressions of what can only be described as man's inhumanity to man. One was the Holocaust and the other was a terrible war.
It is a very unfortunate thing and a very inopportune thing that these two situations and the people who feel strongly about both of them have been brought into some sort of conflict. It just goes to reinforce the principle that politics may seem like a game for amateurs but it is not.
I wanted to say that because these witnesses are obviously hurting and, as the witness said, the controversy is hurting others. We should acknowledge that privately, and we also assure you that the wish of our committee is to restore stability, equilibrium and balance. Prejudice is a terrible thing. It is one of those things in the human bosom that can flare up without much reason. We will try to deal with this job which has been thrust upon us.
Senator Forest: I have learned from visiting other Holocaust museums that important places must be found for Holocaust museums not only in Canada but all around the world because they have tremendous impact. Museums teach us about history in order that we do not repeat the same mistakes. That is very important.
I would not want you to have the impression that the people around this table are not very much in favour of that part of our history being known. It is the difficulty of the site and whether or not it will do the best job for the rest of our historical artefacts or whether it is better located apart. That is our concern. We will consider these issues and make our recommendations.
Most of us around here have done a lot of volunteering in our day. We know the amount of work that is involved and the commitment. We appreciate that.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Colonel Holtzhauer, especially for your cooperation.
Before you leave, I should like to ask you a question based on a story in today's newspaper. Have any groups withdrawn or delayed their pledges?
Col. Holtzhauer: We have had a couple of withdrawals. When we could not go ahead with the Dutch Canadian theatre concept, some money was withdrawn.
I read the article which said that the veterans were going to provide us with $150,000. I checked with all the people involved in the fundraising. Until the article today, we were not aware of any sum of $150,000 forthcoming to us. I can only say that the paper says that a veterans organization is withholding a $150,000 grant to us. That is the first information that I have had personally on that subject.
The Chairman: In closing, I wish to refer you to an article in Maclean's magazine on the proposed merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal. I suggest that you obtain the services of the president of the Royal Bank. If you can get as much from him as he got for McGill University, then we will be sitting pretty.
Our next witness is Colonel Murray Johnston, retired.
I must remind you of our time restraints. I ask you for the same cooperation as I received from your predecessor.
Colonel (Ret'd) Murray Johnston: I will try to do that, Mr. Chairman. I spent a lot of time and effort preparing a submission. I do hope that you received it beforehand. It was sent in some time ago.
I remind you that I am here as a concerned citizen who is a volunteer for the Canadian War Museum. I have done a lot of work for the museum. As a matter of fact, as was mentioned earlier, I am chairman of the fundraising campaign for the War Museum, and I had been the president of the Friends of the Museum for about six years prior to that.
I would like to draw your attention to a different way of thinking of some of the things we have been discussing in order that we can help Senator Cools in her attempt to find an accommodation. That is what I will try to do today.
I should like to go over the points listed in your mandate as well as three or four more. They are listed in the conclusions on the first page of my presentation. If you have that in front of you it will make it much easier to follow.
With regard to the relevance of the museum to the future of Canada, as mentioned earlier, the museum should be an instrument of education. There is a need in this country for all Canadians, wherever they are, to be aware of the contribution of the military to the development of this country politically, religiously, socially, economically and industrially. It is because of the lack of education on military aspects that our young people are growing up without a fully balanced view of their culture. This skews their views of citizenship to the belief that the military is not part of this country. The museum can be very relevant if it is able to help in the education of children. You have heard of the programs being talked about for that.
The mandate of the museum was examined earlier by Senator Kelly. Its mandate is to stand as a memorial, to examine the causes of war, and to maintain documentation. However, if you look at it closely, you will see that peace-keeping is separated from war. I strongly suggest that it be revised to include the three functions of commemoration, examination and documentation, but that all military activity, including fighting soldiers, peace-keeping, the military and defence industry, et cetera, be combined because that is the entire military contribution to the development of the country.
There has been a tendency for peace-keeping to be a bit of an add-on to the military scene in the last few years. However, since the Cold War ended, peace-keeping has become very intensive. In fact, we now call it "near war."
As the colonel commandant of the electrical mechanical engineering branch of the Armed Forces, I visited all our soldiers at the front lines. One of their continuing points of concern is the loss of their heritage and the fact that their contribution to the military history of this country is not being properly recognized. There is a requirement for that in order that there can be an evolution of the contribution of the military to the development of the country.
I believe that the name of the museum should remain as it is. It is a traditional name and it does reflect the current mood of preserving commemoration of war-time sacrifices and peace-time sacrifices and the reminder that violence and war underlie current military peace-keeping operations and most of our diplomatic operations today, the current controversy in Iraq being an example.
On the matter of the structure of the museum, its location and size, we have been focusing on the division of the space of the museum into various galleries and theatres. I should like to focus on the use of electronic enhancement for exhibits and, more important, the use of the Internet so that the museum can reach out to Canadians wherever they are, including in school rooms.
The museum currently has the right set up. It has a good, central location. It is also the right size for school tours. Approximately 45 per cent of our visitors are students. However, not all students can get to the museum, which is why electronic outreach is necessary. There is also the aspect of Vimy House as a warehouse for a large collection of equipment for those who want to study it in-depth.
Combining virtual electronic visits, school tours and an accessible warehouse, you have the three elements of education. With the electronics in particular, the education can go nation wide. Considering this, the physical size of the museum is not as important as we may have thought up to now. I suggest that we gear this museum for the technological advancements of the next millennium.
Looking at the independence of the museum, there have been arguments that it should be in various departments of that sort. Let me go back to my point where I said that Canadians do not have an awareness of the contribution of the military to the development of the country and all those other aspects -- religion, politics, things of that sort. In other words, the military is looked upon separately.
If we had the idea that the military should be a mainstream part of the culture of this country, which it is not -- it would need education to make it so -- then having it as part of the Museum of Civilization Corporation would put it in the right place. All aspects of our civilization and culture could be treated then in one aspect. The Department of National Defence can be separate from this because they must go out and defend our country and that is a task. I am looking at the heritage of this country.
From that point of view, I would offer this as an extra reason for having the museum remain in the corporation family. You have heard the arguments, pro and con, for costing, size and so on. I will not go into those.
There is a matter of the budgeting of the museum. You heard earlier the results of that situation. There is the question of the fund-raising and the volunteers. This concern has shown that there is a requirement for private sector participation in assisting this museum in order for it to achieve its goals.
I have been involved in fund-raising before. Let me tell you, fund-raising for the Canadian War Museum has been extremely difficult. It is all right to do fund-raising for hospitals, welfare groups and charitable organizations of that sort, but to do fund-raising in this particular area has been extremely difficult. We have had a hard struggle getting the $2.6 million that we have so far. I have spent a significant amount of time and been turned down in more board rooms than I have been accepted in. I offer you the comment that fund-raising has been very difficult.
I will admit that there is a tendency to look upon your potential sources of funds in order to accommodate them. That must be the case. That is a practical thing. The government of this country has not provided the funds necessary to keep this museum going in the proper manner that all of us around this room would like to see.
I should like to turn for a moment to the Holocaust exhibit and turn it around somewhat. This museum is currently composed of chronological galleries. It gives you a story of the various military events and contributions over the years. One thing that has been lacking is a gallery which will have enough impact and will examine the causes of conflict. You heard this morning there is that tiny Holocaust gallery beside Hitler's car. It has had a low impact.
In order to put in a gallery of that sort, it must be a well documented, dramatic example so you can gather the attention of children or others looking for it. Then we must also make sure that it is current. The Holocaust would fit that description. It would be the metaphor or an example of the causes of conflict.
As mentioned earlier, there are the other examples of holocausts and genocides, and things of that sort. One thing about using the Holocaust as the pre-eminent case of genocide and racial discrimination of this century, is that it would point to what peace-keepers today are facing in places like Rwanda and Croatia.
I have been down the roads in Croatia. The countryside has literally been raped. I have seen the refugee camps. That kind of thing is still around today. I have interviewed our soldiers from Rwanda and Cambodia. They are saying the same thing; namely, why are we out there doing that kind of thing today?
A Holocaust exhibit would focus on the victims, many of whom are Canadians today. Links would be established to other holocausts and to what our peace-keepers are seeing today. A well documented, dramatic example of the causes of conflict would be provided. That is what we are looking for.
If we are not allowed or cannot put a display or exhibit of that sort in the Canadian War Museum, then it is relegated to becoming just a chronological list of ageing artefacts, and there is a great possibility that the public will not become educated about the military and that they will lose their awareness.
I might also point out to you that too big is too bad. An example I should like to give you is the example of the Belgian Military Museum in Brussels. It is about the size of two football fields. There are long displays of artefacts for which there is no rationale. There is no examination of the causes of conflict. It is very hard to conduct a school tour through a museum of that sort. The museum that we have is probably the right size.
As to the media debate that we have had so far, I am very disappointed because it has become very harsh and focused on one element: what various people think of what a Holocaust exhibit should be. I have given you one viewpoint, perhaps a different one, as to how it would fit into our Canadian military scene.
The arguments on the Holocaust exhibit have ranged throughout the pro and con spectrum. The result is that the education and the electronic outreach aspects of this project, which are by far the more important aspects of it, have been forgotten.
Finally, some of the letters that I have seen have belittled the corporation's staff. In some respects, you must think about it from my sensitivity point of view. Criticism of that sort reflects on the credibility of the volunteers. There are many of us who are involved in this project. We have worked very hard and long against very long odds to get this project even as far as it is. To belittle the museum's staff because they are deficient here and there means that our credibility is imposed upon.
Most of us are veterans of many years' service. I have seen war, too. I was in the Vietnam War in 1973. It was supposed to be the peace accord, but I was at the end of the Ho Chi Minh Trail for six months and I was in a war zone. My friends were shot at and one of them was killed.
It is from that point of view that I say that the volunteers who have stuck with this project are the ones who wish to guide it in that line of education, electronic outreach and the proper commemoration of all of these things. If we lose this project, then we will lose the history of Canada's military heritage.
I hope I have covered all of the points. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman: You have prepared an excellent brief. I am intrigued with your suggestion that we use the technology age and put it on the Internet. Last week when I was being interviewed, I was asked if I had taken my grandchildren to the War Museum, I said "no." The ones in Ontario are too young to be interested and the ones in Alberta are too far away to take to the museum. This way we could take the museum to them. That is an excellent suggestion.
Mr. Johnston: That is a key element, I agree with you.
The Chairman: I would have to disagree that any criticism of the staff of the War Museum is belittling you. It was not intended regarding your efforts. Many of us have views that the museum could be better operated. That is in no way belittling you, and it certainly was not meant that way. I hope you will not take it that way.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you.
Senator Kelly: I should like to compliment the witness. I am looking forward to the balance of the week. I started out clearly critical of the inclusion of the Holocaust wing. I am almost back at centre and leaning over in your direction. I am hoping to get my head straight. Your presentation was very compelling.
Senator Forest: Senator Cools mentioned that this was a political issue, which is probably so, but my business has been education, not politics. I have just returned from a cross-country tour on education in Canada. Certainly the outreach programs at the universities and the colleges are the way to go in the future.
I repeat what I said before: If we are ever to stop war, we must look at the causes of war and put those in context. If there is a reason to include the Holocaust, I would see that as the main reason. It puts the whole thing in context and educates children to the causes of war, particularly because those causes are very evident in many of the current conflicts in Rwanda, Croatia, and so on. I am pleased that you are looking at the outreach aspect and that you are looking at that in terms of the historical context for avoiding the causes of war in the future.
Senator Chalifoux: I notice that you would like it in the gallery. Would you be opposed to having it in a separate museum? The Holocaust is so important. I remember the stories. I remember the Nuremberg trials. I also remember the terrible atrocities in Russia and Rwanda. We get it all the time. What is your feeling on having a stand-alone museum on that issue complementing Canadian participation in dealing with these issues?
Mr. Johnston: My point of view is, as Senator Forest has said, that we need to examine the causes of war.
My understanding of the Holocaust exhibit -- you notice I used the word Holocaust "exhibit" -- is that it would focus on the victims. The political side of things seemed to be scaring people, in other words, the perpetrators and liberators, the other aspects of this kind of thing. That would not be the focus of this particular Canadian Holocaust exhibit.
I have visited other Holocaust museums, one in Amsterdam and one in Cannes. They are full-blown, stand-alone museums in which the causes of war is one aspect. It could well be that you could have a stand-alone museum. I would certainly move that there is no greater example that is well documented and as dramatic to show the causes of conflict. It is important to have that kind of thing in the Canadian War Museum and link it to the genocide in Rwanda and Cambodia and places of that sort.
Senator Chalifoux: That was in World War II. What about World War I when our soldiers were gassed? My father was gassed in World War I. What about the terrible atrocities that happened in World War I in the trenches? In the Korean conflict, there were atrocities. One seems to overlap. I feel that the museum's mandate is to look at our own Canadian military history. We have a very proud military history. They are both so important that I feel that there should be two museums.
Mr. Johnston: I mentioned earlier that other holocausts or other genocides should be a part of this, in other words, the linking to other ones. This is simply the metaphor of that kind of activity. That is what we want to use it for.
My stepfather was gassed in World War I, too, so I feel for that kind of thing.
To give you an example, one young soldier whom I interviewed when he came back from Rwanda was discussing what he had seen and so on. I contacted him last fall. He told me he had gone to a local school in Winnipeg and had given a talk about what he had seen, particularly about the peace-keeping operation in Rwanda. He and his group had adopted an orphanage full of orphans left over from this genocide. He was describing this to one of the children. He got a letter back from one of the children saying, "Thank you very much, officer, for telling us about that. My mother was in a concentration camp. My grandmother was in a concentration camp. I appreciate what you are doing today." That is the message we need to be getting across to young children.
Senator Jessiman: Are you retired from the service?
Mr. Johnston: To put it straight, I served for 32 years as a regular force officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I retired in 1983. In 1991, I was then appointed as the colonel commandant, which is an honorary appointment without pay. You serve on a voluntary basis. Your prime purpose is to look after the morale and esprit de corps of the soldiers in your regiment. In my particular regiment, which is the electrical mechanical engineers, you find them wherever there is equipment. I visit them everywhere and am in continual contact with them. In a way, I am serving on a volunteer basis at the present time.
Senator Jessiman: You are not advising the Canadian War Museum or the Canadian Museum of Civilization yourself and being paid in any way?
Mr. Johnston: No, I am working completely on a volunteer basis.
Senator Jessiman: You are here on your own behalf?
Mr. Johnston: That is right.
Senator Jessiman: You do not represent any one?
Mr. Johnston: I represent only myself, but I am pointing out my background. I felt I had a contribution to make.
Senator Jessiman: As you were expressing it to me, you said, "If we do not have the Holocaust, you have the Boer War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, but all the others are peace-keeping. Eventually these wars, because they are so old in period of time, will loose their flavour." Was I correct in that?
Mr. Johnston: Yes. What I really said is that we need to have an exhibit or a gallery which is exclusively aimed at examining the causes of conflict. The best way to do that is to have a well documented, dramatic example. I said that the Holocaust fills that bill.
Senator Jessiman: It is as old as World War II, and it is getting older each day.
Mr. Johnston: We do not have a well documented case of Rwanda at the present time.
Senator Jessiman: We might have.
Mr. Johnston: I have talked with General Dallaire about this quite closely and I have listened to his presentations on that matter. He is very concerned also that this matter of the well-documented, dramatic example of the causes of conflict must be included. The way in which we have taken to do that was to use the Holocaust as an example. The links to today and the links to parallel and past history can also be concluded in that too, but you must have the one central focus to make the point clear.
Senator Jessiman: In Great Britain there is a Holocaust Gallery as I understand it, but it is a much bigger war museum than the one we have. You seem to be indicating that it is not. I would have thought it was much larger. Is that not correct?
Mr. Johnston: I visited it and it is bigger but I do not think it is that much bigger. It is not like the one in Brussels where you can walk for miles and miles. In their central atrium they have three tanks: a German, an American and a British tank. Besides those there are half a dozen TV monitors so you can use the electronic enhancement.
Senator Jessiman: You are talking about London, are you?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, the one with the big guns out front.
Senator Jessiman: How many war museums in the world that you know of have a Holocaust exhibit? I know you say Britain does but how many others do?
Mr. Johnston: I am afraid I cannot answer that one.
Senator Jessiman: Is it not true that there is a large Holocaust Gallery in Montreal right now?
Mr. Johnston: I believe there is.
Senator Jessiman: Is it not also true that there will be one in Toronto as well?
Mr. Johnston: I have heard about this display that was mentioned just briefly.
Senator Cools: How does a museum examine the causes of conflict? That is your suggestion. My understanding is that museums relate history. They narrate history. How can a museum examine the causes of conflict? For example, right now we are dealing with this conflict here. We must find a solution. How on earth could a museum do that?
Mr. Johnston: We try to be a tolerant people and treat everyone fairly. That seems to be one of the bases of our country. We are also a democratic country, which means that everyone has a vote. If everyone did that, then we probably would not have any conflicts. Some people contradict those rules and try to impose their will by, for example, using genocide or deporting people. Many of those situations have occurred in history. The Armenian genocide has been mentioned today.
Perhaps we do not have the answer for that but we can start out by showing the bad results of one well-documented example. Then perhaps our vision will enlarge and we can treat it in a different way.
Senator Cools: That is right. No one has any quarrel with probing or attempting to understand the heart of darkness of human beings. The question before us is: What do museums do, what does this particular museum do and what should it be doing in terms of relating a military experience, a military history, Canada's military contributions and Canada's military involvement? When the issues are being couched, as you are couching them, in terms of enormous tragedy and enormous pain, that touches on so many millions of people so very personally. It renders it impossible to come to a rational solution or to a rational conclusion. That is what is so terrible about this situation that is before us, because it has been couched in such horrific and tragic language.
Senator Chalifoux put it beautifully; the Holocaust is such an enormous barbarism it is unspeakable, it escapes words. World War II and the other wars were, again, unspeakable situations. To put them into one kitty is to lessen both and to diminish both of them. We are dealing with human tragedy, human barbarism, man's inhumanity to man, of such enormous magnitude that contemplation of any one is an enormous job all by itself. I cannot help but think that to try to crush them all into one situation is to lessen both, if not lessen all.
Mr. Johnston: Would people not understand that more?
Senator Cools: No. This is the unfortunate thing about this discussion and this situation in which we find ourselves. This is one of the reasons why all the senators are here, even though theoretically we should still be off for another week, because we are so concerned and troubled that the pain and anguish for all these millions who have been touched by both of these situations should not now erupt into a new and modern conflict. That is why I am here.
Mr. Johnston: What conflict are you referring to?
Senator Cools: The controversy we are here talking about. Your predecessors a few minutes ago said that even their fund-raising efforts are now in jeopardy because of this conflict.
Let us understand what we are talking about. We are talking about people here, millions of them, who have been touched very personally by these kinds of tragedies. We are not talking about a far-away, abstract notion. When it comes to the Holocaust we do not need to go very far to find hundreds of thousands of people who have been touched, and I would suspect many people on this committee; so too with World War II. This is why when we set out to erect monuments or to build museums we must be crystal clear on what it is we are doing. That is the problem here; we have merged the unmergeable; we have bonded the unbondable, we have joined the unjoinable. These are both such terrible human atrocities that they should be looked at separately.
Mr. Johnston: A partial response to that is that the word "education" has been used quite often in this discussion. That is an important and key element because we are continuing to send our young men and women into danger. I went there 25 years ago. As a matter of fact, 25 years ago today I was sitting at the end of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. I am now a veteran. Others have been there recently. If they asked me, "Why are these refugee camps here? Why are all these houses ripped down? Why are those graveyards so full?" I must answer that what they did not learn in school was the fact of the mass genocide that went on literally 50 years ago and has continued literally unabated throughout the world in many other cases over the years. We need some means of teaching our young children so that our politicians can make better decisions in the future and we will have more well-balanced citizens.
The lessons from the Holocaust or any other kind of genocide are very horrific and unpalatable. I certainly agree with you there. If everyone would abide by the golden rule, which is what we should do, then we would not have that. We would not be sitting here today and I would never have been in the military.
The issue before us is whether or not one museum should be housed within another museum. We must be crystal clear in keeping that before us because the potential for anguish here is so enormous.
The Chairman: Senator Cools, I am sorry to interrupt you but we are way beyond our time, and I should like to have an in camera meeting.
I should like to thank Colonel Johnston for an interesting presentation.
Somewhere I seem to have picked up the idea, when you were referring to the Holocaust exhibit rather than the Holocaust Gallery, that you were willing to include other genocides, such as the ones in China and Poland.
Mr. Johnston: What I said was that we need to have an exhibit which examines the causes of conflict, and that you need to have a well-documented, dramatic example in order to press the point so that people will learn from it. Using the Holocaust does fit that purpose, if you have the Holocaust exhibit focus in on the victims and what happened to them, mention being made of other similar incidents and what happened then, and, particularly, show the relationship of that to what our Canadian soldiers are seeing today in various peace-keeping missions. That is really what you should be looking at, not so much whether it is a gallery within a gallery or a museum within a museum.
Senator Cools: The Holocaust was not about conflict. These were innocent people who were brutally massacred. They were not in a state of war. This was a government that moved in a systematic way to eliminate millions of innocent Jews.
The Chairman: I wish you luck in deciding what caused World War II. I think you will have quite a problem in that.
Mr. Johnston: It is not the main cause. It was just one of the causes of conflict.
The Chairman: Again, I thank you for your presentation.
Honourable senators, before we adjourn, can we have a brief in camera meeting?
The committee continued in camera.