Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 1998
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9:34 a.m. to continue its study of all matters relating to the future of the Canadian War Museum, including, but not restricted to, its structure, budget, name, and independence.
Senator Orville H. Phillips (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. Our first witnesses are from the Canadian Jewish Congress. Please proceed.
Mr. Irving Abella, Past-President, Canadian Jewish Congress: Honourable senators, with me today are Jack Silverstone, national executive director and general counsel, and Eric Vernon, director of the Ottawa advocacy office of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
The Canadian Jewish Congress is the national, democratically elected organizational voice of the Jewish community of Canada. We have, over the years, dedicated a great deal of effort towards various aspects of Holocaust remembrance. We have included in our efforts ways to commemorate the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. We have attempted to educate Canadians about the evils of racism and genocide and to combat the insidious effects of Holocaust denials which have become the cutting edge of anti-Semitism today.
I thank honourable senators for this hearing. It is an important part of your constitutional duties and of our democratic rights. We and the Canadian Jewish Congress enthusiastically endorse the recent proposal by the Canadian Museum of Civilization to establish a free-standing permanent Holocaust Gallery in Ottawa as a symbol of the nation's commitment to memorializing the horrors of the Holocaust for generations to come.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington provides an outstanding example of how effective such a facility can be. In its few years of existence, this gallery has become one of the top visitor destinations in Washington. According to recent surveys, 80 per cent of its visitors are non-Jewish.
As you may know, we in the Canadian Jewish Congress recently sponsored a study visit to the museum comprising about a dozen members of Parliament. We understand that it has had a profound impact on their understanding and sensitization to issues of the Holocaust, of racism, of human rights, of the position of minorities in society, and a need for justice against Nazi war criminals in Canada. All the parliamentarians believed that the visit enhanced their ability to perform their work as strong and effective members in the House of Commons.
We at the Canadian Jewish Congress realize how wonderful it would be, indeed how natural it would be, to have the opportunity to repeat this process on a continuous basis right here in Ottawa with parliamentarians, students from across the country who visit the national capital, and a general public in a Canadian-oriented Holocaust memorial gallery. We strongly believe that the new proposal by the Museum of Civilization to create such a free-standing institution is an entirely reasonable and satisfactory solution to the sad controversy which has recently enveloped the War Museum.
Indeed, we feel the time is long overdue for Canada to join the ranks of all the other western nations who fought Germany which have developed and built Holocaust memorials in their capital cities. It is particularly symbolic that we in Canada do so since, I am proud to remind you, next to Israel, in proportion to our population, Canada accepted and provided homes and new lives to far more Holocaust survivors than any other country in the world. There are no more fiercely passionate and devoted Canadians than the survivors and their children.
Yes, like those who created the Holocaust museum in Washington, we believe that any gallery or any exhibition should include the story of all of the victims of the Holocaust -- the disabled, the homosexuals, those thought to be mentally unfit, the old, the infirm, the Roma, as well as nationals of most Eastern European countries. But let us also remember what Eli Wiesel told us, that while, during the Holocaust, not all victims were Jews, all Jews were victims.
Before discussing the issue of venue, let me examine for a moment why it is important, in our view, to have a permanent Holocaust memorial exhibit in Ottawa. The Canadian Jewish Congress is fully aware that history is replete with human atrocities and other instances of genocide. A permanent facility to mark the Holocaust -- that is, the attempted genocide of the Jews during the Second World War -- would in no way diminish the horror of other such tragedies. In fact, the experience of the museums in Washington and elsewhere suggests the opposite: that the Holocaust, while sui generis, is a point of departure for understanding the general potential of mankind for evil and inhumanity.
Above all, the Holocaust stands alone in the sheer scope of it is murderous agenda, unprecedented at the time and unmatched since. Only the defeat of Germany, to which Canadian forces made such an outstanding contribution, prevented the Nazis from realizing their overarching goal of making the world free of Jews -- killing every man, woman or child who was Jewish or who had Jewish antecedents. The Holocaust stands as a watershed of human history, a period of horror which redefined the limits of the depravity of human nature and expanded humanity's consciousness of evil. It is a seminal point from which a new understanding of the devastation of war has emerged.
This is a message which a permanent Holocaust memorial and exhibit in Ottawa will convey to all who enter its doors. Where those doors will be is another matter entirely.
Let me make a few things clear. Contrary to published reports, contrary to what you have may read in the media, the Canadian Jewish Congress never lobbied the federal government for a permanent Holocaust exhibit to be located in the nation's capital. We, as the Canadian Jewish Congress, were not formally consulted by the Canadian Museum of Civilization about its plans to house the Holocaust Gallery in the expanded Canadian War Museum. Nonetheless, we were delighted by the government's commitment to establish such a facility at all and comfortable with the decision to place it in the refurbished Canadian War Museum, though having seen firsthand the tremendous potential of the U.S. Holocaust memorial, the Canadian Jewish Congress has always believed that a free-standing facility was the preferred option for a permanent exhibit in Ottawa to promote education and remembrance of the Holocaust. I believe there is concurrence among you and among the veterans groups as well.
The notion of relocating the Holocaust Gallery to another government-owned or rented facility has been suggested and the Canadian Jewish Congress is thrilled and relieved by the Museum of Civilization's decision. We urge the government to act on it as soon as possible.
At the same time, however, if it is not possible, for whatever reason, to create such a free-standing gallery, we join with the representatives of various organizations, including the Canadian War Museum who testified here on Monday, in support of a Holocaust Gallery in the new, revamped, expanded war museum.
As you know, much to our consternation, this plan to create a gallery in the War Museum has engendered strong and vocal criticism from some elements of the veterans community in Canada, which played out in the media and created the appearance of a schism between Jews and veterans. Though the controversy was not of our making, the Jewish community has felt compelled to respond to some of the more disturbing rhetoric which emerged during the so-called debate.
Though we were hurt by some of the insinuations, let me assure you, honourable senators, that there is no sector of Canadian society which more respects and appreciates veterans of the Second World War than the Jewish community, particularly our own Jewish war veterans. To us, these men and women, including some of you in front of me today, are true heroes. We all know Canadian soldiers did not go to war to end the Holocaust or because of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Those who argue that are wrong. They went to war to defend their country and their Commonwealth and to defeat the Nazis. Through their skill and their courage in doing so, they helped to bring an end to the Holocaust, thus saving the lives of the vastly reduced numbers of Jews still left alive in continental Europe, large numbers of whom would eventually come to Canada.
That is why all Canadians, especially Jewish Canadians, are so grateful to our veterans. That is why we believe that it is not inappropriate to include, if necessary, a Holocaust Gallery in the Canadian War Museum.
We do not share the reservations raised by representatives of the various veterans groups over the inclusion of a Holocaust Gallery in the proposed new War Museum. As articulated in the media, and in the hearings before you yesterday, these reservations are that a Canadian war museum is not the appropriate site for a Holocaust Gallery since the two are in no way interrelated in that Canada's war effort in Europe between 1939 and 1945 had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust; that the presence of the gallery represents a diversion from the historical exhibition and commemoration of Canada's real efforts; and finally, that the gallery uses valuable space which could be better put to use in telling that story.
Though we prefer -- we far prefer -- a free-standing site, in our view, a logical and compelling case can be made in favour of including the Holocaust Gallery in the new War Museum. In this context, it is worth making the general comparison that was made here on Monday between the proposed Canadian War Museum scenario and the plans under way for a permanent Holocaust exhibition to be housed in an expanded wing of London's Imperial War Museum. The British Holocaust exhibit will occupy some 20 to 25 per cent of the museum space versus the planned 15 per cent of exhibition space in the Canadian model.
There is widespread support, as you know, in London for this Holocaust Gallery amongst all political parties, as well as religious and public figures and veterans organizations. In short, there has been no concerted effort and no concerted opposition against this planned Holocaust Gallery in London. Indeed, the chairman of the Imperial War Museum board of trustees, Field Marshall Lord Bramwell, a decorated veteran of the Normandy campaign and the final sweep across Europe against the Third Reich, was quoted as saying that the Allied Forces' liberation of Nazi death camps throughout Europe convinced the troops more than anything else that they were fighting a just war. He went on to say that the Holocaust constituted a just war. He went on to say that the Holocaust constituted an integral part of Hitler's war aims and the sort of thousand-year Reich he wanted to establish.
Let me repeat again that ending the Holocaust may not have been the primary reason for fighting in the minds of our soldiers and air men in Europe, but our fighting forces were in Europe precisely because of the evil of Nazi Germany which had to be defeated and nothing manifests that evil more compellingly or graphically than the Holocaust. The Holocaust is inextricably linked to the German war effort and, in its outstanding contribution to securing victory in Europe, Canada helped bring it to an end.
This argument is not merely academic. Again, as was pointed out to you on Monday, Canadian forces directly confronted the outcome of the Holocaust by participating in the liberation of camps such as Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen; as well, Canadian forces were the first into the transit camp of Westerbork in the Netherlands.
Canadian medical personnel provided relief to victims found in various camps. Far from diverting attention away from the real war effort of Canadians in Europe, the Holocaust Gallery's proximity to the Second World War exhibit will add lustre to our military contribution against the Nazis and the enormous sacrifice made on behalf of freedom and humanity. Visitors will gain a clear understanding of, and perhaps a renewed respect for, the valuable role of Canadian troops and airmen in this effort.
The architectural plans for the expanded Canadian War Museum will create a state of the art museological facility, one that will bring the War Museum into the 21st century, give it outstanding visibility and frontage on Sussex Drive and museum row, and allow for the display and exhibit of countless items of Canada's military heritage which have been languishing in storage.
Honourable senators, the Holocaust Gallery will bring a new, younger and much larger audience to the War Museum, an audience who perhaps will be attracted by the gallery but will nevertheless savour the other artefacts and treasures held by the museum, the experience of which will surely engender in them a greater respect and understanding of those men and women who over the years fought so bravely for this country.
In conclusion, regarding the Holocaust Gallery, your task is clear but difficult: You must find a way to create a fitting memorial to the victims of the Holocaust while minimizing whatever conflicts that generates.
In your reflections on this matter, you should know that our experience in Canada is not unique. In developing Holocaust memorials in Washington, New York, Jerusalem, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, there was always debate, division, dissonance and turmoil. That is understandable. The issue is a sensitive one and various sensibilities will be assaulted.
Argument and criticism need not be destructive. We should learn from our differences, listen to the various points of view, and then arrive at an acceptable consensus as have Holocaust museums elsewhere. Most of us agree that the most acceptable solution is to create a free-standing, permanent gallery separate from the Canadian War Museum.
Thank you.
Senator Jessiman: It is encouraging to know that, first, neither the Jewish Congress nor any of the Jewish organizations suggested that the Holocaust Gallery should be placed in the War Museum; and second, that you would like a free-standing gallery, as all previous witnesses and all veterans have said. No one is against having a memorial for the Holocaust.
I wish to deal with something that was discussed on the first day of our hearings. The chairman received a faxed document from Rabbi Bulka, of Ottawa. Attached to this document was a typewritten document comprising four paragraphs. First of all, are you familiar with this document?
Mr. Abella: I am. I saw it after you did.
Senator Jessiman: The document indicates that the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, the Canadian Jewish Congress, who you represent, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada and B'Nai Brith of Canada would like to make a joint statement in response to the controversy that the Canadian War Museum expansion plans have engendered.
As I said, the rest of it has been read into the record, so I do not need to continue reading on to put it on the record. My question to you is: Do you know who on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress wanted to make this joint statement? How did Rabbi Bulka come to this conclusion? To whom did he speak?
Mr. Abella: Rabbi Bulka is a member of Canadian Jewish Congress. He has been in contact with members of the board of the Museum of Civilization. I take it, because of the huge controversy involved, that they were trying to come to some sort of agreement which would be acceptable to all parties.
After some hurried discussion, they came up with a solution that was entirely acceptable to us. When we were telephoned, we said that we would attach our name to such a resolution because, after all, what we have been after, without lobbying for it or calling for it for years, is a free-standing Holocaust exhibit in Ottawa.
Senator Jessiman: Although you did not actually read the document, did you understand it before it was handed to us?
Mr. Abella: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Did the Congress agree to that?
Mr. Abella: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Thank you for clarifying that.
Have you ever seen the Imperial War Museum, in London?
Mr. Abella: Many times, yes.
Senator Jessiman: I have not, but I have seen many pictures of it. Do you know where it is located?
Mr. Abella: It is at a perfect location, near a tube station.
Senator Jessiman: Is it not also near a park?
Mr. Abella: A park, yes.
Senator Jessiman: Just off Kensington. The museum is divided into parts. Two parts of the museum are in London, the naval part is in Belfast, and the air part in Duxford. The new addition will cost $25 million. The Holocaust exhibit will be in a separate building; is that correct?
Mr. Abella: It will be part of a separate building. However, it is like the proposed plan of the Canadian War Museum. A new wing is being built which will include a Holocaust Gallery.
Senator Jessiman: I have read the letters from the current Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, and they are all in support of it.
I am suggesting that the military support it because they have a tremendous War Museum in London. The veterans have told us over the last two and a half days that our War Museum here is really just a poorer grandson, or maybe not even a relation, of our government. It is a mess, they tell us.
Mr. Abella: It is a backwater of Canadian museums.
Senator Jessiman: They are asking the government for a proper War Museum, independent of the Museum of Civilization, and we appear to be very sympathetic. I think any Holocaust memorial should be free-standing, as you are suggesting. But if it must be placed in any other building in Ottawa, the most appropriate one would be the Museum of Civilization. I would like you to agree with me on that.
Mr. Abella: I agree to some extent. I do not think the Museum of Civilization is the proper place for the Holocaust Gallery because the Holocaust was a failure of civilization. The world was put to the test of civilization in the 1930s and 1940s and failed. Our Museum of Civilization represents a positive outlook on society and the Holocaust does not. I think the symbolic importance of the Imperial War Museum is that it does make a connection between the Holocaust and the efforts of the British fighting men and women. The symbol is very important.
I agree with you that much needs to be done for our War Museum. I understand that the Holocaust Gallery was intended in part to enlarge the War Museum, to make it more attractive, more modern, and to attract a new audience. I recall having come to Ottawa some time ago to visit the War Museum during the Anne Frank exhibit. Although I am not sure of the exact numbers, there were enormous numbers of visitors at that time. I understand that more people visited the Anne Frank exhibit in the War Museum than had visited the museum that entire year. That is why I think it is important to put something different and new in the War Museum, to attract all sorts of Canadians who might ordinarily not go, so that they can see the artefacts and the treasures that are there, and appreciate the enormous service done for this country by our wonderful Canadian veterans. It is an important statement.
I agree that much needs to be done in the Canadian War Museum. It is in a shambles. There are artefacts in storage in Vimy House that ought to be shown.
Having said that, I still share your belief that by far the best solution would be to come up with a free-standing Holocaust Gallery, and I think the money could be found. With government commitment and a fund-raising campaign, I think this would be achievable. It would solve all our problems and end whatever controversy exists.
Senator Jessiman: We could include the Anne Frank exhibit. If I had anything to do with it, we could have the car from Hitler too.
Senator Cools: I should like to get rid of it.
Senator Jessiman: I would like to see it gone from the War Museum.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I would like to come back to the press release that was distributed at the beginning of our hearings. To my great astonishment, there was no signature on it. When I asked the Chairman of the committee about this, he specifically told me that my question was premature because we had not yet discussed it in committee.
[English]
I only had time to read the first paragraph.
[Translation]
But since then, I have reread it and many questions have come to mind.
[English]
When such an important document as this was circulated, it changed the attitude of this committee right at the beginning. It was like a pre-emptive communiqué that jeopardized, as far as I am concerned, the entire line of questioning. At first, it seemed they were going to back off and find another alternative, in view of the controversy. This week's meeting was about to become solely a discussion of the future of the War Museum. However, now you are telling me that even though the communiqué is signed by the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada and B'Nai Brith, you personally were not directly involved, but became involved through Rabbi Bulka.
On this, I have just three quick questions. Was it only by phone or was there not a meeting on Sunday, attended by Mr. MacDonald, in Toronto?
Mr. Abella: There was a meeting on Sunday but not with the Canadian Jewish Congress. The National War Museum and the Museum of Civilization held a seminar in Toronto on what the content of a Holocaust Gallery should be. It had nothing to do with this hearing. This hearing was never mentioned.
Senator Prud'homme: Who was there?
Mr. Abella: It was attended by speakers from the United States who have experience in museology of the Holocaust, by students, by professors, by academics, by members of the museum boards, by people working in the area.
Senator Prud'homme: The subject matter of this week's deliberation was never raised publicly, or on the side, or privately? To the best of your knowledge, no one discussed preparations for this week's deliberations?
Mr. Abella: Not at the public meetings.
Senator Prud'homme: That is what I expected. I have known you for years, so I know how precise I have to be.
Mr. Abella: I resent that. I am not a lawyer; I am an academic.
Senator Prud'homme: You are an extremely active academic. You said, "Not at the public meetings," so any good lawyer would say, "Well, you do not deny there may have been discussions pertaining to how to act this week?"
Mr. Abella: I would not know because there were no representatives of the Congress or B'Nai Brith or Jewish War Veterans there.
Senator Prud'homme: It seems that we are about to find a solution, although I am not sure because I have been long enough in politics to know the House of Commons or the government can change its mind.Let me read something from your communiqué. I have the right to say it is your communiqué, because the headline states it is from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, Canadian Jewish Congress, Jewish War Veterans of Canada and the B'Nai Brith of Canada. Therefore, it is your statement. In the third paragraph you say:
We feel at this time that an alternative solution can be proposed.
Then in the second sentence of the third paragraph, you say:
Whilst we have not abandoned our original proposal...
What does that statement mean? Is that to say that at this time, because of the controversy with the distinguished people from the Royal Canadian Legion and all veterans, we might as well keep it cool for now but we will come back and do it later?
First, who is "we" who have not abandoned our original proposal"? Does the "we" refer to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation?
Mr. Abella: Yes, it does.
Senator Prud'homme: Or does the "we" mean both the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation and the other groups? Press releases from your organization are usually extremely precise. The "we" there is open to interpretation. Who is "we"? You cannot tell me that it refers only to the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. If you state that the "we" refers only to the museum and has nothing to do with the Canadian Jewish Congress, I believe that that will very greatly assist in the relationship between you and veterans.
I came here this week only 11 weeks after suffering a heart attack because I know the sensitivity of this issue. Issues such as this can become uncontrollable. Everyone who does not agree with you becomes an anti-Semite and everyone who agrees with me becomes a bad person. I wanted to contribute to the sanity of this debate.
Are you ready to put on the record that the "we" in this release does not include the Canadian Jewish Congress?
Mr. Abella: The "we" refers to those who prepared the original proposal, which was the Canadian Museum of Civilization. We made no proposal. The original proposal was not ours. It was the proposal of the Museum of Civilization, but we have always wanted a free-standing Holocaust memorial of some sort, which is why it would not be a leap of faith to associate our name with this.
Senator Prud'homme: As I have said in the House of Commons for 30 years, there is nothing worse than anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism eats you from the inside. Once you allow yourself to be an anti-Semite, you allow yourself to be anti the French Canadian people of Quebec, anti-Catholic and anti-black.
In my view, the Holocaust was everything it is said to have been. Even among yourselves, there is controversy about the Holocaust, but we basically all agree that it was a horrible monstrosity, added to the other monstrosities.
Therefore in my view, the Holocaust Gallery should stand on its own -- totally on its own. It should not be an addition to the War Museum because, by practice, it would take many years before it would be known as the Holocaust Gallery. Teachers will say, "Let's go to see this atrocity", and one will be downgraded. Would it be the Holocaust Gallery? You would not like that. Would it be the War Museum? I would not like that and veterans would not like that. Therefore, I think the gallery should not be included in the War Museum.
I know that you have the capacity to raise money. I am convinced that if a Holocaust Gallery is built with government money, there will be immense pressure by many other groups who will say that it should not be limited to the genocide of Jewish people but should include the Armenian genocide, for example, as well. I have already received a call from the Armenian community. All the new communities of Canada would want to be included. We will hear from witnesses later who will say that if a Holocaust memorial is to become part of the Museum of Civilization then everyone should be covered, and I do not think that is what you are looking for.
Would you like to comment on these statements, which I have made in good faith? In my opinion, it would be best to have a Holocaust Gallery, but not linked with the War Museum or the Museum of Civilization.
Mr. Abella: In my presentation, I spoke about our preference being a free-standing, permanent gallery, and I think everyone in our community would support that. However, we do feel that the Holocaust does have resonance to the Second World War. Given the work put into the idea, we do not feel it is inappropriate in a war museum.
Again, in reference to the Holocaust, particularly the attempted annihilation of the Jewish community, I think it is mostly understood by historians and responsible commentators that the Holocaust refers specifically to the planned and singular attempt to murder every single Jew in the world. However, as was done in the Holocaust museum in Washington, all victims are included. As I said in my final comments, creating a Holocaust memorial is among the most difficult of human efforts because the sensibilities of everyone are under attack. We should understand and not begrudge the divisions, dissent and debate. In Washington, the debates were huge and angry. People resigned and fought with one another, but in the end they came up with a salutary consensus that works. It has become one of the most successful museums in all of Washington.
I think we can do the same here. I am confident that, given your advice and input, we can come up with something of which all Canadians will be proud. This is not a Jewish cause; this is a Canadian cause.
Senator Cools: I wish to thank the witnesses for attending here this morning. Many people here have a great deal of respect for much of the work that these organizations do.
As a Canadian, I am always dubious about reference to the American way of doing things. That is my own predilection. When it comes to the Americans' response to WWII, they were a bit reluctant in both world wars. At the time, their foreign policy was one of isolation. They have quite a bit to account for in the judgment court of human activity. I think we are best to leave out the examples of Washington.
I am thrilled by what you said to us this morning, namely, that you were thrilled and relieved by the museum's decision as contained in this document. The problem is, Mr. Abella, that no such decision has been given to us formally by the museum. What was put to us was a quickly written document, one that was unsigned and not on letterhead. It looked quite informal. I must conclude that this document was the production of Rabbi Bulka's goodwill.
Mr. Abella: No. Rabbi Bulka was in consultation with Dr. MacDonald of the War Museum, who, I understood, had consulted previously with Adrienne Clarkson. The decision was theirs. Rabbi Bulka would not append either his signature or our signature to something which had not been approved by the Museum of Civilization. I can assure you of that fact. I have spoken to Dr. MacDonald; that is a decision that was made by the museum.
Senator Cools: Why was it not put before us when they appeared before us? And why was it not put to us in a formal document on museum letterhead and signed by museum people? You cannot answer that at this time, but I should like to know about that.
Mr. Abella: I thought it would have been. I am not sure why it was not done. That is something you can ask Dr. MacDonald tomorrow.
Senator Cools: You are aware that this is what happened, are you not?
Mr. Abella: I thought that it would have been given to you before the committee met.
Senator Cools: Yes, in a formal way. I should like to note that many of the journalists who are covering these hearings were not aware that the matter was not put before us formally.
Everyone supports the concept of a Holocaust museum. There is no dispute about that, from what I have been able to hear. What has been bothersome to me as a senator is the mystery surrounding how this controversy arose, how it continued, how it remained, and why no formal attempts were made to extinguish it early until it got before a Senate committee.
I wish to raise another issue -- that is, your use of the word "backlash". That term is not helpful, Mr. Abella, in this kind of troubling situation. If you look at item 7 of your brief -- and, perhaps it was a careless sweep of the pen -- you say:
The controversy which has simmered over the Gallery is deeply regrettable. Canadian Jewish Congress wishes to be helpful in calming these stormy waters but we do not support deviating from the original plan in the face of this backlash unless the conditions noted above for an alternative site are met.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Abella, that such language as referring to people's genuine concerns as a "backlash" is language that often gets in the way of resolution and dialogue.
Mr. Abella: We understand and empathize with the veterans and their comments. Some, however -- and I am sure you will agree with this -- went over the mark in terms of their comments about the role of the Jewish community in this. We played no role. We were not consulted.
Senator Cools: Tell us about that. You said before that you did not lobby for it. If you did not lobby for it, who lobbied you for it?
Mr. Abella: As far as I know, we were not lobbied for it at all. The announcement came as a pleasant surprise to us. We were not beseeched for support. We began to respond only when the controversy erupted. That is the genesis of our involvement in the campaign. We were responding to all these comments about our role, which was not a role at all. We felt we had to come to the support of the idea of a Holocaust Gallery.
Senator Cools: Several years ago, someone approached the Canadian Jewish Congress and said, "We want to do a Holocaust memorial. Will you support it?" You are saying that this never happened? That cannot be. This is incredible!
Mr. Abella: I will turn this over to someone who has been in our office as general counsel for over 10 years.
Mr. Jack Silverstone, General Counsel, Canadian Jewish Congress: To the best of my knowledge -- and I would know -- we were not approached formally or informally by the museum about this project. We found out about it a matter of months ago, as a result of recent events.
Senator Prud'homme: You were used? I cannot believe that!
Mr. Silverstone: Senator Prud'homme, please do not put words in my mouth. I would not presume to say that. I am responding to the question, which is whether or not we were lobbied or approached with this idea. We were not. Frankly, I was surprised that we were not, but we were not.
The Chairman: Yesterday, one of the complaints that kept resurfacing from the veterans groups was that they were not consulted.
Mr. Abella: Neither were we.
The Chairman: You are now telling us that you were not consulted either?
Mr. Abella: No; not as a group. Individual members of the Jewish community were part of the advisory committee, but not as members of any organization. The organizations were not represented. We were not consulted and we did not make representations on behalf of Canadian Jewish Congress to anyone.
Senator Cools: In your testimony, you talked about inviting members of Parliament to visit the War Museum two years ago. Did you invite any senators?
Mr. Eric Vernon, Director, Ottawa Advocacy Office, Canadian Jewish Congress: We did extend an invitation to several senators, yes. Unfortunately, given the time constraints and schedules, none of the senators was able to accept our offer. However, we are planning to do that again, at which time we will certainly re-extend an invitation to senators, and hopefully some of them will attend.
Senator Cools: You must understand our situation here: This thing fell in our laps; we just want some resolution.
We have all been shocked that such a terrible thing could be allowed to grow without anyone intervening to stop it. It looks ugly. No one wants to see this sort of dispute.
You have said something that is important, that is, that you were not properly consulted; the veterans have told us that they were not properly consulted. We have some interesting questions to put to the representatives from the museum.
Mr. Abella: The difference is that we are and were very supportive of the concept. We committed ourselves to doing whatever we could to move it along. In terms of original consultations, however, we were not consulted as an organization.
Senator Chalifoux: It is my pleasure to discuss these very important issues with you this morning. The Holocaust was a terrible atrocity. As a Canadian aboriginal woman, as a Metis, I remember the newspaper pictures. I remember the tears.
Did you realize that there was also a Holocaust here in Canada many years ago? The Europeans came over and totally annihilated a whole nation of people in Newfoundland. The Holocaust in Canada also continued with the mission schools and the residential schools. The Holocaust is still happening today all over the world. I totally agree with you that we must have a memorial, a record of man's inhumanity to man.
I do not agree that the memorial should be in the War Museum for a number of reasons. First, one of the briefs from a veterans' organization stated that the members could only recall one Canadian group, the RCA, that had anything to do with the liberation of the interment camps. The Americans were the liberators. That brief stated that the Americans would be absolutely horrified if we took any credit for the liberation.
As well, you stated in your brief, Professor Abella, that the Canadian War Museum is a backwater of War Museums. I totally agree with you. I do not think that our veterans have been given any recognition at all in the record of the proud history of our military. My family and I have been in the military for many years and generations.
How can you rationalize the Holocaust Gallery taking 25 per cent of the space when there are well over 50,000 artefacts in storage, when there is no space available for the Canadian contribution to the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean conflict? How can you rationalize taking that 25 per cent of the space?
Mr. Abella: First let me say I am a Canadian historian by vocation and profession. I understand your concerns. I fully support your comments about the native peoples of this country, their history and the recognition they deserve. We in the Canadian Jewish Congress have supported native issues for many years, and believe that there ought to be recognition, restitution, and apologies. We have made representations on their behalf.
Our concern about the Canadian War Museum is that, yes, there is an enormous amount of material in storage and, no matter how big the museum will be, it will not be able to take more than a small percentage of what is now stored in Vimy. Whatever happens, there ought to be negotiations about the amount of space. We were never asked about how much space a Holocaust Gallery should take, if it is in the War Museum. We are here to fight for the principle.
We are making representations on the principle that the Holocaust is not foreign to a War Museum, that the Holocaust is the most perverse form of war, that it does belong in a War Museum if space can be found. Again, given the restrictions and the ambits of space and the concerns of various groups, I share your concerns that the gallery ought to be in a free-standing institution.
However, if that is not possible, we do not think it would be inappropriate to find room for the Holocaust gallery, for the reasons outlined in our brief. Not only does the gallery belong there, but it would also create more interest. More people would come, more people would be made aware of the contribution of Canadian veterans. Visitors to the Holocaust Gallery would then, as did the people who visited the Anne Frank exhibit, go through the museum and be astonished by what is there and how important it is.
Senator Chalifoux: Do you not feel that these two very important structures might diminish each other by being placed together? The Holocaust and the atrocities are one issue, our Canadian war history is another Would each structure be an insult to the other?
I have one other question relating to this. I hear that in London anyone under the age of 14 is not allowed to go into the Holocaust Museum. How do you then rationalize children going into the Holocaust Gallery, and going from there to the proud history of our Canadian military?
Mr. Abella: I think a Holocaust exhibit would strengthen both the contributions and exploits of the Canadian war effort and our understanding of what war is all about. That is why I think it is important, even if there is a free-standing gallery, that there be some commemoration of the Holocaust in the War Museum.
I did not know about the restriction. There ought be restrictions in any museum for children. Exhibits can be devised, as they have been in other Holocaust museums in Jerusalem, New York and Los Angeles, which would be appropriate, which would be age appropriate, and which would have special walls and exhibits so children can understand. Let us never forget that of the 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust, 1.5 million were children. There is no more moving exhibit than the children's museum in the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem.
Senator Chalifoux: Another presentation asked, "Who will pay when the parents sue the museum for the nightmares of their children? I remember reading it. The pictures still haunt me today. I remember a German lady, a teacher, watching the Nuremberg trials and crying and saying, "We knew it, we knew it, but we did nothing."
These are things that must be considered. That is why it is so important that the Holocaust Gallery be in a stand-alone building, so that you can do something for the children and all the way up.
That is my final comment.
Senator Forest: I am glad you have cleared up some of the puzzlement that we all experienced over the communiqué that we received.
I appreciate the interconnectedness between the war and the Holocaust, and I certainly appreciated the comments on the Anne Frank display There is value in them. I think, however, that we need to look at the controversy this has created and at the best way to resolve it.
We have a dilemma. This communiqué shows, that you are in favour, as most of the other people have been, of a free-standing museum. On the other hand, the communiqué states that we have not abandoned our original proposal. It leaves us in a bit of a dilemma because we could go on for months looking for an appropriate venue and not find it. We could find ourselves back several months or years later in the same dilemma. That is something that we must look at carefully. I would ask you to respond with respect to the difficulties encountered when you have a communiqué that voices a preference -- and I can appreciate why you feel that way.
Mr. Abella: It is symbolically important that there be a commemoration or memorial to the Holocaust in the capital city of Canada because there is one in every other country that fought the Nazis.
Your committee should make strong representations to the government to ensure that the proposal for a free-standing exhibit is taken seriously. The veterans want a memorial; you do; we do; most Canadians would find no problem with it. Something that we should work toward as a team, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, is to urge the government to free up whatever buildings are not fully utilized in Ottawa and make one a potential home for such an exhibit.
The reason we support the War Museum and the Museum of Civilization in its efforts not to give up the Holocaust Gallery is that we are determined that there be something in this capital city. At the moment, frankly, the gallery in the War Museum is the only game in town.. Our preference, as I have made clear many times, is to have a free-standing, permanent and independent gallery, one that would include all the things you have mentioned and that we have talked about.
The Chairman: The main Holocaust Museum is in Jerusalem, as I understand it.
Mr. Abella: The Israeli Holocaust Museum is in Jerusalem.
The Chairman: Is it associated with a War Museum?
Mr. Abella: Not as far as I can tell, although soldiers used to be required to go to that Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. Events are held there and educational events are held there for military personnel.
The Chairman: Is the one in Washington associated with a War Museum?
Mr. Abella: No.
The Chairman: Is there any Holocaust museum or gallery in any other capital or city of the world associated with a war museum, to your knowledge?
Mr. Abella: Yes, in London, at the Imperial War Museum.
Senator Kelly: When you look back on the last few days and the media attention that has been paid to this issue, I would have to argue that words like "controversy," "explosive nature of discussion," "backlash," "challenge," are really inventions of the media to try to glamorize something that seems to be almost a consensus.
What I have heard from every witness -- and I have listened carefully -- is that there is no disagreement that the Holocaust, for example, was one of the darkest chapters in the history of man. Second, everyone agrees that there must be a permanent reminder of those dark days.
On the question of the location of a Holocaust museum, stand-alone is the best option. This witness has said that; witnesses from the veterans associations say exactly the same thing. There is agreement on that. Everyone agrees on the necessity for a review of the role of the War Museum and the need to review its mission and upgrade it. All the witness who have come before us have agreed on that.
We all seem to be talking about the same thing against a background of being described as people who are at each other's throats. It has not been described properly. The more evidence that is presented, the more clear the situation becomes. Is that how you feel?
Mr. Abella: I feel that way. Again, every Holocaust exhibit, every Holocaust memorial in every other country has involved debate, division, dissension and controversy. It is part of the process, part of the game.
Senator Kelly: You are not saying what I hoped you would say. I do not believe there is controversy; that is the point.
Mr. Abella: There is internal controversy about what should be in the museum. I agree with you entirely, however, that at the moment all of us seem to be working from the same page, singing from the same hymnbook, that we all want something that would be free-standing, which would take into account all of the presentations you have heard, from all of the groups in front of you.
Senator Cools: Thank you for attending. Thank you for the clarifications that you brought forth, especially in the issues of consultation by the museum.
Canadians fought nobly in World War II. Canadians fought and died in the war against Hitler and his fascist ideology. That is why this exhibition belongs in our War Museum.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Jessiman: These remarks that you read are not your remarks, but you stand behind them; correct? Can you answer questions in respect of them?
Mr. VanDelman: To the best of my ability, yes.
Senator Jessiman: You said that you were a veteran and that you are representing the Jewish War Veterans of Canada. Can you tell us the background of Jewish participation in the armed services in Canada over a period of years? How far back does it go?
Mr. VanDelman: I am not a war veteran. I am speaking on behalf of a war veteran.
You are asking me to comment on how far back in the history of Canada's military we find Jews involved. Canada's military goes back to 1605. It is a time that we are very proud of. In every country that Jews have lived in, they have always been good citizens. They have always been involved in the betterment of the country. Jews have been involved in Canada's military since 1605. Jews have been a part of every battle and confrontation in which Canada's military has found itself.
Senator Jessiman: In 1991, some of the Jewish veterans themselves approached the War Museum to request a permanent exhibit for Jewish war veterans. Is that correct?
Mr. VanDelman: Actually, we were approached.
Senator Jessiman: You were approached as Jewish war veterans?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes. We were asked if we thought that our heritage in Canada deserved commemoration. They came to the right people. We did not say "no". We said, "Of course." If we have a history going back to 1605, then, yes, we would like to have a wing or some type of room in the War Museum that would commemorate Jewish commitment to Canada.
Senator Jessiman: As war veterans?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes, in the military of Canada.
Senator Jessiman: Can you explain more? Once you said "yes", was there anything asked of you as war veterans?
Mr. VanDelman: We were asked if we would use space and we said that we could. It was never decided how much space was available, but they were talking about the possibility of creating a new structure with a theatre. They were prepared to give us a gallery, approximately 2,000 square feet in size, and we were expected to pay for that part of the structure.
Senator Jessiman: They asked you to raise some funds?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Were the Dutch people involved also?
Mr. VanDelman: They were part of it as well. They were responsible for the theatre.
Senator Jessiman: I see. Were they successful in raising their funds?
Mr. VanDelman: They were not.
Senator Jessiman: Did you think you would be successful in raising your funds?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: What happened? This happened in 1991. This must have taken some months or years. What happened then?
Mr. VanDelman: Apparently the fundraiser who was hired by the Museum of Civilization was let go. New people were brought in, but they did not go along with the old idea. The next thing I heard was that they were talking about a Holocaust museum.
Senator Jessiman: That did not originate with you?
Mr. VanDelman: No.
Senator Jessiman: Let us deal with this memorandum. Have you seen a copy of it?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes, I have.
Senator Jessiman: It also mentions the Jewish War Veterans of Canada. Do you know whether the Jewish War Veterans of Canada approved of this statement? I am showing you a statement that we read into the record earlier. It is four paragraphs in length.
Mr. VanDelman: The first I heard about this statement was in the newspaper yesterday morning. Subsequently, I made some telephone calls to members of our organization and discovered that no one knew anything about it.
Senator Jessiman: As far as you are concerned, this statement is incorrect, if it says that the Jewish war veterans would like to make a joint statement, because they new nothing about it?
Mr. VanDelman: We are not involved in the statement. We do not disagree with the statement, but we disagree with the process in which it was done.
Senator Jessiman: There was a statement made here on your behalf which you knew nothing about.
Mr. VanDelman: That is correct.
Senator Kelly: Do you oppose the option of a stand-alone Holocaust museum?
Mr. VanDelman: That answer must take two parts. First, of course I do not oppose a free-standing museum for the Holocaust. Having said that, if there is to be an expanded War Museum, or any museum that depicts World War II, mention must be made of the Holocaust in that museum. One cannot pick up any piece of literature or see anything about World War II without mention being made of the Holocaust and some description of the Holocaust. If a memorial to the Holocaust is set up outside of the War Museum, the Holocaust must still be referred to in the War Museum.
Senator Kelly: I do not think anyone would argue that the Holocaust was not very much part of the background of the whole process between 1939 and 1945. I will try not to put words in your mouth. Until this moment, I thought I could see a consensus developing. In the perfect world, in terms of being sure that the Holocaust is not forgotten and people are continually reminded generation after generation of that very dark chapter in our history, I thought the consensus was that it would be accomplished by a stand-alone museum. I think you agree with that. I heard you say that.
Mr. VanDelman: I agree with that.
Senator Chalifoux: It is a pleasure to meet you and to discuss such an important issue. Do you know the mandate of the War Museum?
Mr. VanDelman: I would imagine that the mandate would be to commemorate Canada's military and what they have been involved with.
Senator Chalifoux: Three statements make up the mandate of the Canadian War Museum. The first is to stand as a memorial to those Canadians who served in a war or lost their life as a result of war. Do you feel that a Holocaust museum within the War Museum would meet that first mandate?
Mr. VanDelman: A lot of soldiers died. They should be commemorated. The answer is "no".
Senator Chalifoux: The next mandate is:
to examine the war and war-related history of Canada and its effect upon Canada and Canadians...
Mr. VanDelman: The answer must be "yes" because World War II and the Holocaust affected the entire world, including Canadians.
Senator Chalifoux: That is your opinion?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes.
Senator Chalifoux: The third statement in the mission of the CWM is:
to document Canada's continuing commitment to peacekeeping and the maintenance of international security.
Does that relate to the Holocaust?
Mr. VanDelman: No.
Senator Chalifoux: Those three statements make up the mandate of the War Museum. No one is in disagreement with erecting a Holocaust gallery, but not within the War Museum itself.
It has been stated that 25 per cent of the expanded space will be allotted to the Holocaust Gallery, and yet we have well over 50,000 military artefacts just here in Ottawa, not counting all across the country, that are being lost or just stored and should be exhibited to relate to the Canadian people the proud history of the Canadian contribution. How do you rationalize 25 per cent of that very vital space being allocated to one segment of Canadian participation in all the wars?
Mr. VanDelman: First, I have seen many of the artefacts to which you refer. They are housed all over the city. I do not think it is possible to build one museum to house them all.
Second, we have never been involved in the idea of using 25 per cent of the total space for the gallery. This is the first I have heard of it.
Senator Chalifoux: Thank you.
Senator Forest: Thank you for joining us. We have had responses from many veterans' groups. I appreciate that as I have a family involved in the military.
The overwhelming response of most veterans' organizations to the Holocaust Gallery has been that there should be one and that it should stand alone. Upon questioning, they agree that the Holocaust is relevant to the Second World War and that the relevance needs to be commemorated. My understanding is that many of them would agree with a free-standing Holocaust museum while having within the War Museum an exhibit, something of the nature that exists presently, to tie things in and show the interconnectedness. What do you think of that? Would that be a second choice or a first choice?
Mr. VanDelman: My first choice is not to have the need for the exhibit. However, unfortunately, we have the material for it. We have the need for it. As I have said, you cannot understand World War II without going into the final solution. We went into World War II to fight hatred, and this is what hatred causes. Hatred causes genocide. This is the net result. I think they both go hand in hand.
The ideal would be to have the War Museum and a structure attached to the museum so you can see them both at the same time.
Senator Forest: You would prefer this to having two free-standing structures?
Mr. VanDelman: Yes.
Senator Chalifoux: The Holocaust, as we all realize and know, was a horrendous thing. You are saying that it was a part of World War II. How do you feel about our veterans who died and went through untold tortures with the Japanese in Hong Kong and the Japanese concentration camps? Do you feel that that should also be included?
Mr. VanDelman: Of course. They were Canadian soldiers, and they were involved with fighting the Japanese. They are not mentioned. However, having said that, they are very prominently mentioned in the museum in Calgary. I was not aware that there were Japanese soldiers in the Canadian military during World War II, and yet, there they were. Calgary's museum is a great museum.
Senator Chalifoux: Yes, it is an old military town.
The Chairman: I would like your reply to be clarified. Did you mean that, since the Canadians who served in the east -- I will say east, because Canadians served not only in Hong Kong, but in Burma and so on -- were mentioned in the Calgary museum, that they therefore do not deserve the same treatment in our national museum? Am I interpreting you correctly?
Mr. VanDelman: I believe the question to me was whether Canadian soldiers who fought and died in the Far East should also have recognition in the museum, and the answer was of course. What I meant to say was that at that time Japanese Canadian citizens joined the Canadian military as well, and they received recognition in the Calgary museum.
The Chairman: Continuing that theory, we could mention that there is a Holocaust Museum in Montreal. I am trying to avoid bringing in what is mentioned in other museums. This is a national museum, and what they do locally in regimental museums should not exclude things from being included in the national museum.
Mr. VanDelman: Yes, they should be included.
Senator Jessiman: You were a veteran, and I think you heard some of the other veterans' presentations.
Mr. VanDelman: I heard one.
Senator Jessiman:They mention -- and I do not think anyone has denied this -- the inadequacy of the present war museum. Now, when we are talking about an expansion, they are objecting because they feel the expansion should take care of their needs before dealing with the Holocaust Gallery. Do you understand their opposition?
Mr. VanDelman: I do. In fact, I was first at the War Museum a number of years ago, and I left thoroughly cold. There was nothing of any consequence which left me proud to be a Canadian.
Senator Jessiman: You are speaking on behalf of someone else who has written this, but you can understand it, so you are not dumbfounded as to why there should be such vociferous opposition?
Mr. VanDelman: But I am dumbfounded by all this going on.
Senator Jessiman: I thought you said a moment ago that you understood it.
Mr. VanDelman: The problem could be solved at one time. If you are doing an expansion, you could expand them both. You plan for them both at the same time.
Senator Prud'homme: I am speaking to you as a very proud French Canadian. I take no lesson from the Americans at all. They now want to preach around the world about what strong fighters they are, but they joined the war because they were attacked in Pearl Harbour. Then they became part of it. Thank God they joined in, but it was only after the young Canadians had been fighting for a long time. I think young Canadians should know that, because unfortunately, sometimes they do not.
I gather that you answered, in response to my esteemed colleague Senator Jessiman, that you had nothing to do with this press communiqué?
Mr. VanDelman: No, sir.
Senator Prud'homme: The more the morning advances, the more puzzled I become. I have had to deal with various Jewish communities in the past 35 years. We have had a very bad relationship. Unfortunately, I must admit that they still do not know who I am. However, I never criticize people who work well. You do well and I have learned from you to organize. That is why I survive.
You say that you had nothing to do with this. The Canadian Jewish Congress said earlier that some individual may have been involved, but not the organization. I will ask later witnesses the same questions. Because they are present now, they will be better prepared.
Who had the gall to use the names of these major, well known, well organized and well financed organizations in a communiqué which almost jeopardized the work of this committee? It was like a pre-emptive strike to us. We did not hear any protests until this morning when we asked the questions. If we had not asked these questions, we would be left with the impression that the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans of Canada, et cetera, were involved in this.
I am taken by surprise. What is going on? Who has the guts, the arrogance, to use the names of well known organizations such as these in vain? If I were you, I would violently protest. I suggest that Mr. Abella do likewise. Your names are used in a way that is not helpful to the debate. We have enough hate in the world, and in Canada, without some people accusing the Royal Canadian Legion and others of being anti-Semitic. This is not the way to create a good country.
The third paragraph of the communiqué reads:
We feel at this time that an alternative...
You said you have nothing to do with it, yet you say that your organization and you personally would like to have the Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum. Therefore, I could conclude that that paragraph applies to you. It says:
Whilst we have not abandoned our original proposal...
Perhaps someone has put words in your mouth, but this fits well with your testimony this morning. You have not yet abandoned the original proposal. Because of that, I could conclude that you signed this. Thankfully you are here to explain. I suggest that you find the people who are using your name to try to influence members of Parliament. This is a high court. I am very humbly proud to serve in my Canadian Parliament. If someone were to issue a statement under my name which I had nothing to do with, you would hear about it. I hope that you will do likewise.
Mr. VanDelman: Senator Prud'homme, as I said, I read the article in the newspaper. That is how I found out about this. I immediately called our National Commander and everyone else involved in my coming to Ottawa, and nobody had heard a word. We are doing our own investigation. We will go to the source and find out how and when this was done and how people can speak on our behalf who are not authorized to do so.
Senator Prud'homme: When you conclude your investigation, would you be kind enough to let us know your findings? I do not like to be used by anyone, including high-level bureaucrats, as they will learn on Friday.
Mr. VanDelman: We will.
Senator Prud'homme: The Holocaust was such a horrible thing. Do you not think a memorial to it should stand on its own? I will humbly attend the opening of a Holocaust Gallery because this horrible crime continues. Why do you think it is wiser to put it in the War Museum, born of controversy? If it is born of controversy, it will remain controversial. Would you reflect on the importance of what I am trying to say to you? I have changed my mind over the years from time to time. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that the Holocaust Gallery should stand on its own because of what it represents, that it should not be mixed with something else, where either it will take over, which will anger the veterans forever, or the veterans will take over --
[Translation]
I want to say this in French because it will be more precise. In that case, you diminish the importance of the Holocaust and there is necessarily a loser.
[English]
Mr. VanDelman: We support a free-standing museum for the Holocaust. However, if the War Museum is going to be expanded and will include World War II, it will have to make mention of the Holocaust anyway, because there is not a piece of literature that exists about World War II that does not mention it.
Senator Prud'homme: From there we go to the atom bomb, and there is no end.
Mr. VanDelman: That is another issue.
Senator Prud'homme: But it is part of it.
Mr. VanDelman: I do not consider that to be a Holocaust. I disagree with you. They were the enemy, sir.
Senator Prud'homme: But it is part of the history of the war. It is part of the Canadian effort.
Mr. VanDelman: Yes, it is, but it does not deserve the prominence that the Holocaust does.
Senator Prud'homme: Be careful now.
Mr. VanDelman: There have been a number of Holocausts since that Holocaust, but as far as I am concerned that Holocaust is the Nazi regime's desire to kill off all the Jews. That is the Holocaust where they almost succeeded. That is the Holocaust we are talking about here at this time.
I repeat: We support the building of a separate entity for the Holocaust. At the same time, if the War Museum is to be expanded to include World War II, there will have to somehow be reference to the Holocaust.
Senator Prud'homme: Of course.
Mr. VanDelman: So we are on the same wave length.
Senator Cools: I want to thank you for appearing before us this morning and to let you know that many of us appreciate the sensitivities that you have and the particular position in which you find yourself. I also want to give the same general thank you that I give to all people who fought for this country, because we would not be here without you.
The Chairman: We appreciate your testimony and your viewpoint. I have one question. I am expressing some of my own views and I am trying to avoid that.
I anticipate that, further down the road in the hearings, we will hear more about a genocide museum. It is my viewpoint that I would like to see the Holocaust Museum stand on its own, apart from the genocide museums. Is that your viewpoint; that you would rather be separate than be combined with the genocide museums? In my opinion, the Holocaust is separate. That is why I would like to see it be separate.
Mr. VanDelman: Yes, I would like to see it be separate.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from B'nai Brith.
Mr. Rubin Friedman, Director of Government Relations, B'nai Brith Canada: I have the honour of introducing the president of B'nai Brith Canada, Lyle Smordin.
Mr. Lyle Smordin, President, B'nai Brith Canada:Let me introduce our executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, from Toronto, and Tom Gussman, national vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, who resides in Ottawa.
Initially we should know a little about B'nai Brith, for the record and for the senators who do not know. It is an active Jewish advocacy and service organization. It has been in Canada for over 120 years although it has existed around the world for 150 years. Through a network of Jewish men and women around the country we provide such things as volunteer service to the community at large and also to the Jewish community. We coordinate volunteer activity. We operate affordable housing facilities, including seniors' residences in Toronto. We have never ceased or wavered in our support for veterans' organizations and Remembrance Day activities, even when contentious issues have arisen.
In association with people of all origins, we are leaders in the fight against racism and anti-Semitism in Canada and around the world. In fact, tomorrow, at eleven o'clock in the morning, through our agency the League for Human Rights, we will be releasing the sixteenth annual national audit of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada.
We also sponsor programs. Particularly relevant is a program we sponsor called "Holocaust and Hope," aimed at both educators and high school students. It selects them from across this country by application and screening, and brings them first to Germany and Poland to view concentration camps, and then to Israel, which is the "hope" part of the Holocaust and Hope. We do this so that they will fully understand the Holocaust.
Of course, senators, a Holocaust Museum should be imparting a full understanding of the Holocaust to its visitors. It is not enough to display atrocities. A Holocaust Museum is an educational tool, and that is what makes it so important.
The B'nai Brith is also a member of the group of voluntary human rights organizations seeking the prosecution of modern-day war criminals and the formation of an international criminal court to pursue these efforts. We are concerned that the recent report of the task force on immigration was, in our opinion, too soft on war criminals. It should not matter where they come from and when their criminality arose.
It is important to note that a significant number of our members are Holocaust survivors or the children of Holocaust survivors, and as well, others are Canadian war veterans.
This controversy about the Holocaust Gallery and its location has been, I can tell you, very disturbing to us. We appreciate having the opportunity to speak today. We will deal with our perspective on the Holocaust and war, our understanding of how the proposal for the Holocaust Gallery developed, and what we see as the merits and disadvantages of the various models that have been put forward. We will also give our view on directions that we wish you would pursue.
This has been said all morning and certainly in days earlier: The Holocaust was a seminal or key event of the 20th century. Unlike other mass actions against groups of people, it was not spontaneous. It was a systematic identification, tagging, and round-up of individuals, who were then transported and murdered because of their ethnic and religious origins. This was organized over the whole territory occupied by the Nazis, or under their direct, and sometimes their indirect, influence during the war.
In Poland, for example, 3 million of the 3.5 million Jews who lived in that country prior to World War II were murdered; 3 million out of 3.5 million. Obviously it need not be stated that it was a significant percentage. As you are well aware, notwithstanding the denials of some people over the past years, and even continuing into the present time, 6 million Jews were killed.
We recognize and understand that gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and political enemies also suffered a fate similar to that of the Jewish population of Eastern Europe in particular. Like other mass murders, the Holocaust was justified by its perpetrators as a necessary act in an armed struggle. While the first steps were taken when Jews were stripped of their German citizenship, the actual mass killing was initiated when, under the cover of war, they were declared to be enemies of the German people.
Senator Cools: Point of order.
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting. It has been brought to my attention that another individual has been distributing material in this room. Only -- and I mean that -- only the clerk of the committee will distribute material. Anyone who breaks that rule in the future will be instructed to leave or be escorted out. I ask that anyone who received that material turn it over to the clerk. It is not to become a part of this hearing. Please forfeit the material that was distributed.
Mr. Smordin: The first steps in the Holocaust were taken when Jews were stripped of their German citizenship. The actual mass killing was initiated later under the cover of war and as against the enemies of the German people.
The take-overs of Austria and Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland were simply a grand scheme by the Nazis for racial purification. One could argue that world leaders at that time made a significant mistake to believe that these were two independent activities.
Other countries, including Canada, were unwilling, as we now know, to take any significant number of Jewish refugees, and that must have reinforced the belief Hilter, and the Nazis, that he could do what he wanted. There were not two Hitlers, the anti-Semite and the megalomaniac; there was only one, against whom the allies expended their blood.
For this reason we see a connection between the war in its broadest sense and the murder of civilians. It may be a hallmark of our century that the murder of civilians has become a recognized tool of armed struggle. Remember the killings in Northern Ireland, Algeria, Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere. Remember Saddam Hussein's missiles against Israeli civilians as a response to his forces in the Gulf War. If we in Canada try to separate the murder of civilians from war, we are affirming a moral value that has often not been observed.
Mr. Tom Gussman, National Vice-President, B'nai Brith Canada: Honourable senators, the War Museum has on occasion offered exhibits not related directly to military feats of arms, but rather related to the overall history of particular wars in which Canada has been involved.
A few years ago, the museum hosted a temporary Anne Frank exhibit in cooperation with a number of members of the local Jewish community. The success of this exhibit and ongoing contacts with people interested in Holocaust education apparently prompted the War Museum staff to propose to some individuals the construction of a Holocaust Gallery as part of an expanded Canadian War Museum with a public education mandate aimed at communicating all the aspects of wars in which Canada has been involved, including the roles of civilians and the impact of war on them.
This broadened mandate has not met with universal acceptance. Many see the Canadian War Museum as dealing primarily, if not almost exclusively, with Canada's military history and the experiences of its military forces. There have been numerous complaints that the museum has had difficulty living up to this role because of space limitations. Many of its purely military artefacts cannot be displayed due to lack of space. To many veterans, the projected expansion of the museum was intended to alleviate these space problems.
At the same time, the museum is under the general management of the Museum of Civilization. Those who see the War Museum as dealing primarily with military history have been concerned that the use of its resources is being influenced by the broader mandate of the Museum of Civilization and they have pressed for a separate management and budget for the Canadian War Museum. It is our understanding that there has been a discussion about whether the use of Canadian War Museum resources is being influenced by the broader mandate of the Museum of Civilization.
The proposal to create a Holocaust Gallery has fallen into the middle of this maelstrom. This proposal was made by the museum authorities, not by the Jewish community. Representative Jewish community organizations were not approached until now for their opinion or support. Rather, this effort was seen as the province of the Museum of Civilization and an appointed advisory council which included a number of distinguished individuals from the Jewish community with expertise and interest in the Holocaust.
As well, veterans and their organizations do not feel that they have been consulted on this proposal either. We are not sure that consultations would have resolved all the differing interests in this affair. However, it is quite possible that there would have been less heat and more light in the exchange of views and in the public and emotional debate that was sometimes played out in the media.
It is because of the controversy that the question of a Holocaust Gallery has become a matter of concern to our members and to the grassroots of the Jewish community across Canada. We have received correspondence and calls from veterans and members of the Jewish community in many parts of the country.
The Jewish community did not ask for a Holocaust Gallery. However, now that the proposal has been made, we are pleased to have the opportunity to communicate our views on the matter.
Mr. Frank Dimant, Executive Vice-President, B'nai Brith Canada: Honourable senators, it is a moving experience for me to appear before you today, not only in my capacity as the Executive Vice-President of B'nai Brith Canada, but also as a child of survivors who came out of Auschwitz and Dachau. This subject has a great deal of personal history. I want to share with you the concerns of B'nai Brith and our observations regarding the current proposal.
The current proposal for a Holocaust Gallery in the context of the Canadian War Museum has merit only if the mandate of the Canadian War Museum is the broad one we highlighted before, one which includes a public education role dealing with the causes and effects of war as these relate to civilian populations.
If the mandate is limited to the military tradition and record, then only limited reference to the Holocaust would be appropriate. The recent exhibit of paintings by Aba Bayefsky, depicting the state of concentration camps and their inmates when Canadian and allied soldiers found them, is an example of the type of limited and temporary exhibit which might occasionally be desirable. However, a Holocaust Gallery would not fit into this limited focus. If the War Museum does not have a broad public education mandate that goes beyond military history and artefacts, we would not support placing a Holocaust Gallery in it.
Mr. Smordin: I will now discuss the alternatives to the current proposal. As you have heard this morning, and in earlier days of these hearings, several alternatives have been proposed. We strongly endorse these. Our concern would be that the current proposal would be withdrawn with nothing to take its place, save some reference in the War Museum to the Holocaust, which would not attract any opposition from any of the groups who have appeared before you, or other groups.
Some groups have suggested that the Holocaust Gallery deserves to stand on its own, and this is the position we would support in the ideal.
If you look at what other cities and countries have done, they have examined the Holocaust as a black spot in the history of the world, but one that gives valuable lessons to everybody. Washington has an ideal museum; it is U.S.-government sponsored. It is not a museum particularly for Jewish people or for any other ethnic people.
I would at this time invite the members of the committee to Washington to view the museum and B'nai Brith would be happy to help organize such a trip.
It is one thing to read about the Holocaust. It is one thing to read books and to hear about numbers. It is quite another to experience the outstanding exhibit in Washington, an exhibit which memorializes the Holocaust, or to take a trip and see not only the concentration camps but also the extermination camps that existed during or after World War II.
Washington has the one I mentioned which I think is ideal. In New York City in the last few months, they have opened one that is not quite as expansive but it is certainly very educationally oriented and complete. There is also the Los Angeles' Museum of Tolerance, as well as the memorial Professor Abella mentioned, the Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Many communities in other countries have set up memorials to the Holocaust in their galleries.
Although it has links to the Second World War, the significance of the Holocaust can be seen as transcending even that massive struggle. It is our preferred option that the Government of Canada commit to the development and funding of a Holocaust museum in consultation with national Jewish organizations and others interested in Holocaust education -- and I emphasize the word "education". I would suggest using the Washington museum as a model.
Some have suggested that the Holocaust Gallery be kept under the aegis of the Museum of Civilization and be located elsewhere than the expanded War Museum. There is understanding of the public education role played by the Museum of Civilization. As long as adequate funding and space were provided, we would support this alternative, again developed in consultation with national Jewish organizations.
Some have suggested that the Holocaust Gallery be physically attached to the War Museum but given a separate identity and entrance similar to what has happened in the past with the Museum of Man and the Museum of Natural Sciences. To us, this seems only a temporary solution, and we do not support it. If a broader mandate of the War Museum is not accepted, then it does not fit.
The Holocaust, though, must not become a political football between those who disagree about management structures and resource allocations. We would not accept this alternative except as a temporary measure.
I had the opportunity, late last night on the CPAC channel, to see some of the presentations, and, excellent as they were, I thought the emphasis was a little strong on behalf of ANAFVets. The newspaper this morning indicated that one of their presenters said that a gallery depicting the horrors of the Holocaust will detract from the story of Canada's military history; and that if you put a Holocaust Gallery in the War Museum, that is where everyone will go because kids, today, love horror movies, and they will immediately head towards the gas ovens and lime pits. That scares me.
It is more than that. Children can see horror movies at the local theatre, with parental guidance, I guess, as was mentioned by one of the earlier presenters. It is the educational aspect that we stress. It should, again, not be in the War Museum.
Some have suggested that the temporary exhibit, and then permanent exhibit of the Holocaust Gallery, would make the War Museum more attractive. I would respectfully suggest, if the War Museum itself wants to be more attractive, it has to keep up with the times.
Let me give you an example, one with which Senator Jessiman is familiar: The Western Canada Aviation Museum in Winnipeg had a lot of old airplanes, and little else. It had nothing to attract young people. Consequently, that museum introduced interactive displays and participation by visitors. Children are able to sit in the cockpit of a simulated airplane and experience the simulation of flying. If the War Museum wants to become more attractive, it should forget about the Holocaust aspect. It should strive to become more interactive, more relevant. Then everyone will be happy, and Canadians will be even more proud of their War Museum.
A witness yesterday said military history alongside the history of the Holocaust is a bad mix. I would suggest it is, in fact, military history alongside human history. We must recognize that human history.
Mr. Gussman: It has been stated by other Jewish groups -- and we fall into the same category -- that we did not lobby for a Holocaust museum in this country. I say with a sense of sadness and regret that we have missed an opportunity for 50 years. Perhaps, Senator Prud'homme, we would not be looking to the American museum. We could have had one here first, and that would have been a guiding light for the others. However, we missed that opportunity. We now have the opportunity to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
We are not here to attack or defend a particular mandate for the War Museum or to make any proposals with respect to the management or funding. Our purpose is to make known our position on the development and building of a Holocaust Gallery, what alternatives are open in that regard, and to urge you and others not to use this proposal to settle concerns over mandate and budget.
With respect to mandate and management issues, we urge you only to become informed of the views of people from across the country. We hope that, armed with this knowledge, you will make recommendations that serve the interests of all Canadians. We thank you for your consideration and time.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
Senator Jessiman: I want to thank all of you, particularly Mr. Lyle Smordin, whom I know well. I want to discuss with you this memorandum that we have all talked about this morning. It refers to the B'nai Brith as the fourth party to that document. Can you explain to us what you know about it? Were you involved in this? If you were, can you tell us who else was involved?
Mr. Smordin: I was called by our director of government relations, who is here, indicating that Rabbi Bulka did not want the hearings this week to become part of any media circus, feeding frenzy, or a forum for disagreement between any groups, particularly Jewish groups. As a result, I was advised that a joint statement was being prepared among those who are named there -- the Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish War Veterans. I was asked if we would like to sign on to that? This happened late Saturday night and Sunday morning. We told them that we would want to be part of it, that we certainly did not want to introduce a public controversy on the subject. To us, this seemed logical.
Now I do see, as Senator Prud'homme, with his very shrewd eye, pointed out, that the word "we" does refer to the Museum of Civilization Corporation. They told us that they do not withdraw their original proposal, but that they feel that an alternate can be proposed, given the goodwill of all parties. We want a solution. That is the origin of that, as far as the B'nai Brith involvement is concerned, senator. We signed on as a matter of agreeing with the statement.
Senator Jessiman: Did you see the statement before it was issued?
Mr. Smordin: It was read over the telephone. I did not see it until, I think, Monday.
Senator Forest: Thank you for coming and for your concise brief. I think education must be the name of the game in both museums, whether they are attached are not. While it has been said that a Holocaust Gallery does not fit within the mandate of the War Museum, I would say that the second part of the mandate, which is to examine the war and war-related effects upon Canada and upon Canadians, is relevant to both museums. I am an educator by profession, and I think that has to be the major thrust of both museums, wherever they are housed. You are quite right. We must have the kind of things to which young people can relate. Yesterday, we heard from a group of young people who had been helped by the CHAMPS organization and had come to know many veterans personally. That is the kind of interaction that we must have so that our young people can learn the lessons which we, in our generation, did not seem to learn.
I appreciate the emphasis you have placed on education. We will have to grapple with the issue of site and mandate, and so on.
Mr. Smordin: I could not agree with you more.
Senator Cools: Thank you for coming here this morning.
A few moments ago, Senator Phillips prohibited someone from distributing certain literature. Many years ago, when I was at university, there was discussion as to whether or not the number of 6 million truly represented the number of Jews killed in World War II. At that time, some of us were a little more youthful and neither skilled in debate nor quick on our feet. Even then, however, I was able to muster up words to the effect that it did not matter if it was 6 million or 6, it should not have been one. In defence of what Senator Phillips just did, I wanted to make that point.
In these hearings, the lack of consultation and the rapidity with which misunderstanding has arisen has happened again and again. I was struck by your introductory remarks when you talked about the years of working on prejudice and hatred. I was reminded of the once famous work by Gordon Allport, called The Nature of Prejudice. It is not so well-known now. I am also reminded of the quality of work that your organization has done on hatred and prejudice.
As this issue has been erupting in recent days and weeks in the media, one of my concerns in restoring stability to the situation was that we might see an unleashing of certain kinds of negativities. Can you tell me whether my fears were groundless or grounded? Have you been receiving hate phone calls or hate literature, or anything of that nature? Some of us senators have some apprehension , and we would like to know if it is only voices in our heads that we are hearing.
Mr. Gussman: Those voices are a reality. There has been -- and I will choose the words carefully -- developments which are unpalatable, racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic. I am not referring to the discussions that take place between war veterans organizations and the other representatives appearing here. I am referring to the unleashing of the emotions of people on the streets. The hate calls receive in our office are from people who take up a certain issue and run with it.
The fact is that in this very room today, while you concerned Canadians are conducting this hearing <#0107> and, you called this room a "high court" <#0107> material is around which is of a vile, anti-Semitic nature. You can imagine what is happening in the phone calls to the Jewish organizations and the Jewish institutions. There are people who will grasp at anything to breed hatred in this country.
You will notice also that we refrained from issuing any statements -- and, the honourable senator knows that we are capable of issuing statements very quickly -- because we felt it would be best to let the situation cool and to have a discussion in this kind of forum so that the issue would not be exacerbated by all the hot heads out there. They are using this issue. We are not engaging in a debate with them. We hope this can and will be resolved in a favourable Canadian fashion here.
Senator Cools: I am pleased that you have clarified that this has nothing to do with the veterans themselves. I am sure that the veterans present are grateful for that clarification.
Mr. Gussman: They have legitimate concerns and we respect those concerns.
Senator Cools: Have you been able to document or quantify the number of unsavoury calls or bits of literature that you have received?
Mr. Gussman: As our president said, we issue an annual audit of anti-Semitism. We do quantify that. We keep it on record and check with our branches across the country. We will have that information available.
Senator Cools: Thank you for the restraint that you have demonstrated in not responding to some of these unsavoury attacks and for choosing this forum as a proper and appropriate forum to bring forward your concerns. There is something to be said for the Senate after all.
Senator Prud'homme: I will avoid the editorial but I will do the same as Senator Cools.
[Translation]
I was listening to Mr. Dimant give a description that could almost move me to tears of what you have had to put up with in the way of insulting phone calls and so on regarding the positions you have taken. But you're in good company with me. You published some pretty harshly worded press releases about me following my election to the position of Chairman of the Liberal Caucus. I was subjected to the same kinds of insults, telephone calls and dangers, but I survived. So if you don't mind, I think we should try to see these issues coldly, at a higher level. There are still many questions in my own mind, and one day, I would like to see B'nai Brith organize a one-day meeting on anti-semitism. I am volunteering to take part, if I'm invited. Just give me a couple of months to recover fully and I will certainly make myself available to you.
[English]
You were not lobbied. I have to take your word on that.
[Translation]
However, on page 4 of the brief that was read, you say the following:
[English]
You said:
Rather, this effort was seen as the province of the Museum of Civilization and an appointed Advisory Council which included a number of distinguished individuals from the Jewish community with expertise and interest in the Holocaust.
In the advisory council, there were prominent people of the Jewish community. You are telling us that there was no contact between these distinguished individuals from the Jewish community in your multiple, well-organized communities? You were not participating directly, but through these prominent people; you had no input?
Mr. Smordin: We did not have any input, regrettably. There are many Jewish organizations, senator. While someone might be a distinguished -- that is, of course, a very subjective term -- member of the community --
Senator Prud'homme: It is not my word. It is your --
Mr. Smordin: While someone might be active in the Jewish community, there are many organizations in the Jewish community. It did not filter down to us, or we would have had the same opinion that we have put forward today.
Senator Prud'homme: You mentioned Rabbi Bulka. Who is Rabbi Bulka to believe that we senators, and my distinguished chairman, would have allowed this to become a media circus? Really, you do not know the Senate or you do not know us.
The Chairman: Pardon me.
Senator Prud'homme: I take objection to that.
The Chairman: In fairness to Rabbi Bulka, I do not think he ever said that this would become --
Senator Prud'homme: One of you said that he was of the opinion that this would become a media circus.
Why is it that anyone who profoundly disagrees with you on certain issues is either accused of or perceived as being anti-Semitic? That is a question I would like to ask you publicly.
Mr. Gussman: Senator, with the greatest of the respect, in your preamble, when you took exception to what I had done, you indicated that we were in the same position, that you have received letters and hate calls, and you said it is parallel. We receive hate because of what we are, a Jewish organization, not necessarily for the positions that we take. There are people who hate the Jewish people. If we take issue with you, sir, it is on a matter of principle, it is on a matter of policy, and there are ideological differences, which are in order. It is unfair for you to make the statement that we deem people and brush them as anti-Semites if we disagree with their politics. There is a world of a difference. One can easily take issue with the things that we stand for; however, I think, by now, based on our history, we can smell an anti-Semite.
Senator Prud'homme: I can smell people who accuse people of being anti-Semites if they do not bow to their wishes --
Mr. Gussman: That is totally uncalled for, senator.
Senator Prud'homme: You are taking me on. I wish to pursue that debate, but I will not do so here.
Do you accept that the Holocaust Gallery should stand on its own two feet?
Mr. Gussman: We categorically stated that in our brief.
Senator Prud'homme: I want to repeat and repeat.
Mr. Gussman: You do not need to repeat it for us; we will repeat it for ourselves. We want a free-standing Holocaust museum.
Senator Prud'homme: And in the Museum of Civilization?
Mr. Gussman: No, we said free-standing; to stand on its own.
Senator Cools: The witnesses made it clear early on that they wanted a free-standing museum.
The Chairman: Only one senator can have the floor at a time, and I am taking the floor. Thank you for appearing before us and sharing your views with us.
The committee adjourned.