Article content continued

“Members felt that when evaluated against the policy criteria, the proposed theme is not sufficiently a Canadian story,” the minutes state.

“The primary events did not occur on Canadian soil and the subjects only became Canadians subsequent to these events. The topic is therefore not seen as a central theme in Canadian history.”

Members also feared the proposed monument might be divisive within the affected ethno-cultural communities, saying there was an “insufficient plurality of perspectives incorporated into the subject. As a result, the purpose could be misconstrued as political rather than commemorative in nature.”

The expert committee’s advice appears to have been largely ignored.

“We weren’t really following the line, I think,” said Margaret Conrad, an eminent historian who sat on the committee. Other members included Tom Symons, the founder of Trent University, Yves Frenette, then a University of Ottawa historian, and Parks Canada historian Lyle Dick.

Though it recommended approval of the proposed memorial, a September 2009 NCC staff report acknowledged that its theme “remains not entirely compatible with the NCC’s policy for commemorations that mark national events or individuals.”

Despite that, the staff report said the project merited strong consideration because its “international significance” was gaining support from foreign governments and organizations.

“The large number of Canadians that have been directly or indirectly affected by these past events also gives sizable weight to the importance of the proposal,” the staff report said.