Transfer of Artifacts at Coronation Park (Trinity-Niagara - Ward 20)

The Economic Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, subject to deleting Recommendation No. (2):

Purpose:

To seek Council approval for the transfer of artifacts at Coronation Park to suitable museum homes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Lancaster Bomber be offered on loan to the Toronto Aerospace Museum (TAM), within a negotiated museum loan agreement process, which includes (but is not limited by) the following provisions:

(a) that the TAM remove the bomber from Coronation Park in coordination with Heritage Toronto and City staff, within the framework of a professionally prepared removal plan produced by the TAM and approved by the Heritage Toronto conservator;

(b) that the TAM be allowed to restore the bomber, within the framework of a professionally prepared restoration plan produced by the TAM (in consultation with the Canadian Conservation Institute) and approved by the Heritage Toronto conservator;

(c)that the TAM house and display the bomber indoors within its Downsview premises;

(d) that the City be able to inspect the bomber on forty-eight hours' notice during normal business hours;

(e)that the City affirm that it is its intention to leave the bomber at the TAM so long as the museum fulfils the conditions of the loan agreement.

(2)That should negotiations with the TAM fail, then the bomber be offered on loan, pending successful negotiations, to the Comox Air Force Museum at CFB Comox in Lazo, British Columbia.

(3)That the Sherman Tank and 25-Pounder Howitzer be offered as donations to the Canadian War Museum (CWM) in Ottawa, with the restriction that the CWM, should it decide to deaccession either object, keep the artifact in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(4)That should the CWM decide against accepting either artifact, then the Tank be offered to Niagara National Historic Sites in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the 25-Pounder to the Canadian Military Heritage Museum in Brantford, with the restriction that should either museum decide to deaccession the object it obtained from the City, it shall keep it in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(5)That the Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun be offered as a donation to the Naval Museum of Manitoba (NMM) in Winnipeg, with the restriction that the NMM, should it decide to deaccession the Gun, keep it in the public domain by offering it to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(6)That should the NMM decide against accepting the Bofors, then it be offered to the RCAF Memorial Museum in Trenton, with the restriction that should that museum decide to deaccession the object it will keep it in the public domain by offering it for donation to the City of Toronto in the first instance, then to an appropriate Canadian museum.

(7)That Heritage Toronto be authorized to reopen the competition for the American Anti-Aircraft Gun.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Since 1965, a number of military artifacts of the World War II and Cold War era have been displayed at Coronation Park. They were owned by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, but their maintenance was (and is) the responsibility of Heritage Toronto. The objects are:

(1)a RCAF Lancaster Bomber (FM104);

(2)a Sherman Tank, without an engine (M4A3E8 'Easy 8');

(3)a 25-Pounder Howitzer;

(4)a 40 mm Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun CMK 1;

(5)a United States 90 mm Anti-Aircraft Gun Model M1A3, with 1943 American Ordnance markings (and used by Canadian forces in the 1950s).

The original intention of placing the objects in the park, that of creating a museum (rather than a memorial), has never been realized. The cost of maintaining the objects is far greater than the funding that has ever been available for their conservation, which has led to their serious deterioration. The exposed waterside display of the objects makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that the objects survive into the future. When an institution is no longer able to care for an artifact, museological ethics suggest that the best solution is to deaccession it and transfer it to a new home where adequate care can be provided.

Given that the objects are not fulfilling their intended museum function, and given that they are deteriorating, Metro Council, at the request of Heritage Toronto, authorized Heritage Toronto to hold a national competition in which Canadian museums could apply for these objects. A committee formed by Heritage Toronto judged the applications, and made the above recommendations, based on the principles of protecting the public interest in these objects and of maximizing the public benefit inherent in these objects through:

(1)keeping them in the public domain;

(2)placing them where they could be conserved professionally and maintained well;

(3)placing them in settings where they would be interpreted within a broader historical and cultural framework effectively.

The committee membership was:

Dr Carl Benn, Curator, Military History, Heritage Toronto

Ms Kate Frame, Conservator, Heritage Toronto

Ms Lynne Kurylo, Board Member, Heritage Toronto

Ms Carla Morse, Manager, HMCS Haida.

Please see the attached appendix for a list of institutions which applied for one or more of the above artifacts.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The above recommendations to lend or donate objects to museums, along with a list of second choice museums, represent the committee's assessments of which institutions were best qualified to fulfil the preservation and historical interpretation potential inherent in these objects. We note that all of the recommended institutions are well equipped to provide a strong interpretive framework, and all of the first choice institutions can provide protected environments in which to display the artifacts. Those institutions which received neither a first nor second choice recommendation all had some strengths, but were, in the committee's opinion, measurably weaker in their conservation and interpretation profiles than the first and second choice institutions.

In terms of the specific recommendations, the committee notes the following:

(1)Lancaster Bomber

The bomber is the rarest and most significant of the objects. The committee believes that the Toronto Aerospace Museum has developed a good interpretive programme focusing on the Toronto aviation industry, has appropriate facilities for the bomber's restoration and display, and is part of a larger matrix of public facilities being developed on the Canada Lands Company holdings in Downsview, which ought to assist the museum in becoming a viable cultural facility in the City.

However, the committee also notes that the Toronto Aerospace Museum might not have the museological conservation skills necessary for restoring the bomber. The committee notes that the museum is new and exists in a development phase, and therefore does not have enough of a 'track record' to allow the City, at this time, to give the bomber to the museum in full confidence that it will be restored and interpreted effectively for the public benefit. Therefore, the committee thought it essential, to protect the public interest, that the bomber be offered as a loan rather than as a donation to the Toronto Aerospace Museum, but, given the willingness of the TAM to restore the bomber, that the loan be based on the premise that the bomber would remain with the museum so long as the museum fulfilled the loan agreement. Once the museum has become fully established and successful, the City could decide to donate the bomber to the TAM. The committee also thought that the bomber's importance requires that a qualified professional museum conservator approve the moving and restoration plans for the bomber to ensure that the history of its care is fully documented and that no further unnecessary compromises to the artifact's integrity occur.

The committee also notes that it was most impressed by the submission from the Comox Air Force Museum. This institution has a longer track record, a good collection, a well-run facility, and would be an appropriate home for the bomber, particularly as Lancasters were stationed at the Comox air force base during the Cold War era. However, the committee thought that the Comox Air Force Museum ought not to be the first choice selection because the museum plans to exhibit the bomber outdoors and because the institution's location prevents it from attracting a large number of visitors. Should negotiations to place the object on loan to the Toronto Aerospace Museum fail, and the bomber go to Comox, then the City would have to be confident, at the very least, that a strong maintenance programme would be put in place to mitigate the problems of outdoor display.

(2), (3), Sherman Tank, 25-pounder Howitzer

The donation of these objects seemed more straightforward, given that the contending institutions are more established, have the necessary resources to care for the artifacts, and have solid interpretive reasons for wanting to acquire them. In the case of the Tank and the 25-Pounder, the Canadian War Museum clearly was the frontrunner in terms of conservation standards and interpretive focus. The second place competitor for the Tank, the Niagara National Historic Parks, while being a solid second choice competitor, was weaker than the CWM because of its desire to display the Tank outdoors and because the interpretive programme connected to the Tank is not as fully developed as the CWM's. The second place choice for the 25-Pounder, the Canadian Military Heritage Museum, offers a good home for the Gun, and a donation to that museum would help a regionally based institution fulfil its mandate better. However, this museum does not have professional museum conservation staff and the committee believes that the public interest is fulfilled better by placing the object in a national and better-resourced institution.

(4)40 mm Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun CMK 1

Both the Naval Museum of Manitoba and the RCAF Memorial Museum in Trenton had strong interpretive reasons for wanting to acquire the Bofors Gun given that the navy used (and still uses) Bofors and that Bofors also have been used to defend Canadian airfields. However, the Naval Museum's application was stronger because it offered indoor display and a stronger conservation programme for the Gun.

(5)United States 90mm anti-aircraft gun model M1A3

There was only one applicant for this Gun, the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum. This institution is housed in Markham, but has entered preliminary negotiations to move to the John Street Roundhouse. The museum, it should be noted, applied for all of the Coronation Park artifacts. As well, the Kingsville Historical Park, Inc. noted in its application for the Tank that it 'would be very interested in any of the artillery pieces that have not been applied for.'

The committee did not see how any of the objects requested by the Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, with the exception of the Lancaster Bomber, fitted into the existing core interpretive interests of the museum, and did not see evidence of significant movement towards expanding into naval and army history beyond this particular application to warrant it being recommended to receive the other objects. Furthermore, the committee thought the institution is far enough from moving to the John Street Roundhouse at this point in time that the public interest might not be served well by placing the Anti-Aircraft Gun in the museum's collection because of the uncertainty over the future use and display of the Gun.

The Kingsville application struck the committee as being weak as the institution does not seem to have the museological expertise required to care for the object.

Therefore, the committee thought it best to reopen the competition for the Anti-Aircraft Gun to determine if there would be a better home for this piece.

Contact Name:

Mr. Carl Benn,

Curator, Fort York

392-6907

--------

Appendix

Institutions which applied for the Coronation Park Artifacts

RCAF Lancaster Bomber (FM104):

1st choice:Toronto Aerospace Museum, Downsview, Ont.

2nd choice:Comox Air Force Museum, CFB Comox, B.C.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Sherman Tank:

1st choice:Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Ont.

2nd choice:Niagara National Historic Parks, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 197, Acton, Ont.

25-Pounder Howitzer:

1st choice:Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, Ont.

2nd choice:Canadian Military Heritage Museum, Brantford, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 197, Acton, Ont.

26th Field Regiment Museum, Brandon, Man.

40-MM Bofors Anti-Aircraft Gun:

1st choice:Naval Museum of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.

2nd choice:RCAF Memorial Museum, Trenton, Ont.

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

U.S. 90-MM Anti-Aircraft Gun:

1st choice:none

2nd choice:none

others:Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, Markham, Ont.

Kingsville Historical Park, Inc., Kingsville, Ont.

--------

The Economic Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications and material:

-(December 7, 1998) from Mr. Allan A. Rubin, President, Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, on behalf of Comox Air Force Museum. (Bound copy of full submission was forwarded to each member of the Economic Development Committee and is on file in the office of the City Clerk.);

-(December 10, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone supporting the relocation of the Lancaster Bomber to the Toronto Aerospace Museum;

-(December 11, 1998) from Mr. Bill Dickinson, Toronto Region Vice President, Air Force Association of Canada, endorsing the recommendations of the Toronto Historical Board for the transfer of the Lancaster Bomber to the Toronto Aerospace Museum;

-brochure, titled "Welcome to the New Toronto Aerospace Museum";

-booklet, titled "Canada Remembers"; and

-magazine, titled "Airforce".

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Allan A. Rubin, President, Canadian Air Land Sea Museum, on behalf of Comox Air Force Museum; and

-Mr. Ron Wylie, Curator, Toronto Aerospace Museum.