Bill C-331 (Historical)

Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act

An Act to acknowledge that persons of Ukrainian origin were interned in Canada during the First World War and to provide for recognition of this event

Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian recognition and restitution act. This bill has been brought forth due to the determination and the stick-to-it-iveness of the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette.

Sometimes in our history mistakes are made. Dare I say we cannot rewrite history, as the leader of the official opposition just pointed out, but what we can do is recognize a wrongdoing and give it the kind of recognition it deserves.

From 1997 to 2001 the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette consulted on this bill. As the previous speakers have said, the purpose of this enactment is to provide for redress for the injustice done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans during the first world war, to commemorate this sad event in Canadian history, and to provide for restitution. Restitution is to be devoted to educational materials dealing with Canada's past internment policies and activities and to promote tolerance and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On April 1, 2001 this bill was introduced by the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette. In the course of time the bill died on the order paper, but the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette had so much conviction about what should be done that it was reintroduced on November 18, 2002. Once again this very important bill died on the order paper. What had happened to Ukrainian Canadians was something that really touched the heart of the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette, so once again on October 12, 2004 the bill was reintroduced.

We have to note it is seldom that a member of Parliament takes so much time and makes so much of a commitment to reintroduce a bill. However, the member has done so because he has so much conviction that the Ukrainian Canadian people need to have redress on this particular issue.

As members have said before me, with the outbreak of World War I, the War Measures Act in 1914 was implemented through an order in council by the Canadian government. This resulted in the internment of 8,579 people. They were termed enemy aliens. They included over 5,000 Ukrainians who had immigrated to Canada from territories under the control of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The internees were used as forced labourers to develop Canadian infrastructure. They were used to develop Banff National Park, the logging industry in northern Ontario and Quebec, the steel mills in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the mines in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The infrastructure development program benefited Canadian corporations. There was no doubt about it. The terrible thing about this was that the internment was carried on for two years after the end of World War I. This was a sad day in our Canadian history.

The member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette was determined to make sure that the Ukrainian Canadian family of people who immigrated to our country was recognized not only for their contributions but also that the internment was something that should never have happened.

These wonderful people, who have been a foundation of our country and who have done many things to help Canada, should not have had to endure this internment. As other members have said, we cannot redo history. It happened and and it is time to address it and recognize the people of Ukrainian extraction, the people who helped build this country.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have done much to bring this issue to the forefront. In fact, to some degree the Mulroney government made promises of support. Even as early as 1993 the leader of the opposition, Jean Chrétien, said that he would do something to address this issue. It has been 11 years since that promise was made and Ukrainian Canadians are still waiting for acknowledgment of these injustices.

I am proud to stand in the House of Commons today to bring recognition and honour to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette because this is what our Canadian Parliament is all about. He has been a champion for Ukrainian Canadians. He has also been a member of Parliament who has really touched the hearts of all Canadians because all Canadians now at this time, years after this happened, feel that this is a sad day in Canadian history.

The Government of Canada during that time unjustly confiscated money and property from Ukrainians and other Europeans, money that was never returned.

In Bill C-331, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette asks that the contemporary value be applied to various educational and commemorative projects for the benefit of all Canadians. No restitution will be made to individuals but rather the money will be put to laying the foundation of history so something like this can never happen again on Canadian soil.

Memorial plaques have been and are being installed in the 24 concentration camps in which persons of Ukrainian or eastern European descent were interned during World War I. Some still do not have such plaques but these plaques describe the events of the time and the regrets of present day Canadians, written in Ukrainian, English and French. In our country all can read this, all can remember and all can learn from this sad day in history.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette also wanted to ensure that all memorial plaques at the concentration camp sites would be properly maintained. A lot of thought, a lot of stick-to-it-iveness and a lot of dedication has gone into the advent of this very important bill here in the House of Commons.

The bill also asks for the establishment of a permanent museum in Banff National Park at the site of the camp established there, again with signage in Ukrainian, English and French. This will provide information on the operation of all the concentration camps established in Canada at the time of World War I and the role that Ukrainian Canadians have played in the building of Canada since that time.

We have gone through a memorable year where the people of Ukraine have become the heroes of the world with their vote on December 26, 2004. We know the member for Etobicoke Centre was a real champion in that election. I think we need to acknowledge the heroes of our country. I have to give honour to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and thank him for his perseverance.

I know members on all sides of the House will put Bill C-331 through to honour and commemorate this event.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak to Bill C-331, a private member's bill that seeks to recognize the injustices that were done to persons of Ukrainian descent at the time of the first world war.

Let me begin by congratulating the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for the work he has done to bring the issue of internment of Ukrainian Canadians to the House. The bill underscores the need to publicly commemorate this tragic event through public education initiatives so as to lead to an atonement.

I love Canada and believe that Canada is unique internationally. The Canada that I have known for the last number of decades has been a shining example of multiculturalism. We do not just tolerate our differences; we celebrate the people and cultures that make up our national mosaic.

I mentioned that I rose with a heavy heart. It is because I also know that to make our Canada an even greater country, we must have the courage to acknowledge the dark episodes of our country's past.

While some would have preferred to sweep the tragic episode of the internment operations from 1914 to 1920 into the dustbin of history, the Ukrainian Canadian community remembers, and through public acknowledgement by the government seeks to bring closure to a painful episode in our common history.

We should congratulate the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association in their determination to make sure that there is a proper acknowledgement.

In the decades following Canada's Confederation, thousands of Ukrainians were encouraged to leave their homeland and embark on an arduous journey that took them to some of the most remote parts of western Canada. These settlers faced very harsh living conditions under isolated circumstances with little in the way of support. Yet their desire for freedom and a better future for their children and grandchildren sustained them during these very difficult pioneering years.

Out of the wilderness of Canada's west they carved golden wheat fields as far as the eyes could see. Yet despite having built Canada's west and despite having been a counterbalance to the expansionist intents of settlers from the United States, Ukrainian Canadians experienced prejudice and racism in their new homeland.

With the outbreak of World War I, this prejudice and racism was fanned into xenophobia culminating in the implementation of the War Measures Act as a result of an order in council by the Canadian government. Some 8,579 so-called enemy aliens, of which over 5,000 were Ukrainians who had emigrated to Canada from the Austro-Hungarian empire, were interned.

These internees, which in many cases included women and children, were not only disenfranchised, but their homes and homesteads were taken away from them. They were sent to processing centres for internment and then sent to work camps to live behind barbed wires.

In addition to this internment, some 80,000 Canadian citizens, of which the vast majority were Ukrainian, were obliged to register as enemy aliens and then required to report to local authorities on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, the internees were used as forced labourers to develop our nation's infrastructure. They were used to build Banff National Park, the logging industry in northern Ontario and Quebec, the steel mills in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the mines in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This infrastructure development program benefited Canadian corporations to such a degree that even after the end of World War I, for two more years the Canadian government carried on the internment and the forced labour.

From 1914 to 1920, a breaking of the trust between the government and its own citizens took place in Canada. It was called internment. Politicians and leading Canadians took an active role in its justification by feeding the dark side of human nature: fear of different cultures, prejudice and xenophobia.

In this tragic case, the victims were pioneers who were encouraged to leave their homeland to help build Canada. It is an example of the terrible human cost paid when xenophobia and racism are fuelled by international threats and are unchecked by legislation.

Today, notwithstanding the existence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, processes such as denaturalization and deportation show the vulnerability of individual rights when government succumbs to ignorance and fear.

As the grandson and son of Ukrainian immigrants, I have a particular appreciation for the significance of the member's bill. I view the bill as part of the process to ensure that this historical wrong is righted through an honourable acknowledgement.

After 85 years it is high time that the internment operations against Ukrainian Canadians be properly addressed by the instalment and maintenance of 24 memorial plaques at 24 internment camps across Canada, and by the establishment of a permanent museum at the site of the internment camp in Banff National Park. This museum should provide educational information on the operation of the internment camps across Canada and the role of Ukrainian Canadians as one of western Canada's founding peoples.

As well, the minister responsible for Canada Post should engage the corporation to issue a set of stamps to commemorate the contribution of Ukrainian Canadians in building this great country.

Finally, resources should be set aside to establish educational projects. Such projects should be agreed to by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Government of Canada.

I believe that there now is the will in the House for a reconciliation to which the bill speaks. I am optimistic and look forward to the day when the Government of Canada and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress begin the negotiation process so that present and future generations of Canadians will be afforded the opportunity to learn from this tragic episode in our history.

May a complete knowledge of our past help this and future generations in our collective enterprise of building an even stronger multicultural Canada, a celebratory mosaic of peoples which the rest of the world will look to as an example of what a society can achieve.

It is and always has been my firm belief that a few friendly amendments to the wording of Bill C-331 would ensure that this long overdue legislation can and will be supported unanimously by all parties and all members of the House. I look forward to working hard to achieve this goal with the Ukrainian Canadian community and the bill's author, whom I would like to congratulate once again on his determination in bringing the bill forward.

The time for a reconciliation has arrived.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-331, which is intended to redress an intolerable injustice done to a community which, over the years, has contributed to Canada's cultural, social and economic development.

This is a bill to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the time of the First World War and to provide for public commemoration and for restitution which is to be devoted to public education and the promotion of tolerance.

It is important we remember today that this is not the first time this House has discussed the importance of recognition and restitution for the Ukrainian community. I would remind the House that in September 1991 this Parliament debated a motion made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who wanted to recognize that internment, removal of the right to vote, and other repressive measures taken against Ukrainian-Canadians between 1914 and 1920 were unjustified and contrary to the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, that motion proposed to direct Parks Canada to erect commemorative plaques in each of the 26 concentration camps where Ukrainians were interned.

The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to go beyond that. Canada must acknowledge this major historical error, but not just with simple commemorative plaques in public places. These events, which are intolerable and unacceptable to us all, must be properly acknowledged. We must also dare to go still further by providing for a compensation package so that the public can come to know of these events and their consequences, which in today's context would have been contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

People need to understand, to feel, to consider that these people, who came here and were welcomed with open arms 10 or 20 years before World War I, were treated unfairly and inhumanely, not just during the war years, but up until 1920. How could we allow that? These people—more than 5,000 of them—had come to Canada to escape the unbearable situation in which they had been living. They came here in search of a breath of fresh air and respect for their rights. They were interned in more than 26 labour camps, where they were treated, purely and simply, like animals. They were considered enemies, aliens, because two Ukrainian territories were under the Austro-Hungarian empire. Is that any way to treat a people? Because Canada considered Austria an enemy at that time, these people were penalized, and their freedom was not respected.

Today we are considering a bill that would mark the events experienced by this community and set up—we hope—a plan for restitution that would help better inform the public.

In addition to imprisoning these people in inhumane conditions, where forced labour, curfews, confinement and internment were the norm, and rather than give them the freedom they were entitled to and came looking for in Canada, we forced them to live in unacceptable living conditions.

This was not limited to these imprisoned individuals. In fact, more than 88,000 Ukrainians who were not imprisoned had to report to the police. They had to follow a certain number of directives such as reporting regularly, as in a true police state.

In a democracy, this type of approach is totally unacceptable. Individuals' right to freedom was denied at the time. Today this Parliament, by taking matters further than in the motion tabled in 1991, is offering restitution through a legislative measure and a bill, which we are proud to support.

Why were these people imprisoned? Were they a threat to national security? No. Because the land of these people was unfortunately part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, their freedom was violated, nothing less.

Today, we must unequivocally support this bill to correct a past mistake.

I will conclude by saying that Canada, today, has to live up to the ideals it defends. It has to be able to recognize when it has made mistakes that go against these ideals. History must be given every opportunity to not repeat itself. We have a fine opportunity here today. It is a start. Recognizing past mistakes is a way of facing the future in all fairness and serenity.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for allowing me to speak first on the debate this afternoon as I have a busy schedule. I also want to thank in particular the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who gave up her slot to allow me to speak first. I know she has done a lot of work on the bill and with the Ukrainian community and we are very much appreciative of her efforts.

I rise today to address an important and unfortunate chapter in Canadian history. I am pleased to give my support as a consequence to Bill C-331.

Bill C-331 is an act to recognize he injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the time of the first world war. The bill would provide for public commemoration and for redress devoted to public education and the promotion of tolerance.

Allow me to begin by first recognizing the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and in particular Professor Lubomyr Luciuk for their tireless efforts to promote awareness of the internment of Ukrainian Canadians during the first world war. Without their efforts, we would likely not be having this kind of debate in Parliament today. Unfortunately, without their advocacy this chapter of Canadian history would already have been largely forgotten.

I would like to thank my colleague, the Conservative member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, for presenting this bill and for bearing the torch for a long time for redress of this historic wrong. His leadership has been critical in working to finally close this painful chapter of Canadian history for the descendants of those Canadians who were unjustly interned several decades ago.

Between 1914 and 1920 Canada witnessed its first internment operations under the War Measures Act. Thousands of loyal Canadians were systematically arrested and interned in 24 camps throughout the country simply because of their national origin. Nearly 9,000 Canadians were interned, the vast majority of Ukrainian origin.

At the outset of the first world war, western Ukraine was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian empire and Canada was of course at war with Austria-Hungary. In the midst of wartime hysteria, everyone with a connection to Austria-Hungary was deemed a threat to our country. Often of course this was simply incorrect. Ironically, in this case many thousands of Ukrainian Canadians had actually fled the occupying power in their homeland. A knowledgeable assessment of the situation could have led to only one conclusion: these refugees of Canada's wartime enemy were not enemies of Canada. They were new, loyal British subjects and allies of our wartime cause.

In fact, in 1915, I should mention that the British foreign office twice instructed Ottawa to grant Ukrainians “preferential treatment”, arguing that they were to be considered “friendly aliens” rather than “enemy aliens”. Yet the federal government of the time simply would not listen and would not change course.

Moreover, many of those interned were not just naturalized British subjects. They were truly Canadians. They were born in Canada, but bearing the wrong last name or the wrong parentage because in this case even children were interned.

Throughout the internment operation the civilian internees were transported to Canada's frontier hinterlands where they were forced to perform hard labour under trying circumstances. Some sites that we all know well today, including Banff and Jasper national parks and the experimental farms at Kapuskasing, were first developed by this pool of forced labour. Again ironically, as Ukrainian Canadians were being interned for having been unfortunate enough to enter this country with Austro-Hungarian passports, other Ukrainian Canadians who had entered Canada on different foreign documents were serving Canada loyally in overseas battle.

Let us not forget Ukrainian-Canadian war veteran Philip Konowal, who was awarded the Victoria Cross by King George V for his brave wartime service. He was a Ukrainian Canadian honoured, while at the very same time his fellow neighbours and descendants of Ukraine were wondering why they had chosen Canada to be their new home while they were being interned.

We know we cannot rewrite history. That is not the exercise today. We cannot change the fact that an injustice occurred. Frankly, only those who carried out an injustice can truly be held accountable. Only those who themselves suffered injustice can ever properly be compensated.

However as heirs of our society and its institutions we can acknowledge injustice. We can appreciate the lessons of history and we can make amends where appropriate in our own time. It is in my judgment time to make amends.

If Bill C-331 is allowed to pass, it will be the first official acknowledgement that Canada's treatment of Ukrainian Canadians during the first world war was wrong. It will be the first time that a promise made many times by many Canadian political leaders will be kept.

Former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, had repeatedly promised to officially recognize the internment operations but he failed to deliver while in office.

Former heritage minister, Sheila Copps, made a similar promise to give official recognition to this historical injustice but also failed to act once elected to the government benches. It is time to simply put this matter to rest.

By passing Bill C-331, we will finally take a step to acknowledge the injustice of the past, an injustice that would never be allowed to be committed today in this great country which reveres our freedoms and the rule of law.

So far the Ukrainian Canadian community has placed memorial plaques at almost all of the internment sites except for five to remind Canadians of what happened at these locations so that this sad chapter of our history may never be repeated.

Many official documents and archival files were destroyed in the early 1950s but slowly material has been researched and is resurfacing once again. We give thanks to many academics of Ukrainian Canadian heritage who have resolved to keep alive our collective memory of these historical events.

However we should go further. We should officially recognize these events as a historical wrong.

The last remaining survivor of these internment operations, Mary Haskett, is still alive. She will be turning 97 this summer. I sincerely hope that she will live to see an official reconciliation of this past injustice.

On behalf of the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and all members of the Conservative Party, I certainly urge my colleagues in the House to join me in support of Bill C-331.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule with regard to issues affecting two private members' bills, Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, and Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act.

Last December 7 when debate commenced on second reading of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, I expressed some concern about provisions of this bill which might infringe on the financial initiative of the crown. At that time I asked for submissions on this matter from interested members before the bill was next debated.

On February 22 the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made submissions on the requirements for a royal recommendation for this bill. The parliamentary secretary also made a submission of why a royal recommendation was required for Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the member for Durham. The Chair wishes to thank these members for having addressed this matter thoroughly and providing the Chair with sufficient time to consider their arguments.

The central issue which is being addressed at this time is whether Bill C-331 in its present form requires a royal recommendation. If this is the case, the bill in its current form will not be put to a vote at third reading unless a royal recommendation is first brought forward by a minister of the crown. If the bill is amended at committee or report stage, the need for a royal recommendation may be removed and a vote may be requested.

Hon. members may recall the ruling given on February 24, 2005 with respect to the royal recommendation and Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. The issue which was addressed at that time is similar to the one before us today, specifically, is there an infringement on the financial initiative of the crown? The financial initiative of the crown, a well-established principle of our parliamentary system of government, reserves to the government the right to propose the spending of public funds for a particular purpose. The initiative of the crown is assured by the constitutional requirement that any such proposal to the House must be accompanied by a royal recommendation as required by section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79 of this House.

Does Bill C-331 require a royal recommendation; that is, does Bill C-331 contain a proposal for the spending of public funds that would constitute an appropriation or an equivalent authorization to spend? In my view it does. Clause 2(c) states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall:

(c) establish a permanent museum in Banff National Park, at the site of the concentration camp that was established there,--

It is clear that it mandates the establishment of a permanent museum. Therefore, in my view, clause 2(c) constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79. Alternatively, it constitutes an authorization to spend the necessary public funds and as such is the equivalent of an appropriation under section 54 or Standing Order 79.

The hon. member has advised the House that the new museum would be housed in an existing building and restructuring costs would be paid from funds obtained from the negotiated restitution. However, this is not indicated in the bill, and the Chair can only rely on the text of the bill in these matters.

I appreciate the hon. member sharing with the House what is contemplated by this bill. No doubt the hon. member and others supporting this initiative have been mindful of the need to minimize the cost of this project to the public purse, but costs there nonetheless would be, and for a new and distinct purpose: a Ukrainian Canadian museum at Banff, Alberta. I must assume that these costs would be met by public funds from the consolidated revenue fund. The mandatory language allows me no other interpretation of clause 2(c).

Clause 3 has been challenged by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader who contends that it also requires a royal recommendation. Clause 3 states, in part:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall—negotiate—asuitable payment in restitution for the confiscation of property and other assets from Ukrainian Canadians.

The House will recall that in an initial ruling relating to Bill C-331 made on December 7, 2004 it was determined that this clause did not require a royal recommendation. The hon. parliamentary secretary now argues that the notion of a restitution payment created a positive obligation, in his words, to spend funds. I have now given the matter further consideration and I find no requirement for a royal recommendation.

If the term “positive obligation” means that the government is given a mandate to spend public funds, then I would expect to see legislative text that clearly indicates an intention to expend those funds.

This bill provides for a negotiation with the Ukrainian community before any payment can be made, implying that no restitution amount may ever be determined. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this bill upon enactment would effect an appropriation of public funds. At the very least, a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment.

Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation. To subject an appropriation to a subsequent action beyond the control of Parliament is in effect for Parliament to delegate its powers and responsibilities in respect of supply to someone else. This Parliament cannot do.

When Parliament adopts a bill, it is either effecting an appropriation of public funds or it is not doing so. A royal recommendation is not required in respect of actions that may or may not ever happen and so is not required in respect of clause 3 of the bill.

Now let us turn to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act sponsored by the hon. member for Durham.

In this case as well the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the bill required a royal recommendation because it would impose a positive obligation upon the government to spend public funds once the amount of redress was negotiated and formed part of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Congress of Chinese Canadians.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to Clause 4 that reads:

The Government of Canada shall negotiate an agreement for redress with the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, to be proposed to Parliament for approval.

He argued that the negotiated agreement provided for did not detract from the positive obligation imposed upon the government by the bill. The Chair does not agree with that position.

For the reasons I just gave in respect to Bill C-331 and its restitution clause, I cannot accept that Bill C-333 constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of the term in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or Standing Order 79. Nor do I consider that it constitutes an equivalent authorization to spend public funds under these authorities.

Accordingly, to summarize, in the case of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act standing in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, a royal recommendation will be required before it can be put to a vote at third reading in its current form. In the meantime, consideration of this bill can continue in the House and in committee.

With respect to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the hon. member for Durham, a royal recommendation is not required to negotiate an agreement for redress. This bill in its current form can proceed to a vote at third reading.

I wish to thank the House for its patience in allowing me to review the requirements for a royal recommendation.

As it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that private members' business is conducted in an orderly manner, the Chair will continue to bring to the attention of the House those private members' bills on the order of precedence which may require a royal recommendation.

If the Chair does not identify a specific bill having need of a royal recommendation, it would still be open to any member to raise his or her concerns at an early opportunity. In this way the House can proceed in an informed manner in its consideration of private members' business.

Ukrainian Canadians

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 22, the Liberal government intervened to have Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian recognition and restitution bill, struck from the order paper.

The Liberals questioned the judgment of the Chair on the issue of restitution, despite an earlier reading.

I was proud to second the bill tabled by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

Canada's Ukrainian community has waited 20 years for redress. What is the Liberal government afraid of? Are they afraid of acknowledging Canada's past history and the injustices done to those interned during the first world war?

Bill C-331 belongs to the one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent. They expect the House to have the courage to debate it.

Points of Order

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members opposite that Bill C-331 has already had one hour of debate and the Chair has ruled that the restitution component does not require royal consent. It just does not make any sense that we start debating a bill and all of a sudden the government objects. I do not believe we should be dealing with Bill C-333 when we are talking about intervention with Bill C-331.

The member opposite stated that all these clauses start with “shall”. Could he show me a government bill that does not have the word “shall” in it? If we were to withdraw all the shalls from the short bill, we would not have a bill.

This is to continue negotiations. The crux of the bill is to ask the government to sit down with the Ukrainian Canadian community and negotiate. No dollars are noted in the bill.

On the issue of the museum, I have stated, and this is actually from the past history of the last government, how close it came to resolving this issue.

If the bill is successful on the vote at the end of the second reading, the committee can deal with it. The committee can eliminate, delete, amend or do whatever it wants. The government will have plenty of say. After 20 years surely the House would allow the one million Ukrainians in communities in Canada to have their say. I think that would be justice for that ethnic community. This is a long time to rule this bill out of order. Let the committee decide.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide some advice to the Chair on what we consider to be an important issue. The member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette made a very useful intervention in describing some of the context of what he is trying to achieve in Bill C-331.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, when you make your ruling on this issue to be restricted by the text of the legislation that is before the House. Some of the information that the member offered in his intervention is not reflected in the actual text of the bill. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to be very careful in considering this matter and to restrict yourself to the text of the legislation. With that in mind, I would like to make a few observations on the matter.

As the hon. member mentioned, on December 7, 2004, in the first hour of debate on Bill C-331, the Acting Chair invited any members interested in the matter to make a submission to the Chair explaining their views on whether or not this bill requires a royal recommendation.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure, and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General.

This is the essence of our system of responsible government.

This prerogative is signified by way of the royal recommendation, which accompanies all appropriation acts or bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates.

This reference by Marleau and Montpetit specifies that the charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Allow me to examine in particular Bill C-331. With respect to clause 2, it is the government's view that it is in fact the creation and operation of a new permanent museum and that this would obviously impose a new expenditure and therefore require a royal recommendation.

The Parks Canada Agency Act and the Historic Sites and Monuments Act allow the minister to designate a historic place as a national historic site and provide the minister with the powers to designate them by means of plaques or, with the approval of the governor in council, establish historic museums.

Establishing a new museum, as is contemplated in this legislation, is potentially a very expensive undertaking. The Department of Canadian Heritage estimates that building a new museum would cost up to $6.5 million, plus the considerable ongoing costs to maintain the exhibit and the building and provide the appropriate staff.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the original legislation authorized expenditures for the purposes, manner and cases provided for in that bill. Any new cases, we would argue, would require a new royal recommendation.

The intent to limit expenditures for new museums is further made clear by subsection 3(c) of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act that I referred to earlier, which limits the power of the minister to establish a museum by requiring the approval of the governor in council. The royal recommendation for that bill only applied to the establishment of new museums authorized by the governor in council.

Bill C-331 would oblige the minister to establish a new museum without the approval of the governor in council. This alone is an expenditure, in our view, outside the scope of the existing legislation. The case for a royal recommendation is made even stronger by the signal that the original legislation itself contemplated the Crown's control of expenditures under this part.

Turning now to clause 3 of that legislation, the Speaker noted that the restitution provisions in the bill are contingent on the successful completion of a negotiation process.

I would like to draw the following issues to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in seeking further clarification from you on this point and to further clarify the government's position in the hope that you will reflect on that issue with renewed vigour and insight.

There are two issues at hand: first, whether the bill imposes a new expenditure that is not covered by the existing statutes, and second, the issue raised by the Speaker, if the expenditure is in fact conditional on the outcome of negotiations, whether a royal recommendation is also necessary.

On the first question, clause 3 of the bill requires the minister to negotiate a restitution payment and prescribes the activities that the payment “shall” be applied to. In our view, this is clearly a positive obligation imposed on the Crown. The wording of this clause clearly imposes a new expenditure. The word “shall” cannot be attributed to anything other than a positive obligation to expend money.

While the outcome of the negotiation may be unknown, it could be argued that the bill requires a “non-zero” outcome, as the bill itself explicitly requires that a payment be made as the outcome of the negotiations. What is hypothetical is simply the amount of the payment.

On the first question, a new charge is created by the bill, and so in our view, a royal recommendation is needed.

On the second question, even if the outcome in terms of the amount is hypothetical, Erskine May indicates that a recommendation is still required, by stating:

The same applies to a totally new legislative purpose which imposes only a potential liability on public expenditure. For example, the argument cannot be sustained that a proposal to confer on a Minister a discretionary power to expend money in certain circumstances escapes the need for a Money resolution because the circumstances may not arise or the discretion may not be exercised.

I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the government's position that we have the same concerns with respect to another bill before the House, Bill C-333, which was debated for its first hour in this place yesterday, I believe.

That bill specifies that the redress agreement “shall consist” of the establishment of a foundation and other educational projects, which makes clear that an expenditure of funds is also required by that bill, even if the amount of the expenditure is to be determined by negotiation. We view that as another positive obligation.

I am concluding by saying that the addition of the words “to be proposed to Parliament for approval” does not in fact solve the situation, since it is clearly this bill which places an obligation as well on an expenditure for the government. Whether or not Parliament ultimately approves the specific agreement does not change the fact that it is this instrument which creates the new charge.

In conclusion, our view is that a royal recommendation is required for both the creation of a new museum and the negotiation of any restitution payments, a negotiation, as I said, which does not contemplate whatsoever a non-payment by the Crown.

When one considers these questions, Mr. Speaker, it may be instructive to ask yourself, if these bills had been proposed by the government would a royal recommendation have been attached? I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to that question is yes, and therefore in this case a royal recommendation is also required.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Chair for a ruling that the restitution provision of Bill C-331 does not require a royal recommendation. The Chair has questioned the clause that proposes the establishment of a museum at the site of one of the World War I internment camps. The concern is that the establishment would require public funds.

After lengthy consultation with the Ukrainian community in Canada, both the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, let me assure the Chair that no new museum is being requested in Bill C-331. No extraordinary financial commitments are being requested. Therefore, I believe Bill C-331 is not a money bill and does not require a royal recommendation.

Allow me to explain how the idea of the museum came about in the bill. During the last session of Parliament the former heritage minister, the hon. Sheila Copps, instructed her department to meet and discuss ways to deal with the Ukrainian redress issue. A number of meetings took place and progress was made. This process was terminated with the call of the general election.

The museum idea was a proposal discussed at these meetings. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Ukrainian internee labour was used to build much of the Banff infrastructure. The proposed museum would be housed in an existing facility that is currently maintained by Parks Canada as an office complex storage area at Cave and Basin in Banff National Park, formerly known as the Old Tea Shoppe building.

This structure's first floor would be cleared out and Parks Canada would continue to have access and use the lower basement level. The first level would be reconstituted as a meeting place, for education, commemoration and reflection for the exclusive use of the Ukrainian Canadian community in perpetuity. This facility would include a small meeting area, a permanent exhibit about the internment operations, the current washroom facilities and some office space, as well as a small chapel and place of reflection. As well, the existing exhibit information about the internment operations in the Cave and Basin centre would be expanded.

Parks Canada would maintain the existing facilities as part of its annual budget for the Cave and Basin Banff National Park, as it does now, ensuring proper security, heating, maintenance and the like. As this function is already performed by Parks Canada and is included in its annual operating budget, no additional funds would be required. As the proposed place of reflection and commemoration would only be used on a irregular basis by the community and not normally open to the public, its maintenance would not require any extraordinary expenditures.

Design, development and reconfiguration of the first floor area to meet the requirements of the Ukrainian Canadian community would be undertaken in consultation with Parks Canada and any other relevant government ministries to ensure the heritage integrity of the building.

The costs of any restructuring of the internal space of this building to meet the needs of the community would be paid for from funds coming to the community as a result of a calculation of the contemporary value of that portion of the wealth confiscated from the internees that was not returned, a figure to be arrived at by government forensic accountants and economists in consultation with the designated representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian community. The community expects to be involved in negotiations with the appropriate federal government authorities as anticipated in Bill C-331 to determine the appropriate level of symbolic restitution.

These details have previously been discussed in meetings initiated by the former minister of Canadian heritage, the hon. Sheila Copps, and communicated to the senior members of that government department and others.

In closing, no new museum is being requested. No extraordinary financial commitments are being requested. In the view of the Ukrainian community, Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, is not, therefore, a money bill and should be voted and discussed in the House of Commons.

If Bill C-331 is successful and is sent to committee for further study, the committee may amend or delete this clause if it is the will of the committee. At this time, Bill C-331 has already received one hour of debate. It would be a great disappointment to the one million Ukrainian Canadians if Bill C-331 was ruled out of order.

Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party in support of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. I want to commend him for his persistence in getting the bill on to the floor of the House this time around. I also want to commend my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her speech this evening.

The bill seeks justice for Ukrainian Canadians and other Europeans from the former Austro-Hungarian empire who were imprisoned in special internment camps in Canada during World War I. It is a group of about 9,000 people. The bill calls on the federal government to acknowledge the injustice that was done and to provide restitution for those imprisoned.

The bill mirrors a motion passed 11 years ago in the House, a motion that was proposed by the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is unfortunate that Bill C-331 is still necessary, given the unanimous consent that the 1991 motion received in the House.

At the outset of World War I the War Measures Act was implemented and almost 9,000 people in Canada were deemed enemy aliens, rounded up and forced into internment camps. More than 5,000 of them were Ukrainians who had immigrated to Canada. Another 88,000 Ukrainians in Canada were required to report regularly to police and security authorities during that period.

Between 1914 and 1920, two years after the end of the first world war, these people were held in 24 internment camps. They were forced to do heavy labour under trying conditions. Their assets were seized and they were subjected to state sanctioned persecution.

Never at any time was any evidence presented to show that Ukrainian Canadians were a threat to Canada. In fact, Britain had even advised Canada in 1914 that Ukrainians should be considered friendly aliens.

The bill does not seek direct compensation for the victims of the internment operation, but rather it recommends educational and commemorative measures. We must preserve the memory of these events. Our collective memory of the experience of Ukrainian Canadians here in Canada will help call us to make sure that we never again repeat that mistake as a nation.

Bill C-331 calls for commemorative plaques to be installed at the 24 camps. These plaques would describe the events that took place in the history of the internment. It also recommends a museum be created in Banff National Park, which was the site of one of the largest internment camps.

The park infrastructure of that beautiful natural site was partially built by forced labour. When observing the natural wonders of Canada, one should be reminded of the contribution made by the interned Ukrainian Canadians.

This museum would provide information on the operation of the camp and would acknowledge the role that Ukrainian Canadians played in the building of Canada, then and now.

Bill C-331 also recommends a restitution payment be made to compensate for the confiscation of property and assets from Ukrainian Canadians. Much was taken from them, but not all the confiscated wealth was returned.

This payment would be used to develop and produce educational materials that fight racial intolerance and discrimination, which would be distributed to schools and universities. The materials should reflect and promote the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, broad on the understanding of other religions and cultures and ultimately protect Canadians from future injustices. Other educational projects could be developed in consultation with the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

In addition, a set of commemorative stamps would be issued. This would serve again to keep the memory alive and to ensure that such unjust treatment never takes place on Canadian soil again.

Finally, the bill calls for a review of the Emergencies Act by the Minister of National Defence who must report back to the House with possible legislative changes that would prevent similar atrocities in the future.

In this post-9/11 world where security concerns are top of mind for many Canadians and for our government, I find this point particularly resonant. We must not implement draconian security measures at the expense of the rights and dignity of people, based on ethnicity, country of origin or religious belief.

I wish I could stand here today and be clear that we had learned from our mistakes. I fear, however, with our security certificate process and the detention of some Canadians and people in Canada, of special rules for evidence and special trials that are now allowed in Canada, that we are travelling down that road once again. I fear that racial profiling of some Canadians is taking us there yet again.

I am concerned that proposals to allow for the revocation of Canadian citizenship will set up a system where there are two classes of Canadian citizenship. I am glad that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has spoken very clearly to that particular issue and the proposals that were made in the past.

These are all issues that demand our attention in light of the experience of Ukrainian Canadians. Should the bill pass, these are all issues that might be addressed in the kind of educational work that would be undertaken.

Canadians rightly take pride in the multicultural nature of our society. At the same time we recognize that we have not always treated all groups equally. We must not forget the Japanese internment during World War II, for which an apology has been made and redress has been negotiated.

We must not forget the experience of Chinese Canadians who were forced to pay a head tax and were subjected to the Asian Exclusion Act. I hope that Parliament will soon address the matter of redress for those who paid the Chinese head tax. Justice must finally be done for Chinese Canadians as well.

We have seen the War Measures Act used against our citizens in other troubling ways in 1970.

I understand that there is only one Ukrainian Canadian who was detained and is still alive today. Mary Manko Haskett was detained at the Spirit Lake internment camp in Quebec. I was moved by a plea written by her in 1994. One of the things she wrote about was how Spirit Lake camp no longer appeared on maps of Canada. She was unable to show her children and grandchildren where it was on a map of Canada.

At the same time Mrs. Haskett was in detention, another Ukrainian Canadian was fighting in Europe as a member of the Canadian armed forces. Philip Konowal was born in Ukraine in 1887 and immigrated to Canada in 1913. In August 1917 he was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions during battle in France. Mr. Konowal returned to Canada and became an employee of the House of Commons, where he served until his death in 1959. Commemorative plaques honouring Mr. Konowal can be found here in Ottawa, Toronto and New Westminster, B.C. It is indeed ironic that while so many Ukrainian Canadians were being held in internment camps here in Canada, Mr. Konowal was distinguishing himself as an outstanding member of Canada's armed forces in Europe.

We have a choice. We can allow our collective memory to fade about the internment of Canadians, becoming like the map that no longer shows the location of Spirit Lake camp, or we can remember and celebrate the many contributions of Ukrainian Canadians to our country, people like Mr. Konowal.

We must take steps to ensure that this troubling part of our history is remembered, that restitution is made, and that through remembering and rededicating ourselves to ensuring basic human rights for all Canadians, that it is not repeated. That is how I understand the goals of Bill C-331.

I am pleased to reiterate the NDPs support for the bill. We were committed to the bill's previous incarnation in the 37th Parliament. As well, we made our support for redress for Ukrainian Canadians imprisoned during World War I very clear during the recent federal election campaign.

We believe that Parliament and the government should act now to acknowledge and preserve the memory of this and other shameful incidents in our history. Let us ensure that this unfortunate episode is not repeated, that no other ethnic or religious minority ever suffers as Ukrainian Canadians once did. As we do so, let us celebrate the many contributions of Ukrainian Canadians to our country.

In recent weeks members of the House and indeed people all across Canada and around the world have been following events in Ukraine very closely. We have expressed our concerns and our hopes about fair elections and democracy in Ukraine. This legislation gives us the chance to show Canadians and people around the world that we as a nation can face up to the challenges and shortcomings of our own history and that we seek to ensure that justice, equality and freedom are enjoyed by all Canadians.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker , since Bill C-331 concerns Ukraine, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all those Ukrainians currently fighting for the sake of their democracy to continue this difficult struggle.

The freedom of peoples is not easily achieved. This is why I want to reiterate the support of the Bloc Québécois for all those who are currently defending their right to democracy. In 2004, every nation should be able to choose its own government. The will of the people must not be thwarted by pressure or fraud.

I would also like to congratulate the Parliament of Canada for the second time in as many weeks, since, once again, it is about to correct an error it made in the past. Last week, it concerned an error in judgment regarding legislation made 25 years ago. Today, even if the events in question go back more than 90 years, it corrects behaviour unworthy of a democratic society.

At the beginning of the 20th century, history witnessed great victories, but also some darker days. Today, we must reflect on one of those days. I do not by any means want to forget the brave soldiers who went to fight in Europe. They stood tall on one of the toughest fronts in history. They gave their lives for loftier ideals than the world itself, and we should never forget that.

Bill C-331 is about the plight of over 5,000 poor people who fled abject living conditions and immigrated to Canada 10 to 20 years before the 1914-18 events. These people were later interned in labour camps during World War I. Through an order in council, the status of those who did not have their certificate of naturalization was changed. They became “foreign enemies”, because their territory of origin was under the control of the Austro-Hungarian empire. They were no longer just Ukrainians, people in exile, as they had been when they arrived here. They had become Austrians, and Austria was an enemy of Canada.

We understand that, throughout this painful period, Canada respected its international commitments on the treatment of prisoners of war. We do not share the view that these people were indeed prisoners of war. We really wonder why these camps were maintained until 1920, considering that the war had ended a couple of years earlier. However, taking cover behind treaties and conventions does not excuse the fact that the treatment given to these people was unworthy of a democratic country. The events for which Canada is blamed should be recognized. To forget them is to risk repeating them again.

I remind hon. members that these prisoners were subject to hard labour, rations and curfews. They were not only prisoners of war; they were forced to work. They were interned in labour camps and deprived of their freedom. The Canadian government really took advantage of them. It used these helpless people to build or repair houses, to clear land, build drains, construct roads between properties and public roads, etc. These people were forced to work hard and they were shamelessly used by Canada. It is high time the government acknowledges this blemish on Canada's record.

I want to remind the House that we did not imprison them because they were fighting against our troops, overseas or at home, because there has never been a single battle between these enemies and the state that took them prisoner.

We took them prisoner because they were from the Austro-Hungarian empire and because they had Austrian passports. Can we blame people, who never had the chance to choose their own destiny, for the colour of their passports? We think not, and that is why we feel that Bill C-331 is logical.

Furthermore, we accepted these people who were fleeing hardship and had come here in search of a better life, as immigrants. Ukrainians were an integral part of the immigration plan back then. We opened our doors to them and then we put them in prison. We told them, “come” and then we told them to “work”, at the end of a gun. To us, this is a perfect example of how absurd Canada's immigration policies are.

The Bloc Québécois condemns and regrets the way Canada treated Ukrainians but we are proud to take part in a debate on a bill that seeks to remedy the inexplicable behaviour of a country that, even then, considered itself open and modern.

We join all those who wish to reinstate their personal names, the name of the Canadian government, and who want to say sorry for this unworthy decision adopted by order in council. We ask all the members of this House to support in principle Bill C-331.

It is never too late to learn from our mistakes, to confess and set them right. Parliament has an opportunity today it should not miss. We implore it to do more than the small tourism plaques affixed here and there among the national parks. This is the best thing it has done to date to remedy this enormous error in judgment with regard to an innocent people. It is an insult.

We put our guests in labour camps and we subjected them to hard labour. That is called slavery.

Slavery in the 20th century, in any country, is too serious an issue to pretend it never existed. I defy any member of this House to dare to deny that. Turning a deaf ear for 90 years is already a crime in itself. It is time to tell the whole world that Canada does not agree with decisions it made in the past.

Ukrainians were not an enemy nation: they were invited. We welcomed them as they were, truly welcomed them. We gave them land and the right to work and settle, and then we took those things away. The labour camps were something you might find in a fascist state, not a free and democratic nation. The disgraceful and abominable treatment of a nation of invited immigrants, might, in other times and places, attract much more serious punishment and much greater consequences. We think the Canadian government has a golden opportunity to come out of this with its head held high. We ask the government to support this bill and recognize what it means.

This Parliament could, at least, take responsibility for past actions. The federal parliament must recognize the wrongs that have been done to the Ukrainian community.

Members of this House, fellow MPs, let us not repeat the errors of the past again. When we invite people in with open arms, let us not treat them as second-class citizens. Let us not offer them the privilege of becoming citizens but recognize their full right to citizenship. Let us agree to recognize our affront to the Ukrainians. Let us be the hosts we claim to be. Let us not invite people in with one hand and wave them away with the other. Let us show that we are worthy of a society with 400 years of shared history. Let us offer our wealth to everyone who, because of the twists of fate, have not had the same opportunities we have had here in North America.

Canada must live up to the ideals it proclaims. It must be able to recognize when it has made errors that contradict these ideals. In order for history not to repeat itself, we must seize every opportunity. This is a great one. It is a start. Recognizing the wrongs of the past is a way to make it possible to head into the future in justice and serenity.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vegreville--Wainwright for seconding the motion.

It is a great honour today to rise to debate Bill C-331, an act to recognize the injustice of the Ukrainian internment. Bill C-331 has been tabled in the House three times but never debated.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the information on the bill that you have presented this evening.

The first time the whole issue of Ukrainian redress was debated was through a motion in September 1991 that was put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands. This motion received support from all parties but had no effect on the government.

How did Bill C-331 come about? Bill C-331 was put together through collaboration with the Ukrainian community in Canada, which today numbers close to one million. It is supported by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

At this time I want to thank the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Paul Grod, for his support. I want to thank the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association chairman, John Gregorovich, and Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk and Borys Sydoruk. I also want to thank the president of the Taras Shevchenko Foundation, Andrew Hladyshevsky. There are also thousands of other Canadians of Ukrainian descent who have worked very hard over the last two decades.

Bill C-331 is in essence a bill that belongs to the Ukrainian community of Canada. The Ukrainian community in Canada has been calling for redress for internment for over 20 years. That is a long time. Most of that time, this call has fallen on deaf ears. There have been numerous broken promises throughout the last two decades, promises made by politicians, the people who sit in this House.

The most famous promise was made by our former prime minister, Jean Chrétien. In fact, tonight I want to read for the House a letter that he wrote to Mr. Thor Bardyn, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress in June 1993, when Mr. Chrétien was leader of the official opposition. He stated:

Dear Mr. Bardyn:

Thank you for your letter and the copies of the “Economic Losses of Ukrainian Canadians Resulting from Internment During World War I” and “Submissions on Behalf of the Ukrainian Canadian Community on the Matter of Redress for Non-Pecuniary Losses Occasioned by Internment and Other State-Inflicted Injuries.”

The Liberal Party understands your concern. As you know, we support your efforts to secure the redress of Ukrainian-Canadians' claims arising from their internment and loss of freedom during the First World War and Inter-war period. You can be assured that we will continue to monitor the situation closely and seek to ensure that the government honours its promise.

As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate the time you have taken to write and bring your concerns to my attention.

Sincerely,

Jean Chrétien.

Jean Chrétien as prime minister had many opportunities to deal with Ukrainian redress over his three terms as prime minister.

Obviously he learned nothing from the settlement of the Japanese redress settled by the Mulroney government previous to that. The Mulroney government did the right and responsible thing and brought resolution to the Japanese redress. In fact, I was told that during that time period there were no private members' bills or motions debated in the House on Japanese redress. Yet the government of the day knew what the right thing was and did the right thing.

Let me take some time to talk about the internment, because many of us in this country, and I include myself, did not learn about the internment of the Ukrainians. I did not learn of it until I became a member of Parliament back in 1997. This is not recorded in our history books. It is an event that no one knows about. Obviously the government of the day wanted it to be wiped out. As Canadians, we want to know our history. We need to learn from history. That is why it is important to acknowledge and recognize that the history actually took place.

Bill C-331 calls for that recognition. I must emphasize again that it is a recognition of and not an apology for “the injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the time of the First World War and to provide for public commemoration and for restitution”, which really means the return of properties confiscated by the government of the day. In other words, at that time the private property of the internees was confiscated by the Government of Canada. To this very day it has not been returned. That is what restitution means.

That restitution amount, whatever may be negotiated, is to be devoted to public education and the promotion of tolerance and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That sounds Canadian. It sounds rational and it makes sense.

In other words, Bill C-331 calls for two things to be done.

One is acknowledgement that this internment took place and is part of Canadian history. We in this country cannot run away from our history. We must accept our history. We must accept the past. We have to accept the past; we cannot change it.

Another point, too, is that the government of the day must sit down with the Ukrainian community and work out the establishment of an education foundation for the purpose of telling the internment story to all Canadians so that hopefully this story and this history, this negative event, will not be repeated in the future. That is the main purpose, the main drive behind this redress issue.

It is time for the government to bring resolution to all redress issues. Is it not ironic that the government of the day will be sending up to 500 observers to Ukraine and is willing to pay the bill to ensure that democracy will be protected in Ukraine?

I support the government's decision. There is nothing wrong with it. Yet at the same time the government continues to deny that democratic rights were taken from the Ukraine community in Canada between 1914 and 1920, when over 88,000 Ukrainians were made to register like common criminals. They had to report monthly to the police and have their registration card stamped. Over 9,000 were interned. They were put in prison camps; internment is just a nice word for prison camps. In fact, they had it worse than prisoners of war because under the Geneva convention a country cannot force prisoners of war to work, to do domestic labour, which is actually slave labour, at no cost to the country.

Over 9,000 people were interned, of which over 5,000 were Ukrainian Canadians. The government has run out of excuses after two decades of denial. The internment of Ukrainians in Canada is a historic fact. I asked the question of the government, “Is acknowledging this too much to ask?”

It is time for the government to do the responsible thing and to acknowledge this historic wrong. I am sure that most Canadians would agree with me. It is time to deal with this issue and other redress issues.

The responsible thing is the acknowledgement, as well as working out a resolution with the Ukraine community. This is a matter of justice. After all, we Canadians like to see ourselves as a just society. In fact, we brag all over the world that we are a country based on rules, justice, tolerance and acceptance. Maybe it is time that we accept our own history for what it is and learn from it.

Justice is long overdue for the Ukraine community in Canada, which is one million strong. I know I am starting to run out of time so I will read for the House a poem written by Kari Moore of Victoria, B.C. A couple of summers ago, this poem was put on a plaque dedicated to the internees at a memorial park on the site of Canada's national Ukrainian festival. The name of the poem is Internment . It really tells the story:

With this commemorative plaque

We confer upon you the honour

Of paying the ultimate price.

The price of losing your freedom

In a country that invited you

And promised you work and freedom.

You laboured with a pickaxe and shovel

In the neighbouring mines and forests

Laying the rails for transport

Of your days' work to help the economy.

Then history changed your world,

Overnight you became an enemy alien

To be feared and unjustly interned.

If history could repeat itself

You could tell us your shame

And your unimagined confusion.

You still worked with an axe and shovel

But from behind a barbwire fence.

And for years you carried the stigma

Of becoming an unwanted citizen.

This plaque shall stand in your memory

And serve as an educational tool

To remember this part of our dark history,

And assure us that future Canadian governments

With the stroke of a pen shall not

Again put any citizen behind a barbwire fence.

I close by thanking all members who are taking part in this first hour of debate on Bill C-331 for their support.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)]

Before beginning private members' business I would like to read a ruling on Bill C-331, an act to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the time of the First World War and to provide for public commemoration and for restitution which is to be devoted to public education and the promotion of tolerance.

The Chair has examined Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question at third reading.

The Chair has considered the restitution provisions in this bill and has concluded that they do not require a royal recommendation as any payment is contingent on the successful completion of a negotiation process, the details of which are hypothetical at this point.

There is, however, a question in my mind about the clause that proposes the establishment of a museum at the site of one of the first world war internment camps.

At first glance, it appears to me that to build, maintain and staff even a small museum would require public funds. Since the necessity for a royal recommendation can be a complex question, I am raising the issue at this moment in order to invite the sponsor of the bill and any other members interested in the matter to make a submission to the Chair explaining their views on whether or not this bill requires a royal recommendation.

I want to give hon. members enough time to look into the matter. I would suggest that interested members contact the private members' business office to schedule their interventions.

I have asked these officials to coordinate such submissions, so that they can take place before the bill is next debated, thus allowing the Chair time to consider their arguments when making a ruling at the resumption of the second reading debate.

Today the debate on the motion for second reading will begin. We will now proceed as scheduled.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved that Bill C-331, an act to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans who were interned at the time of the First World War and to provide for public commemoration and for restitution which is to be devoted to public education and the promotion of tolerance, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the bill be numbered Bill C-331?