Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to Mr. Bruinooge's comments specifically. He talked a bit about the apology that was made in the House of Commons, I think a very significant apology, for residential schools, something all parties agreed with. I think it was something that was very emotional; it was owed and it was appropriate.
What preceded that were negotiations and the finalization of an agreement. An apology was made subsequent to an agreement being in place. When you don't do that, you open up the government to unlimited liability. Because I started this conversation about legal implications, I want to talk about what the Department of Justice has had to say--not the ministry, not the minister, not the government, but the Department of Justice. These are people who work in the department on behalf of Canadians. This is their criticism or comments on this bill, and members of this committee, who I believe want to be responsible, should pay heed to this. By the way, the amendment makes it worse.
To begin with, it says the bill describes the wartime measures imposed on the Italian Canadian community as “unjust” and refers to “other infringements of their rights”. The bill also refers to the payment as “restitution”. The characterization of the internment as unjust and requiring restitution is not consistent with the position of the government with respect to historical wartime events or immigration restrictions experienced by the Italian Canadian and other communities. The CHRP program or the historical recognition program and the head tax apology are based on the premises that although these events may not have been in keeping with present Canadian values--and this is an important distinction--they were legal at the time.
We can look back and say it wasn't right; we shouldn't have acted that way. So many things were done by groups over the course of history that were wrong, from everything related to religion, to politics, to monarchies, to colonialism that's occurred around the world. These things were wrong, but at the time there was a different view of them. That's the point the Department of Justice is making.
The ex gratia payments to surviving head tax payers and spouses of deceased head tax payers are clearly characterized as symbolic payments, not restitution. This is important.
The Department of Justice is of the opinion that if the Government of Canada were to apologize, as provided for in Bill C-302, it could have negative implications for the government in an active court case where an action has been brought against Canada by an individual for general and punitive damages for his internment during the Second World War.
So we're not saying what if. It's not that this could happen. There is already a case before the courts in Canada where this clause in particular, with the amendment--because we're speaking to the amendment--would make it worse. It would open up the Government of Canada to significant liability because there is no agreement in place.
Passage of the bill might encourage further legal actions of this nature to be filed. The fact that the bill refers to “other infringements of their rights during the Second World War” is a factor that could be significant from a charter liability perspective if other cases were brought before the courts on the basis of Bill C-302.
I brought this up earlier and I said the government in 2005 went out of its way to indicate that these agreements were made on the principles of no compensation and no apology--all of them. We look at what the Department of Justice is saying. It's done that way because passage of bills like this would encourage further legal action. We know we've already got legal action in the court.
I can tell you that the Italian Canadians I know are not looking to expose the Government of Canada to legal liabilities, to legal actions, to court cases that could cost all of us as taxpayers a lot of money. We know we have a lot of priorities in this country. We have a lot of things we'd like to do. Italian Canadians want to see a better, safer, stronger Canada. That's what they want. They want a Canada that can look after its people better. What they don't want is a Canada where millions, potentially hundreds of millions, of dollars are going towards what this bill refers to as restitution.
Specifically with respect to apologies in the House of Commons, there have been apologies in the House of Commons. As I indicated, I was proud to be present for a very significant one. I think Italians in this country would generally recognize that what occurred around the residential schools in this country was a far more significant action, imposed upon a founding people of this country, within this country than what was suffered by the Italian community. I say that, as I've indicated many times, as a person who was directly impacted by the implementation of what at the time was the War Measures Act, which was repealed by Prime Minister Mulroney.
If we can't agree that it was a far more significant travesty that was committed against first nations, Métis, and Inuit in this country than what occurred to the Italian Canadian community—as wrong as that may have been. It's wrong, but on a different level. It's wrong, but on a different scale. And I think it was important that the apology occurred, because, as we all know, we have to start a relationship with our first nations that encourages everyone in this country, that makes everybody feel they're part of this country, that allows for equal opportunity in this country. We have a significant group within our first nations that feels disassociated, and I believe that's largely because in the apology we recognized that with the previous governments and groups that set up the residential schools, the goal of that was to strip away the aboriginal identity. That was clearly wrong, and that was not, by the way, what occurred with Italian Canadians. There was no effort to strip away their identity. It wasn't an effort to break them and to teach them a new way to be a person.
I want to refer to comments made by previous Liberal prime ministers, if you'll just allow me a minute. I'm working, as I said earlier, without my binders.
As has been noted earlier, Prime Minister Mulroney offered “a full and unqualified apology for the wrongs done to our fellow Canadians of Italian origin during World War II”. Those were the words of then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
I think we can all agree that when the Prime Minister of this nation speaks, any Prime Minister, it's significant. For people to say that words that aren't stated in Parliament aren't meaningful, I simply don't agree. In fact, some of the most powerful political statements ever made in the history of the world—whether it's in the U.S., in Congress or in the House of Representatives, or in England in their Parliament, or in Germany, their Parliament—simply have not been done inside.
When John F. Kennedy said, “ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country”, that was not made inside a political building. It was significant.
When Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream”, that statement was not made inside the House of Representatives; it simply wasn't, but the words were significant because a leader--a leader--stated them.
I heard the comment made that Martin Luther King wasn't elected. Well, that may be, but he was a representative of the people. The statements he made were significant and they weren't made inside of the House of Representatives.
When Winston Churchill said, “Never...was so much owed by so many to so few”, that was also not made in the Parliament of England, and I don't know that more significant words were ever said by a Prime Minister.
But let's look at what some other Prime Ministers of Canada have said.
This is not my writing but the writing of a respected Canadian journalist. “Prime Minister Trudeau arrogantly dismissed the very idea of redressing any wrongs of the past.” In 1984, Trudeau said--I should be clear; this is Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and not a reference to any current members of the House. He said, “The government cannot redress what was done. How many other historical wrongs would have to be righted?” This was Mr. Trudeau's consistently dismissive approach to all questions of redress.
Likewise, under Mr. Trudeau's eventual successor, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, the government's message to Italian Canadians was to forget, to look ahead. As Angelo Persichilli has written, Sheila Finestone, the minister responsible for multiculturalism, sent all groups a letter on December 14, 1994, categorically refusing apologies and redress of any sort. She wrote, “We wish we could relive the past. We cannot.”
That was the stance of Liberal governments in the past. Mr. Persichilli also points out that it only seems to be an issue for the Liberal Party when they're not in government or when there isn't an election. That's when it's an issue.
With respect to an apology in the House of Commons, we come back to the amendment being proposed. Why does this amendment make it even worse, in terms of what the Department of Justice has said? Well, it heightens the level of the apology. You're lifting it up to a level equivalent with the apology that was made for residential schools. It's on the same plane, with no agreement, no agreement at all, just an apology that sets the environment such that....
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know whether there are lawyers on this committee, whether there's anybody with a legal background on the committee. I have been in business for a long time, and I know that specific words are significant when it comes to law, and they don't always mean the same thing the way we would use them commonly in society as they mean in law.
When the Department of Justice looks at something and says payments have been classified as symbolic payments, not restitution, when you're classifying something as restitution, that's significant. When you're referring to an act as unjust, that is significant. In law, that is significant, and it leads to charter liabilities in this country.
That's why the Liberal Party was so careful, even in its ACE program. They put legal jargon at the end of the ACE program. Why did they do that? Well, because they looked at it and said, “We could really be opening up a can of worms on the taxpayers of Canada.” It's not about whether what was done was right or wrong, whether it should have happened, whether or not the Italian community has moved on or hasn't moved on; it's about being responsible as an elected member to the people who elected you. How much liability are we going to open those people up to simply because the majority of members on this committee apparently feel we should do that? I don't believe a single member of this committee, other than me, has ever been directly impacted. Even for me, it's only through a relationship to people who have been directly impacted. I'm 39 years old; this happened in 1940.
I can't say this emphatically enough. This specific amendment in this clause is a big problem. It's a big problem. As we saw, all Liberal governments in the past went out of their way, past Liberal leaders went out of their way, to indicate that no apology was owed, nothing was due, let's move on. Their agreements indicate very clearly, as I've said before, that they were made on the principles of no compensation--not restitution. They didn't even use a word as strong as “restitution”. They said, “this Agreement-in-Principle” is “premised on the principles of ‘no compensation’ and ‘no apology’.” Then at the end, as I've indicated, legal jargon. The legal jargon is important. That's what protects the taxpayers. They don't just make it clear under the agreement in principle. They clarify it at the end, where they say:
This Agreement-in-Principle shall not be interpreted as a full and final agreement nor as constituting an admission by the Government of Canada of the existence of any legal obligation of the Government of Canada....
They get that signed, too. If you don't get that signed...and this bill does not do that. If members of Parliament start passing bills like this that have unlimited liability, then we're being totally irresponsible to the taxpayers and we are opening up significant problems.
It's not just with this cultural community, by the way, because the other communities where there are already agreements are already working with the CHR program. By the way, the Italian Canadian community is working with the CHR program--not everyone, admittedly, but they are. For other groups that have already begun to work with the government on these issues, they are then going to turn around and say, “You have acted preferentially towards a group that was affected.” But were they as affected as, for example, the Chinese, with the Chinese head tax?
The Italian internment, it's noted, affected roughly 700 people. As I've indicated, it had broader implications because it led to widespread discrimination against Italians in Canada. It led to an embarrassment of Canadians of Italian descent in this country that they were classified as such. I can speak to that at length because I've lived it. Look at what occurred, for example, to the Chinese Canadian community--and this is the Liberal Party agreement. It says:
This is a first step in articulating their shared vision for the acknowledgement, commemoration and education of Canadians about the imposition of a head-tax exclusively against immigrants of Chinese origin between 1885 and 1923....
That's 38 years of a head tax against one community, exclusively against immigrants of Chinese origin. Before that, by the way, we were bringing in the Chinese in significant numbers to build the railway and putting them in dangerous positions, positions where many of them died, in circumstances where it wasn't healthy. We exploited those people. That's part of our history as well. That was wrong--38 years of a head tax.
If we go back to the Italian agreement, it reads:
This is a first step in articulating their shared vision for acknowledgment, commemoration and education of Canadians on the historic experience of Italians in Canada who were designated as enemy aliens and some of which, as well as some persons of Italian origin, were interned.
Not all Canadians of Italian descent in Canada were interned. For 38 years all persons of Chinese origin who were trying to enter Canada had to pay a head tax. It was discrimination against a specific group.
My grandfather was never arrested. Not everyone of Italian descent in this country was arrested and interned. I don't know what criteria were used for pulling people off the streets, pulling them out of their places of work, pulling them out of their businesses and interning them, the persons of Italian descent who went through that. It was wrong. But it's not on a scale of what happened to the Chinese Canadian community, simply not.
I look at it and say if you are going to open up a liability for this country based on nothing other than politics, it's irresponsible. This specific part of this bill, clause 3, does exactly that. That's what the Department of Justice says. If members would like to get the Department of Justice in to get a direct opinion on clause 3, without a minister, without anyone, just get the facts; if you'd like to hear from lawyers, constitutional lawyers, who could tell you, people who understand the charter who could tell you what this amendment does and what this clause of this bill does.... The potential liability for Canada is significant.
That's why Liberal leaders of the past did not do this, but our government has acted. We have put in place CHRP, a significant program that seeks to work with Italian Canadian communities to recognize the wrongs of the past. That's what we should be doing. We shouldn't be opening Canada up to an unlimited liability. That's what this does, and as I said, this amendment makes it worse.
Thank you.