Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, you may think that the apology issued by Mr. Mulroney was enough, but that is not what the community believes. We are concerned about how the community feels today and about the importance of issuing a formal apology. To my mind, and in the opinion of this community, an apology made in a reception hall does not have the same impact as a formal apology issued in the Parliament of Canada. That is what the community is demanding.
Before I make my point, I just wanted to share with you a concern that I have. You stated that you were not familiar with Mr. Perin's political views, and I find that worrisome. The fact that you referred to him by name should mean that you are familiar with his views, At the very least, your advisers should have briefed you on what this man has written and what he thinks about this whole matter.
Getting back to the testimony presented last week, we heard from the Italian community's largest groups, the ones that traditionally represent and have been mandated to represent the community. I put the question to each group, as I did to the CIBPA the week before that. There was unanimous support for the bill.
Let me share with you a few of the comments they made. For example, regarding the agreement-in-principle that you alluded to that was reached with the Martin government, they had this to say: Minister Kenney decided unilaterally, for reasons that defy comprehension, to go ahead with a new program that does not have the support of the main organizations within the Italian-Canadian community. As for the advisory committee that was set up, it is said to be a program advisory committee that represents the Italian community and that no organization...
So then, Minister, there is a fundamental problem when reputable organizations that have been recognized for decades are unanimous in their support for the bill. None was consulted about doing away with the program established in 2005 and none was consulted about setting up an advisory committee. Do you not see that there is a fundamental problem here owing to the fact that the Minister acted unilaterally?