Evidence of meeting #40 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was apology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, no offence to my colleague, whom I respect greatly, but I know we're walking the clock down here. I just need to know if you will be presenting the motions that were passed in the House, and when that would be. I might not get a word in before one o'clock, but I think I would like to have that at least explained to committee.
We have the motion on the diversity cuts--the report back to the House--and also asking for action on the strike.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm surprised to hear that the report is ready, because our dissenting opinion hasn't been filed yet. So it's impossible that the report is ready.
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Oh, it's not the actual report; it's the motion that the report has been requested to be given. Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I did remember that a request had gone around, I think two Thursdays ago, to have everything ready. It's too bad my Conservatives colleagues are very tardy in this. But there has to be a cut-off date. We expected that report would be put in the House before Christmas.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's my understanding that it will be in today; today is the two weeks.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
That would be the agreed date; we're abiding by the agreed date, nothing more, nothing less. We're not being tardy.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
We're discussing my Bill C-302; that's what I'm here for. All of a sudden you've thrown in committee business. I don't know how you run your committee, and you're more than welcome to run it in the fashion you like, but I'd like to continue with this.
Let's finish Bill C-302 and then go on to committee business. Let's finish Bill C-302. There's plenty of time; it's a very small bill. There are only two more clauses, if we could vote on them. Then we can go on to committee business and you can go on to your daily affairs.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Mr. Angus had an interjection and I looked after his interjection.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to speak to an issue that is important. I actually received some phone calls on this very issue when we started to discuss this in committee. It is regarding something Ms. Dhalla brought up about the Komagata Maru incident. A great number of issues have some resemblance to this. Again, just like this bill that we're discussing, there are some people who are going to agree with it and there are going to be people in the community who won't agree with it. The Sikh community, the South Asian community, the Indo-Canadian community--however you want to see it, they have contributed to Canada a great deal, economically and culturally. I believe that was respected and acknowledged when the Prime Minister went to Punjab just recently. I had an opportunity to go with him and to go to the Golden Temple.
In the Komagata Maru incident, in response to calls for the Government of Canada to address historic wrongs involving immigration and wartime measures, the Conservative government, in 2006, created the community historical recognition program to provide grants and contribution funding for community projects linked to wartime measures and immigration restrictions and national historical recognition programs to fund federal initiatives, developed in partnership with various groups. The announcement was made on June 23, 2006. At the time, Prime Minister Harper apologized in the House of Commons for the head tax against Chinese immigrants.
On August 6, 2006, Prime Minister Harper made a speech at the Mela Gadri Babian Da in Surrey, where he stated that the Government of Canada acknowledged the Komagata Maru incident and announced the government's commitment to undertake consultations with the Indo-Canadian community on how best to recognize this sad moment in Canada's history.
On May 10, 2008, Jason Kenney, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity announced that the Indo-Canadian community would be able to apply for up to $2.5 million in grants and contributions funding to commemorate the Komagata Maru incident.
On August 3, 2008, Prime Minister Harper appeared at the 13th annual Mela Gadri Babian Da in Surrey, in front of thousands of people, Mr. Chair, to issue an apology for the Komagata Maru incident. He said in response to the House of Commons motion calling for an apology from the government, “On behalf of the government of Canada, I am officially conveying as Prime Minister that apology.”
I've spoken to many people in the community who appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister came out to the community and apologized in front of thousands of people. Again, as Mr. Del Mastro said, this was the Prime Minister of Canada. For 13 years the Liberal Party, the Liberal government, had this opportunity to make these apologies. They didn't do that. For a couple of those years, Ms. Dhalla was a member of that government and could have brought the issue up at that time, but chose not to. Frankly, I see in this case as well that it's an opportunity for the Liberals to try to split the community and try to gain some political favour from it. An apology has been made to the community with great respect, and I know many people in the community agree with that apology and respect it and feel we should move on.
Plus, there's $2.5 million being given in that instance for education and for people to know about it. It's the same thing in this bill as well. There are going to be funds put towards it for education. But I would also be concerned about which organizations are going to be controlling those funds and how they will be controlled, because that can further divide the community, or even just have people object to who is running that.
I think regarding an apology in the House, we have to take a look at other instances as well. If we can get the clerk to possibly pull up which apologies have been made in the House, we can look at their relevance, and also the apologies made outside of the House by governments, and their relevance. I think that would help us to better understand what direction we should take on this bill.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I was concerned that this discussion was sort of veering off into a direction, but we could move forward if my colleagues were interested in doing that.
They have referred numerous times to former Prime Minister Mulroney's apology. That was dismissed by Dr. Roberto Perin. I've read him extensively on the issue of the Italian Canadians because he's chosen to be the point person. No disrespect, but he has a very strong view, and he dismissed that as a laundered view of history. I'm concerned about whether we're dealing with the issue of the apology or how we set the historical record correct.
As my colleague, Mr. Del Mastro, who is always very forceful in his arguments, points out, certain elements of what was done at the time of the internment were legal. And Dr. Perin points out that there were people who were interned because of their distinct fascist connections to Italy. Those are historical facts. There were people who were interned because they were Italian leaders in the community. There were also actions that took place that were illegal. For example, I referred to the Moneta neighbourhood in my area, where they marched in and beat people up in the streets. That was illegal. Father Fontana of the Sacred Heart Church begged the Italian community not to hold dances and not to go out in public. People were fired at the mines and were beaten up underground.
We know that 600 Italians went to the Goldfields Theatre in Timmins to promote and proclaim their commitment to King and country, as Canada was referred to at the time. Yet we still had a leader in our community taken out, arrested, and interned. I know the family and the devastation that occurred.
I think an apology has a place. I certainly don't want to go down the road of saying that someone's injuries are worse than someone else's. These were founding peoples and what was done was unjust.
I'm very interested in the issue of restitution, which my colleague raised. The leader from the National Congress of Italian Canadians said they weren't interested in the money, but it was the issue of setting the historical record straight. I certainly hear where my colleague is coming from in terms of this leaving us open to all kinds of lawsuits from families who say they want this, they want that. I think that would certainly taint the apology.
But I would put it to my colleague that we could amend the bill or we could talk the bill out. If we talk the bill out it's going to go back to Parliament and we're going to be stuck with the language of restitution. If we took clause 3 and clause 4, we could change the word “restitution” so that it's “shall negotiate for a suitable payment”, and then drop down to the clauses where that would be used for an educational foundation. If it specifically says that money would be put for that as opposed to using the word “restitution”, I have no problem with that. I hope my colleagues would support it.
This is not about opening this debate or opening Canadians up to numerous lawsuits from the past, because we'd be fighting lawsuits forever, but I would say to my colleague, if we talk the bill down, then this bill will go back to the House as is and his concerns won't be addressed.
I'd be willing to amend and try to work this out with them. I'm putting that offer out in good faith.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
I appreciate what Mr. Angus had to say. I agree with what he said. I can't speak to the specific experiences, but I think they're consistent with the experiences that a lot of families had at that time. Frankly, I acknowledge what he's saying and I acknowledge his goodwill.
I'd like to put a motion on the floor if I could. If we want to be serious about amending the bill so that it's workable, I'd like to put a motion on the floor that we hear from representatives from the Department of Justice.