Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Again, Mr. Chair, I know the honourable member, through his actions yesterday and through the paper, has shown disrespect for Italians and our community, so I expect--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I thought you'd gotten off that. You can get back off it now.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

--a silly point of order like that. To suggest that somehow talking about the hundreds of people who died in an earthquake and Canada's reaction to the earthquake, and to suggest that talking about the apology that was made by Prime Minister Mulroney is somehow not relevant to this section is ironic. And yes, if he would like to see some baby pictures, I'd love to show him some baby pictures, so he can see the type of home that we lived in when I was young. What you'll find in those baby pictures is a house with relatives. Two or three families living in one house is what you'll see if you look at those baby pictures, Mr. Chair. You'll see a family come together to build a better life in Canada, not a family that is crying, sitting in the back rooms, saying, “Oh, my gosh, we need an apology because they didn't treat some people well.” They said, “No, we're going to come. We came to Canada. We're going to build a better life.”

If he looks at those pictures, he'll see, as we go on, Mr. Chair, that as I'm going into grade two or grade three, there's a bit more furniture. He'll see a new car in the driveway. He'll see my mother maybe for once with a different set of clothing on, not just two dresses, one that she washes and another that she wears. What he would see, if he would take the time to actually look at those pictures as opposed to insulting Italians, is how well the community has done since it has been in this country.

For him to suggest, as he does, that's it's not relevant.... That's the whole point of why this is not a good bill, Mr. Chair. That's the whole point. What this does and what that clause does is seek to continue to divide Italians, to continue to tell them that they're not worthy, that what they have done in this country is not something we should celebrate, that somehow because of the actions of previous Liberal prime ministers they haven't measured up. Well, that's not how the community feels, Mr. Chair.

It's unfortunate that he's not going to take the time to look at some of those pictures because what he would also see--and I'm glad he's back because I can share another little story with him, Mr. Chair--

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Another hour to go.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

--is how a community comes together and how the Italian community comes together, Mr. Chair. When you put something like this forward, Mr. Chair....

I know it's nice for the members opposite. They can laugh, and you know it makes them feel good to laugh at--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I feel sorry for you.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

--what some of the communities have gone through. Sure, he finds it funny because he thinks everything Italians do is funny, apparently.

What he would have seen in those pictures in 1983 was no more father around, because that's when my father passed away. He was an extraordinarily proud man. I can tell you something. My mother was 39 years old, with four kids under 20 years of age. She didn't go and hide herself in a closet somewhere and say, “Oh my gosh, I can't handle this life.” She didn't retreat. She moved forward, and today she has a son in Parliament. She was 39 years old, with a grade three education. They were able to build something extraordinary in this country.

If you want to talk about this, I'll talk about this story until tomorrow morning if we have to, because when you bring something like this forward that seeks to divide a community, without putting the thought into it that it deserves and without speaking to anybody....

There are not a lot of Italians in Parliament. It's not very difficult to come across the floor and say, “Hey, look, I want to bring something like this forward. What do you think? How can I improve on it?” On our side, there are three or four of us. It's not that hard to find us. He would have received the comments from me on it and perhaps we could have made it better. But clearly this bill does nothing but divide the community.

The minor amendment he is suggesting doesn't fix the bill. It makes it even worse, because it completely ignores all the extraordinary things, and the apology that was made by Prime Minister Mulroney. What about that apology?

In the interest of allowing other members, I'm sure I'll have some more opportunity to speak to some of the extraordinary things my family has accomplished. That's what I was elected to do and I'll continue to do that. I know some of the other members might have some comments, so I'll allow them to do that, and perhaps in future interventions I'll talk more about some of the extraordinary things my uncles and aunts have accomplished and specifically reference some of the amazing things my mother did as a widow at 39 years of age, with four kids, and how we've managed to build an incredible country. And perhaps then I can talk about some of the things that Italians in Toronto have done to help build that city into the economic engine of this country.

For now, I'll just sum up this way. Obviously I don't support the particular amendment, and I look forward to speaking about the actual clause shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bruinooge, followed by Ms. Dhalla and Mr. Del Mastro.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm sorry, but am I not on the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I thought I got you already.

I'm sorry. It's Mr. Angus and then Mr. Bruinooge.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you. I just didn't want to get lost there.

In June 2006, we had the head tax apology. In May 2008, my colleagues unanimously stood up in the House to support the apology for the Komagata Maru, and at that time I didn't hear any concerns being raised by my colleagues that this would leave Canada open to all kinds of lawsuits.

So I actually don't believe this amendment is necessary. I think the original bill works fine. But if it's going to be a matter of our talking it out, I'll certainly support the motion and I'd be willing to call the question, because our views on this are well known.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part of what I'm going to speak about, in relation to this clause, is in some way related to what Mr. Angus raised. He referred to previous apologies, statements of reconciliation that had come about because of actual agreements ratified between a number of parties. This is the biggest challenge. This clause, and the bill itself, is attempting to supersede a negotiated settlement between a government and an aggrieved group. This amendment, which I'm speaking to, goes even further than that. It directs the Prime Minister to make the apology. I think that alone is an interesting precedent. You would be directing cabinet and the Prime Minister to make a choice on behalf of the elected government to come to a conclusion on an apology.

How is this different from previous apologies? I had the pleasure of taking part in some of the discussions and processes that rolled out the Indian residential school apology, which finally occurred on June 11, 2008. This was a significant apology for my community, a community that is made up of the three different groups that took part in the residential school system—the Métis, the first nations, and, to a lesser extent, the Inuit. For the most part it was first nations learners who spent many years in the residential school system.

This was a long process. The process for which the Indian residential school settlement and subsequent apology took place had been negotiated over many decades. It came to a final conclusion in the early part of our mandate. When we first got elected, there was a settlement being negotiated by the previous government. But there were a number of details that needed to be settled. The new government had to agree to the settlement, because it wasn't finalized at that stage. For the sake of moral justice, and also for the sake of being genuine, it was essential that the Prime Minister of the day, which of course was Stephen Harper, agree with the proposed settlement and genuinely want to deliver the apology. After all the negotiations, that was the case. The agreement was decided upon over many years and all sides accepted it. Fortunately, we were able to proceed.

It is interesting to compare the process for which that apology and settlement was achieved with what we're talking about today.

I think back to some of the issues the community raised over the years, the various aboriginal groups that were seeking reconciliation and specifically looking for an apology, as it was a key part of the settlement. Of course, the money was important. The significant amount of money was quite important, but an apology from the Prime Minister was very much an issue that was desired and sought, to some extent, even by some of the groups, more importantly than the dollar amounts that eventually ended up....

The reason an apology was sought was because there hadn't been an apology delivered at any point in the past by a Prime Minister. There was a time, actually, when a Liberal Minister of Indian Affairs at the time, back in 1998, Minister Jane Stewart, who was quite a lovely lady--I had the chance to meet her a few times--did offer up a form of an apology that at the time was hoped to reduce some of the concerns and tensions the communities had felt. Though it was appreciated by a number of the groups, I can speak only for the Métis communities, as I am a member of that community. I know the first nations communities also did have some interest and appreciation for that statement of apology. It wasn't perceived to be a true apology on behalf of the Government of Canada.

I would say it was a festering issue that continued to be a point of discussion in the years subsequent to that. It was often referred to as not being truly representative of the government. It was clearly able to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister hadn't yet made any apology; no Prime Minister previous to that had made an apology, whether they were Conservative or Liberal. Really, it was only this one Minister of Indian Affairs. It was insignificant in the sense that a minister had referenced the fact that Canada was sorry for what occurred. In a sense, it was an important point in the historical frame of reference for the Indian residential school settlement, but nonetheless it wasn't a Prime Minister.

Comparing that to this particular situation is significant in the sense that the previous Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, actually, did voice an apology, did apologize on behalf of the Government of Canada. I think that was quite essential, quite important. Looking back to the negotiations that were occurring under the Indian residential school settlement, there was no previous Prime Minister who had apologized. Jean Chrétien didn't take that opportunity; neither did Brian Mulroney. Paul Martin hadn't yet done it. So that community wasn't able to reference a previous Prime Minister and essentially exclude it from their negotiations because it hadn't occurred. There was no apology. It was just Jane Stewart.

It was a key point within the negotiation that was occurring among the three primary groups and the Government of Canada, and it was an element that was quite relative and it was outstanding. In this case, Mr. Calandra did already refer to it, in the sense that this particular amendment doesn't acknowledge the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada, duly elected, Mr. Brian Mulroney, did in fact apologize. One could essentially assume that it's insinuating an apology hadn't existed yet, hadn't occurred, hadn't been made. I think in that sense it is to some extent disingenuous, which is perhaps too strong a word. At the very least, it's not representative of the historical facts that led up to where we are today with this bill.

I know that in the Indian residential schools settlement, in the event that there was a Prime Minister who had made an apology previous to Prime Minister Harper, it would clearly be an element of the discussions. Of course, that wasn't the case, and thankfully we were able to witness that apology on June 11, 2008. It was quite an important apology in itself. It was a wonderful day to be in the House, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to be there with the Prime Minister. I know that most of the colleagues around the table, save the new Conservative MPs here to my right, were actually part of that as well.

I guess the main point I'm making is that directing the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the government through this particular bill--being a private member's bill from a member who is not part of the cabinet--is circumventing a genuine agreement that, in my opinion, would need to be in place. To truly get someone to apologize on behalf of the government, that being the Prime Minister, we would need an agreement that is negotiated between all sides and that would be done through a process that is much different from this. In my opinion, this just can't have the bona fide elements it needs to have for that apology to be genuine.

I think from the experience we've had through previous agreed-upon settlements.... Some of them have been referred to. In fact, I think part of the rhetoric that Mr. Pacetti and others have employed in essentially trying to prop up this private member's bill is referring to those other agreements and other apologies that have been made. In each one of those cases--for instance, referring to the head tax for Japanese Canadians--there has always been a negotiated agreement that is part of that settlement. It's something that is contemplated. Under the previous government, unfortunately again, it was brought about at the final hour, which speaks somewhat to the intention that particular government had in relation to this.

Should we ram this through as an opposition majority in the government.... Clearly that's the case. We've seen a number of bills proceed on this basis that genuinely would be discounted if they were measured up against precedent. Nonetheless, we could smash this through in the opposition. In my opinion, it still won't have the bona fide elements that I referred to.

So I think this particular clause, which changes the existing clause 3--I could also speak at length about that one--just for those very reasons, can't be, in my opinion, allowed to pass. It simply goes against so many of the precedents that I've referred to. And should we do that, I just see this bill as being not even achievable. If it were to be passed, I don't know that it could be implemented. On that front, I will perhaps reserve some of my additional commentary for another section of the clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Dhalla.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I was going to comment. I put my hand up when Mr. Calandra was filibustering and telling us stories. I was going to ask him to indulge us with his family story and the story of his mom being a single mother. But since we've moved on, I want to talk about the apologies. If Mr. Calandra speaks again, being the daughter of a single mother myself, I'll be more than happy to listen to his story of how his mom raised four of her children.

On May 20, 2008, I put forward a motion, after talking to numerous members of the Indo-Canadian community across the country, requesting the government to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident in 1914. We had 376 passengers who had come from India to Canada aboard the Komagata Maru. Upon arrival in Vancouver, they were not allowed to disembark. For two months, they were kept without food or water on the Komagata Maru. Then they were ordered to be returned to India. It was at that time, upon the return to India, that they were either jailed or killed.

This private member's motion that I put forward was passed May 20, 2008. The Prime Minister, on August 3, 2008, decided to deliver an apology, not in the House of Commons but at a cultural festival in Surrey, B.C. I can tell you, when the apology was given at a cultural festival, there were thousands of people from the Indo-Canadian community, in Canada and throughout the world, who felt insulted. They felt that the apology was neither dignified nor respectful.

There were people who wrote about the incident, who voiced their concerns. On August 4, there was an article printed in Vancouver, which read:

The Indo-Canadian community has refused to accept an apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the 1914 Komagata Maru ship incident in which hundreds of Indian passengers were not allowed to enter Canada. The Komagata Maru was a Japanese ship hired by a Malaysia-based wealthy Sikh to bring 376 Indians from Hong Kong to Canada in 1914 to challenge its racist laws.

The Indians were not allowed to disembark in Vancouver and were forcibly sent back to India where many were shot on arrival in Calcutta, as it was then called.

Tendering the apology at the annual Mela Gadari Babian Da at the Bear Creek Park in Surrey on Sunday, Harper said Canada was sorry for the mistreatment of the passengers in 1914 and apologizes for it.

Since the government had promised to apologize only in the nation’s Parliament, the organizers of the festival immediately rejected it.

“We wanted the House of Commons to apologize, not the PM at this rally. We reject this apology.” This was shouted by the organizer Sahib Singh Thind even as security personnel whisked the prime minister away.

Thind, who was the organizer of the festival, said: “The government has betrayed us, as only yesterday it had promised us that the PM would announce only a date here for the apology, which would be made in Parliament later.

“Today, they have treated us like they did the Komagata passengers in 1914. It was the same racist Conservative government then as now. Racism is alive in Canada.”

He said the Indo-Canadian community would chalk out its plan to fight for an apology in Parliament.

However, Jason Kenney, secretary for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, ruled this out, saying: “The apology has been given and will not be repeated.”

An indignant Indo-Canadian MLA, Jagrup Brar, who was instrumental in getting the provincial British Columbia assembly to apologize for the Komagata Maru just last month, asked: “If our provincial assembly can apologize, why can’t the nation’s Parliament?

“It was the House of Commons which had passed a unanimous resolution proposing an apology. The apology should have been entered into the House records. I wonder who is advising this PM.”

Based on the sentiments expressed in this article in 2008, we can see that the amendment being discussed here is very important. We know that the hard work, the effort, of many immigrants across this country has ensured our nation's success. All ethnic communities deserve to be treated in a dignified and respectful manner. It is for this reason that I have also put forward a private member's motion once again requesting that this apology be made in a respectful and dignified manner in the House of Commons.

That particular private member's motion reads, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should officially apologize to the Indo-Canadian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident....

It also goes one step further by requesting to officially designate May 23 as a day of commemoration. We have seen the sentiments among community members of what happens when an apology is given at cultural festivals. I think like the Chinese community, the Japanese community, individuals in the aboriginal community who have received apologies in a dignified and respectful and rightful manner in the House of Commons and Parliament...I also believe that the amendment we're discussing here today for the Italian community and also for the private member's motion that I've put forward for the Indo-Canadian community...the apologies should also be granted in the House of Commons and Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Next is Mr. Uppal, then we go to Mrs. Lavallée, and then Mr. Angus.

Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I take great objection to Ms. Dhalla's saying that the Conservative Party is racist.

I know you quoted, but we can always bring in quotes that say something.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

We know they're not allowed in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

One second, for a point of order.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I just want to clarify that I did not make those comments. I was simply reading from an article that was printed and is available widely on the Internet. I have never made those comments, and I would request that Mr. Uppal please apologize and withdraw those comments. I quoted from an article, and I stated that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Chair, I do believe that even in the House we cannot just bring in quotes that may say and read out things that are not true, that are unparliamentary. It's an easy way to get around the rules and say you're just quoting somebody who was printed in some newspaper, or newsletter, for that matter.

I've been a member of the Conservative Party for a little over 10 years now, and I've had a great experience, an enriching experience. I started off as a member, as a board member. I've been on the executive of boards. I've been a candidate as well. I've had a great experience. The diversity in the caucus shows that this party is anything but. Frankly, I believe that our support in many different ethnic communities also shows that, as we have an opportunity to go out to the ridings in areas in Toronto, Vancouver, and speak to people.

So I think Ms. Dhalla should apologize for her reading that in, or at least for the chair to—