The clause also doesn't specifically go into further details—as was brought out in a lot of the testimony—that there were a number of previous prime ministers who refused an apology.
It's a very flimsy clause. It doesn't reference the fact that there was a Prime Minister who already made an apology on behalf of the government and the people of Canada. I'm not sure how a second apology would change what a Prime Minister has already done. On the office of the Prime Minister, there was a specific question, actually, to the witnesses who were here. I asked each of them if they respected the office of the Prime Minister regardless of who filled the office of the Prime Minister. And the witnesses in fact agreed that they did respect the office of the Prime Minister.
I then went further to read the apology that was given by Prime Minister Mulroney on behalf of the people of Canada and the Government of Canada.
One of the things that has been most frustrating in all of this is not only the timing of the bill but how little there is to the bill, Mr. Chair. It is almost as if the bill were drafted very quickly and without much thought. It does nothing to explain the incredible contributions of the Italian people to this country. It does nothing to reference the 1.4 million, I think the witnesses suggested, who have come to this country as immigrants and who have built a great deal. It does nothing to reference the fact that from the 1940s on—I could be wrong on this—five previous prime ministers outright refused to apologize to Italian Canadians. It does nothing to explain why it was that Prime Minister Mulroney finally decided to recognize the wrongs of that time period. It makes no reference to the apology that was already made to the Italian people.
Basically, what the amendment and the clause do is seek to remind Italians that there are those in society who think they are still immigrants to this country, that somehow they have yet to ascend to the role of full Canadians, and that the accomplishments they have made aren't worthy of being recognized in an act that is deemed to be so absolutely and positively important to the members opposite that they chose a time of a minority government over a time of a majority to bring something like this forward.
If we are going to have a subclause here that says “the Prime Minister shall, in the House of Commons, offer the apology”, as this subclause says, you have to reference some of the historical aspects of the apology that came through Prime Minister Mulroney.
Failing that, I think you also then have to go a bit further and follow along the lines of what Mr. Del Mastro has said. One of the reasons why, when we bring bills like this forward, we should take our time and investigate them and do them properly is so we don't create problems going forward that will again seek to divide a community all over again. I was staggered to see the attack on the individuals who are part of the community historical recognition program.
I had the opportunity, Mr. Chair, if you'll give me a moment, to go to the G-8 conference with the Prime Minister this year, which was in Italy, as you know. It was in L'Aquila, which was the site of a massive earthquake. One of the people I went on this trip with was Pal Di Iulio. He is the fundraiser for Villa Charities. He has done outstanding work. In fact, Villa Charities is probably the example by which many other organizations could measure themselves. The absolute attack on his reputation and the attack on the other members of that program was staggering to me. Here's an individual who has devoted so much of his efforts since April to promote and help the people of L'Aquila recover from a devastating earthquake.
In fact, I attended an event with many of my colleagues opposite in late summer. It was a walkathon for the people of L'Aquila that was organized by Mr. Di Iulio. The comments I got there, too, even from my provincial Liberal counterparts, were that finally the government has moved forward; Mulroney apologized, and now we have $5 million that we can put forward to start recognizing things so that people can be educated, not only about the internment of a group of Italians, but all of the things they did to help build this country.
When you reference solely an apology, without referencing all of the extraordinary things that Italian people have accomplished in this country, I find it absolutely and utterly reprehensible. If we're going to be serious about a bill like this, we have to do what the parliamentary secretary said. We have to review all of the other acts that could impact on this. We have to get back to the community and ask them if this will resolve some of the issues.
We've seen that there's a great divide among individuals of Italian descent. There is a great divide, probably, between some of the witnesses there. They will have the opportunity to come forward to the community historical recognition program to seek funding for a number of different initiatives. In fact, I hope one of the funding requests is for somebody to recognize and publish.... I'd love to see a plaque, Mr. Chair, that outlines the apology that Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney gave to the Italian people.
It was suggested that an apology is only good if it's done here or if it's done there. Some of the most important times in Canadian history have come outside of Parliament. The arrogance to suggest that only we as parliamentarians are good enough to hear apologies, when here you had a Prime Minister who went to the Italian people, made an apology to them on behalf of the government and the people of Canada.... He didn't hide in Parliament; he went right to them. Somehow, that Prime Minister's apology on behalf of the people of Canada and the Government of Canada is not good enough. I'm not sure if it was because it was that Prime Minister or because the other five previous holders of that office before and after didn't have the courage to apologize to Italian Canadians, or maybe they didn't think that Italian Canadians needed to have an apology; maybe they didn't respect the community as much as Prime Minister Mulroney did, and of course as much as our government does. I don't know. That's something that those prime ministers and people who served in that government will have to attest to, not me.
To go a bit further, when we were in L'Aquila, the parliamentary secretary was with me, as was the Liberal critic for immigration. We provided another $5 million, I think it was, to help rebuild parts of that devastated city. Do you know what the people who toured us around said to us? They had nothing but praise for Canada. We went to a tent city, Mr. Chair, that the victims of the earthquake were being housed in. It was an extraordinary place. The first place they brought us to was the hospital tent, which was full of medications donated by the people of Canada. Then they brought us to another tent and it was full of clothing and toys, again donated by the people of Canada for victims and survivors of the--