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.