Could you read the clause?
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.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's clause 2.
The Parliament of Canada hereby recognizes and honours the contribution that persons of Italian origin have made and continue to make to the building of Canada.
Mr. Del Mastro.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you reference both the questions and statements that have been made by members on this side of the committee and statements that have been made by witnesses, I think this clause largely recaps a statement of fact. We have no issue with clause 2.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I have just a quick question, perhaps for the analysts. Are there other pieces of legislation before the House that we could perhaps reference that make similar statements in relation to particular communities?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
It's been suggested there have been bills—for example, with respect to the Ukrainian community—that reference the same as—
December 1st, 2009 / 11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
In the event that we wanted to perhaps get those various clauses, could we put that request through you to the analysts for a subsequent meeting?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
The analysts could provide that.
So then there's no problem with clause 2?
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3—Apology)
Turning to clause 3, we have an amendment put forward by the Liberal Party.
Mr. Pacetti, would you like to present your amendment?
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Just quickly, this is subsequent to the testimony we heard from Jason Kenney, so I think this will be a unanimous amendment. I think everybody will be for it, because this is one of the recommendations made by the minister during his responses to Carole Lavallée. And I can actually pull out a few words he said to Madame Lavallée.
He said, “But the bill makes no mention of the government issuing a second apology in the House of Commons.”
So he's saying the bill does not request that the Prime Minister apologize. All I'm asking here in this amendment, or this addition, is that:
The Prime Minister shall, in the House of Commons, offer the apology referred to in subsection (1) on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Canadian people.
It just clarifies the point Mr. Kenney made in his testimony last week.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
Of course, Mr. Kenney wasn't speaking in support of that. What he was doing was specifically indicating that nowhere in the bill did it ever suggest that an apology would be made in the House of Commons or that the apology would be made by the Prime Minister. It was a statement of fact of what's in the bill.
The bill, of course, is premised on the ACE agreement. We certainly heard that from a number of the witnesses who came before committee. We certainly heard that Ms. Minna—who is not here to defend herself, so obviously I won't impugn her in any of my comments—was indicating that this bill was consistent with the 2005 ACE agreement the Liberal Party signed with the Italian community on November 12, 2005. I want to reference that agreement with respect to clause 3. It reads:
An Agreement-in-Principle between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Italian Community, as represented by the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the National Federation of Canadian Italian Business and Professional Associations, Order Sons of Italy of Canada, and La Fondation communautaire canadienne italienne du Québec.
Canada is one of the world's most ethnically and culturally diverse societies and recognizes diversity as a source of strength and innovation. However, Canada's past includes actions that are inconsistent with the values Canadians hold today. As a result of the Second World War, Italians in Canada
--including my grandfather, for example--
were designated as enemy aliens. As well, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, some Italians in Canada and some persons of Italian origin were interned.
Members of the Italian Canadian Community have a strong interest in commemorating and educating Canadians on the unique and significant contributions of Italian Canadians to shaping Canada's history. The Government of Canada is committed to learning from the past, and to efforts and resources for a forward-looking approach aimed at strengthening social cohesion and Canadian identity.
To demonstrate its commitment, the Government of Canada, in its 2005 Budget, announced funding of $25 million over three years to the Multiculturalism Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage to acknowledge, commemorate and educate Canadians about the historical experiences of ethnocultural communities affected by wartime measures and immigration restriction. Initiatives funded through this program will seek to highlight the contributions made by impacted communities in the building of our country.
The Government of Canada and the Italian Canadian Community have developed this Agreement-in-Principle, premised on the principles of 'no compensation' and 'no apology'. This is a first step in articulating their shared vision for the acknowledgment, commemoration and education [or ACE] 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. It also highlights the contributions that the Italian Canadian Community has made to building Canada. It is the intention of both parties that a final agreement, including additional funding and an appropriate acknowledgement by the Government of Canada of national internment operations, will be concluded as soon as possible.
The Government of Canada plans to provide an initial amount of $2.5 million to the National Congress of Italian Canadians Foundation through the Acknowledgement, Commemoration and Education (ACE) Program. The National Congress of Italian Canadians Foundation will coordinate, in consultation with the National Federation of Canadian Italian Business and Professional Associations, the Order Sons of Italy of Canada, and La Fondation communautaire canadienne italienne du Québec, the implementation of commemorative projects over the next three years on behalf of the Italian Canadian Community. This initial amount will enable the community to commence work on forward-looking proposals that will commemorate their historical experience and educate Canadians about these experiences; highlight and commemorate the contributions that the Italian Canadian Community has made to Canada; and promote cross-cultural understanding and a shared sense of Canadian identity.
The Government of Canada, through the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) and the Italian Canadian Community, through its designated representatives, agree to continue to work toward a formal agreement to help build a better understanding among all Canadians.
The Government of Canada's contribution pursuant to this Agreement-in-Principle is subject to:
1. the approval of the terms and conditions and the funding for the ACE Program by Treasury Board;
In other words, the agreement was not finalized because it didn't have Treasury Board approval.
2. the annual appropriation by the Parliament of Canada for this purpose;
It didn't have the money either.
3. the conclusion of a contribution agreement.
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 nor as foregoing/limiting any person(s) right to advance or initiate an action/claim against the Government of Canada, nor shall this Agreement-in-Principle be interpreted by any of the signatories as representing the interests of all Italian Canadians.
If we reference that to clause 3, the member has specifically brought forward that the Government of Canada, in 2005, saw fit to go out of its way to make sure there was no apology. Why did it do that? Why did it specifically write that it was made on the principles of no compensation and no apology?
There are a number of reasons, in my mind, that the government of the day signed these agreements.
By the way, I also have copies of the agreements made under the same program with the Chinese community, wherein the text also reads:
The Government of Canada and the Chinese Canadian Community have developed this Agreement-in-Principle, premised on the principles of 'no compensation' and 'no apology'.
The Canadian Ukrainian agreement says:
The Government of Canada and the Ukrainian Canadian Community have developed this Agreement-in-Principle, premised on the principles of 'no compensation' and 'no apology'.
The member has specifically put something into a private member's bill that his own party, when in government, went out of its way to indicate...that any of these agreements specifically did not include an apology, and no compensation—that's another important part of their distinction.
And they conclude their agreements, as I indicated earlier, with the same statement. The agreement in principle is not to 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 nor as foregoing/limiting any person(s) right to...initiate an action/claim against the Government of Canada....
There's nothing in this clause, specifically the way it's written, that protects the Government of Canada or the taxpayers of Canada, or otherwise, against civil action. And I think that's important, because if we are going to start bringing private members' bills before the House that are specifically requesting an apology without a formalized agreement in place first that would limit the liability of taxpayers to lawsuits, be they legitimate or otherwise, then it's irresponsible as members of Parliament to bring in a clause like that.
I know that persons are eager to demonstrate their support for the Italian community, as am I. I've always been very clear about the fact that I'm proud of my Italian heritage. I'm also proud to be born in Peterborough and proud to be Canadian. The fact that my family immigrated from Italy, the fact that they had experience in Canada during this period of time is part of who I am.
But ultimately we have to be diligent in making sure we're doing our job, and a clause like this is so problematic. To vote it in and not have the same protections that were in these...not to mention the fact that if they were put together predicated on these agreements from 2005 that the Liberal Party put together, in which they went out of their way to indicate that there would be no apology and no compensation.... This clause simply does not do that. In fact, it goes in exactly the opposite direction. It puts no protection in place whatsoever for the Government of Canada or the taxpayers of Canada to protect them against lawsuits that could be brought, based on a bill, should it ever come into law, that has a statement like that in it, without any kind of acknowledgement that there frankly is no agreement in place that would protect the government from lawsuits.
Thank you.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
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--
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I know he's going to start showing us his baby pictures next, which is all perfectly fine--we don't have any other meeting scheduled--
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I would just like to know...if they continue to talk out the clock today, we will continue to meet, and if we continue to meet--
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
--and they continue to talk out the clock, this will just be reported back to the House as passed. Is that the process?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Your point of order has been taken, but Mr. Calandra has the floor.
