This is the important point:
Determine the needs and expectations of the victims in relation to an apology; determine the needs and expectations of the apologizer; mediate the apology between the parties; and support the delivery of the apology.
This bill says nothing about it. It doesn't fulfill any of those elements in any way, shape, or form. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that the apology given by Prime Minister Mulroney in fact did meet all of these four elements. I would also note that it was the NCIC at the time that invited the Prime Minister to speak in front of them so he could deliver this apology, after they had negotiated and talked about what they expected in the apology.
Professor Nicholas Tavuchis, a Canadian sociologist reduces an authentic apology to two fundamentals: being sorry for harm done to another, and then saying so.
And Prime Minister Mulroney fulfilled those two qualities.
Law Professor Daniel Shuman, drawing on the works of others, concludes: “Minimally, to be meaningful, an apology must express regret for the occurrence of a harmful event and acknowledge responsibility for it.”
Again, the apology of Mr. Mulroney did that.
Dr. Aaron Lazare, a psychiatrist and author of the influential book On Apology
—he wrote a book on apology—
cites four principal components of an apology: acknowledging the offence, communicating remorse, providing explanations, and making reparations.
Of course, the Mulroney apology did that, and again through the CHRP we've made reparations and we can go on.
She goes on in this paper to talk about the seven core elements of an apology. Now who would have ever thought, Mr. Chair, that there would be so much involvement with respect to an apology? When you're talking about emotional issues and you're talking about asking the Prime Minister of a country or the government of a country to apologize for something, clearly we have to know what we're apologizing for and we have to know that the apology contains all the elements of an appropriate apology.
I would note that the opposition is led by a professor, so he might want to also review some of these elements in helping draft some amendments for the member. I guess it would have been a lot easier had our motion for a 30-day extension been actually granted, but I note it wasn't, so we're going to have to flesh this out here.
The seven core elements of an apology are: recognition which involves identification of the wrong, acknowledgement of the violation of a norm, and appreciation of the extent of the harm done to the victim; remorse which includes genuine expressions relating to regret for the harm that occurred; responsibility which acknowledges that the wrongdoer did harm to the victim; repentance which includes attitudes and behaviours including regret, shame, humility...; reasons which are explanations...; reparation or restitution...; and reform.
Again, all of that was done by the Prime Minister. Indeed, many of the elements, including the withdrawal of the War Measures Act and all the other elements were done by Prime Minister Mulroney.
Prime Minister Mulroney has met all of those. Granted, Prime Minister Martin did not. He didn't meet all of those criteria, but his was done in a different context.
I must say this about Prime Minister Martin. I don't doubt his sincerity when he was making that apology. I assume he was being very sincere to the Italian people, and I have a great deal of respect for the office of the Prime Minister. When a Prime Minister apologizes for something, I tend to believe.
Now it goes on. There's also something here called the response to harm continuum:
The Response to Harm Continuum comprises the following responses: validation in which the speaker acknowledges/confirms the victim’s experience...; expression of benevolence which is an empathetic expression to the victim about the harm; expression of sympathy by which the speaker is affected by feelings consistent with the victim’s or shows compassion; statement of belief in which the speaker expresses belief in the victim’s story and confirms the victim’s integrity; acknowledgement of fact that includes both acceptance of what a victim has described as well as acceptance of information from other sources; an explanation...; an expression of regret...; sorry statement...; commemoration...; acknowledgement of responsibility....
Those are all important elements in leading up to creating an appropriate apology, which of course were all done by Prime Minister Mulroney, with the NCIC, before he was invited to speak to them and issue this apology. I did mention that the NCIC at the time invited Prime Minister Mulroney to offer the apology to them after they had negotiated for some time with respect to what the apology would say.
The following questions, though, Mr. Chair, are very important.
The following questions should be asked when formulating an apology:
These are very important.
Who are the givers and receivers of apologies? Apologies have the greatest potential impact if they are delivered by the actual wrongdoer or wrongdoers.
Mr. Capobianco, who I referenced earlier, who had been interned, rejected the assertions by the previous government that they close the book.
Here are some other questions:
What are actual circumstances surrounding the harm? The apology must articulate these clearly.
Why is the apology being offered? The reasons must be...articulated.
When is the best time to apologize? Apologies offered within a reasonable time have the best chance of meaningful impact.
As you know, in my speech in the House, and earlier, I noted that it's been over 60 years, and there were six previous prime ministers who had an opportunity to apologize and they refused to do that. So there's been a lot of time in between. But thankfully, Mr. Mulroney did make his apology in 1990.
Where should the apology be offered - in private or in a public forum? Survivors usually call for two kinds of apologies: a personal, private apology, and/or an official, public apology.
How should an apology be offered? Whether it is oral or a written statement should be determined by the needs of the victim.
So the victims themselves should be deciding how an apology should be provided.
Unfortunately, right now there are no victims. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any survivors of the internment around.
The concern that apologies are withheld because of concerns about legal liability has prompted the passage of apology legislation in various jurisdictions around the world.
--including here.
Traditionally, lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases have been resistant to apologies because they perceive that apologies may result in monetary settlements unfavourable to their clients.
In...common law jurisdictions in North America, the basic rule of evidence is that apologies may be used as admissions against interest and may be used as evidence to establish liability on the part of the wrongdoer.
It's very important. This bill here, Mr. Chair, asks for an apology but doesn't limit liability in any way, shape, or form. It opens the door to all kinds of things that clearly we're going to need to tighten up.
She goes on to say in her report that:
Apologies have not traditionally played a leading role in adjudicative processes. It is feared that apologies and other statements of regret will be treated as admissions of liability in Court. The conventional wisdom is that any statement that expresses or implies responsibility may be treated in litigation as an admission of liability.
She goes on to talk about government apologies. She says:
Government public apologies often fall short. Such apologies are rarely spontaneous, are too formal and insincere and are often too generic. Governments tend to resist apologies for the actions of past governments and distant historical injustices and are concerned about the legal implications.
So basically what she's saying here is that the apology offered by Mr. Mulroney going to the people after having negotiated with the NCIC, and being invited by them, was a much more personal apology and something that fits better with how an actual apology should be done.
I'll go on. There are some other very important elements here.
That was just in the executive summary. Now I'm getting to the actual report itself, Mr. Chair.
