Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[An hon. member]

It's a suggestion of order.

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

A suggestion of order.

I've seen some good filibusters, but there are just way too many pauses in this one, so I'd ask him to at least pick up his game.

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

It's important, and the member came to the last meeting and asked to get some in-depth understanding. He criticized the parliamentary secretary a short time ago for not having some specifics. I've taken his request to heart and have done an extraordinary amount of research with respect to an apology. This bill is about an apology. Forgive me if I am wrong, but this bill is all about an apology.

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

On a point of order, then, does the honourable member actually have any language that we could see, or is he just going to go through an entire history of Dr. Phil? I wouldn't mind seeing some language to be amended, because we are on clause-by-clause now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Calandra has the floor.

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

If he has some language, I'd be more than willing to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Calandra, continue, please.

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

I'll continue, Chair.

Of course I'll have some information.

She goes on to say:

This apology-liability conundrum has a number of unfortunate consequences. Parties who are unaware of the risk that an apology could be taken as an admission may offer an apology and thereby unwittingly increase the chance that liability will be found. Parties who genuinely believe they have no legal liability may forsake an apology, even when they feel that an apology is ethically warranted, for fear that it could lead to unwarranted liability. And parties who know that liability is highly likely may still avoid an apology, so as not to damage the possibility, however slim, that they may escape liability. If the apology is given after the Court has rendered its decision, the passage of time may reduce its effectiveness. Worse, if an early apology was warranted and one is only provided after a finding of liability, the apology may be met with a reaction of “too little, too late.”

Now that was ironic, because those are exactly the same words that Mr. Capobianco, who was a survivor of the internment camps, said of the 2005 agreement in principle that was brought forward by the previous Liberal Prime Minister. What Mr. Capobianco I think was indicating was that over 60 years there was an opportunity to provide an appropriate apology. It never came. A couple of weeks before an election, or two weeks into an election, is not the time to be giving that type of apology, because it won't stand the test of time.

To reference back to what Mr. Angus said, one of the reasons why we have to go so in-depth with respect to an apology.... Why I respect the work of this author so much is because she has devoted a heck of a lot of time to the importance of an appropriate apology. You can't have an apology bill that isn't appropriate because we don't want to insult the Italian community; we don't want to insult the memory of those who worked so hard; we don't want to insult the people of Ortona. Ms. LaSorda, 89 years old, every single day goes to the Canadian Italian monument and puts flowers there. Every single day she goes to the monument, puts flowers at the monument for Canadian soldiers who sacrificed so much to save that town, and that's why it's very important, when we're talking about the amendment put forward, that we really understand what the essential elements of an apology are.

I know my honourable friend who authored the bill is probably reconsidering some of those things, in light of some of the shortcomings I've been addressing.

This is another thing she said:

Because of their shortcomings, public apologies do not lead to forgiveness as frequently as interpersonal apologies do.

I found that very interesting. Again:

Because of their shortcomings, public apologies do not lead to forgiveness as frequently as interpersonal apologies do.

What the author is suggesting is that in essence the apology that was given by Prime Minister Mulroney, done in a very sincere way, invited by an organization to the NCIC to personally go to the community, was an effective form of apology.

There's another article here, from another professor, Professor Bilder is his name, and he summarizes arguments that suggest:

...apologies for historical injustices have the following frailties:

• are without responsibility since the wrongdoers are dead;

• are too late;

• incorrectly apply present day values of the past;

• are one-sided and lack reciprocity;

I have been saying all the time, from my first speech in the House to now, that 60 years was a long time to be waiting for an apology. Thankfully, Prime Minister Mulroney didn't wait those 60 years. He, on behalf of the people and the Government of Canada, apologized.

I agree with the honourable member that an apology has to come from the Liberal Party to Italian Canadians. I have no disagreement with that. The leader of the Liberal Party should apologize directly to Italian Canadians for ignoring them for over 60 years. Perhaps we can amend the bill to suggest that, since I'm sure it was an oversight, because I know he knows that government and the Prime Minister of Canada have already apologized.

To go on, Bilder says:

...apologies for historical injustices...

• will not satisfy victim groups and will instead foster a sense of victimhood;

• are empty gestures since they are too easy and mere words;

• cannot in any case satisfy the potential demand since there are simply too many past wrongs which could be addressed.

While the circumstances underlying these demands are varied, the motivating factors are often the same. When systemic historical actions are challenged, the Government in question has typically been out of office for decades or generations and the individual perpetrators are generally no longer alive.

That's one of the shortcomings of an apology, and that's obviously one of the shortcomings of this particular amendment to the bill.

I'll skip over the differences with the apology to Japanese Canadians, but we can get back to that in a bit.

This is talking about Prime Minister Mulroney, who also acknowledged that:

No amount of money can right the wrong, undo the harm and heal the wounds.

With reference to Japanese Canadians, he apologized, there were survivors still around, and they provided compensation.

The same thing was done when our Prime Minister apologized to the Chinese Canadian community. There were survivors, we apologized, and we provided compensation at the time.

I know you're taking notes, and I don't want to go too fast, so you can catch up. I don't want to speak too fast, because in previous committees I know the translators have been upset that we go too fast. I'm trying to be courteous.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You can just repeat what you said.

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

I can.

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

Then start over. You have to read it backwards.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, that's a good idea.

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

What about the--

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Or spell it. Spell your text.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

A little order. I know Mr. Calandra is having a hard time getting through the papers. Let's get to the....

[An hon. member]

We have 20 minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I will be more than happy to continue my discussions.

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

What did Sister Mary Margaret say--

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

I know that the honourable members across the way--

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Perhaps I could give you Le Devoir?

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

It's noted here, Mr. Chair, that:

On his last day as prime minister, Trudeau refused, apparently heatedly, a request that he apologize to Japanese Canadians for wartime removals and internments. “I cannot rewrite history,” he said. “It is our purpose to be just in our time and that is what we have done in bringing in the Charter of Rights.”

So he suggests that the Charter of Rights helps to undo some of those wrongs, as Mr. Mulroney did when he withdrew the War Measures Act.

This is another report by Michael R. Marrus from the Munk Centre:

With minor variations, complete apologies include the following four features:

1. an acknowledgement of a wrong committed, including the harm that it caused,

2. an acceptance of responsibility for having committed the wrong,

3. an expression of regret or remorse both for the harm and for having committed the wrong,

4. a commitment, explicit or implicit, to reparation and, when appropriate, to non-repetition of the wrong.

--which of course Mr. Mulroney did very specifically when he apologized to the Italian Canadian community. Again, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, he also replaced the War Measures Act, so something like that couldn't happen again.

I know there might be some questions from the members opposite because of the volume of research we have here. I think we're going to at least have to look at the amendment a bit further. But for now, while I organize my notes and get prepared to talk a bit more on some issues, I will conclude there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you. I learned a lot about apologies there.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Del Mastro is next on the list, and then Mr. Pacetti.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

I have a subamendment to the motion that reflects the legal concerns I brought forward, and I think it would also reflect a lot of the evidence we've heard at this committee. The subamendment would read as follows, picking up on the amendment proposed by the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. It says that Bill C-302 in clause 3 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following:

The Prime Minister shall, in the House of Commons, offer

--striking the words “the apology”--

his thoughts referred to in subsection (1) on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Canadian people.

Then I've added:

These remarks should specifically comment on the wrongs committed to the Italian Canadian community at that time and be made within the context that what occurred at the time is regrettable, but consistent with the laws of the nation at that time. The Prime Minister should also thank former Prime Minister Mulroney for his understanding in ensuring that history would not repeat itself by repealing the War Measures Act.

I referenced several times, and I think it's critically important, that this bill does not recognize the facts of what occurred at the time. In fact, I read legal opinion this morning that indicates the bill seeks to rewrite history. That's a problem, because Canada's history is not perfect. No nation's history is perfect. In fact, we have become, I think everyone would agree, a more civilized society. We have more rights. We have more privileges, and our Canadian Forces today continue to fight for our freedoms and to protect that democracy. But we can't rewrite history. We can't change what's been done.

In the days following the apology for residential schools, I remarked specifically that there is nothing I can do about the past, and the only thing we can hope for moving forward is forgiveness. It's the same thing with the Italian community. If we don't have forgiveness at this point, after what has already been done, then it's unlikely it will ever occur, because what's missing is not the apology. We cited many times that this event has been referenced. It was referenced in 1988. That's why this subamendment is important, because in 1988, when Prime Minister Mulroney repealed the War Measures Act, he did so specifically referencing the internment of Italian Canadians. Again, in 1990, when he addressed the National Congress of Italian Canadians in Toronto, an event organized by them, as outlined by Mr. Calandra, he specifically referenced the fact that they had repealed the War Measures Act, that we had learned from our history, that we would ensure that it would not occur again. Mr. Pomerleau indicated at some time previously in the committee that the War Measures Act was enacted in Quebec in 1970. While I disagree with the premise wholeheartedly that there's any similarity, Prime Minister Mulroney did in fact repeal the War Measures Act.

Mr. Pomerleau and I can have a conversation someday as to whether then French Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau was right for taking the actions that he took. We can have that discussion, that debate, someday. I'd love to hear his thoughts on it, but it's not material to this matter.

Clarifying this amendment with the subamendment is critically important, because as I've indicated previously--and I can get an awful lot more legal opinion that will back me up on this--the word “unjust”, the word “restitution”.... I typed those words into a legal database yesterday because I wanted to get legal definitions of the words “unjust” and “restitution”. What I found is that while there may be definitions in a dictionary, in law they mean something quite different. A definition in law is established by precedent. And the precedent with respect to these issues is incredibly unclear.

In government we're expected to do due diligence. We are legislators. We write laws. That's what we do. We should be responsible when we're passing bills and when we're suggesting that actions be taken by the government that could, whether intended or not, open the crown to significant liability under the War Measures Act. That could involve everyone who has ever been affected by the War Measures Act. If you can rewrite history on this, you can rewrite history on any wrong that has ever been carried out by the crown.

At the time, the crown may have acted in what it thought was the best interests of the people. Today, we may think the decision was wrong. I've maintained from the outset that what happened to my family in 1940 was wrong. They didn't deserve it. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone in my family wants the crown, the taxpayers of Canada, open to billions of dollars of liability. There is no way we can contain it. We live in a litigious society.