It was March 23, 2009.
I notice too, Mr. Chair, that the heritage committee in the 38th Parliament was also seized of this. At the time, it was Minister Chan who stated for the record that the government would not apologize because he had legal opinions that suggested that it opened the government up to legal liability, and therefore there would be no apology forthcoming from the previous government.
If you'll bear with me, I'll read you some of the things Mr. Chan said: “We cannot compensate people. That would be opening the taxpayer to unlimited liability, for...future generations.” He also said “that while it's important to honour those who were subject to racist policies of the past, it would be irresponsible to open the door to compensation.” “However, Chan argues that once the door to compensation is opened, anyone can take the government for whatever they...can get.”
Chan argued that there was an issue of liability because the government of the day had formally apologized. He was talking about another apology, actually, at that point.
The CRRF, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, commented on November 15, 2005, on the previous agreement. They noted that the package announced by the government of the day, the Martin government, does not include an apology or compensation. The quote was, “If the Italian-Canadian community, and particularly those who were interned, is satisfied with the agreement-in-principle and the eventual provisions of an agreement, then the CRRF celebrates with them.... Our policy is to support the wishes of the community in this manner.” That was from Paul Winn, talking about the $2.5 million previous agreement and the fact that there would be no apology and no compensation.
I found some pictures from the signing ceremony a number of years ago for that agreement, which had no apology, no compensation, and was for $2.5 million. There were a lot of smiling faces, including that of the member who has sponsored this particular bill. He doesn't seem to be too frustrated about the lack of an apology or compensation. There are a lot of smiling faces there, but again no apology, no compensation. That seems to have been fine at the time.
I'll skip over that. There are some more pictures of the happy, smiling faces at that meeting.
But then later, on January 5, I found that it would appear that Prime Minister Martin had also offered an apology to Italian Canadians, believe it or not, Mr. Chair.
On January 5, 2005, “Martin's...apology appeared to also include Italian-Canadians interned in the Second World War, and Ukrainian-Canadians interned during the First World War.” He said:
“Sadly there are examples in our history, including the Ukrainians and the Italians. They all had terrible experiences,” Martin said while discussing the head-tax issue.
However, the Prime Minister was rebuked by Minister Chan, who then said, “I commend the Prime Minister for apologizing” and added:
“My reason for not apologizing is because of the legal position that was given to me by my department.... And as a minister I rely on my department for advice. And if it's not the case, if there's no legal consequences, then I would...apologize.”
But his department had told him that there was an issue. I searched and I searched late into the night last night, Mr. Chair, to see remarks of individuals who were parliamentarians in January 2005 expressing their outrage that Prime Minister Martin had given a second apology to the Italian people outside of the House, and ironically I just couldn't find them.
I couldn't find anything from any member of the then-government. I think there was a statement from a Conservative, though; it was just about their timing.
One thing I did find was when that agreement in 2005 was announced, there was a Canadian who had been interned, who was there, a Mr. Capobianco, who declared that it was too much, too little, too late, and that he intended to vote Conservative. So he's a very insightful guy of that particular agreement.
I took a section about Italians from the Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples, and for a number of pages it talks about all the good things the Italian people have brought to this country. It talks about the internment. In the encyclopedia it says:
The Congress also took up the issue of wrongful treatment and internment of Italian Canadians during World War II, for which it received an official apology from the Prime Minister in 1990, and a promise to redress the damages suffered by the community. Although it is relatively young in comparison with organizations...in a short time the National Congress of Italian Canadians has proven to be an effective vehicle....
So they did get an apology. Again I searched and I couldn't find an addendum or an amendment to that insert in the Canadian encyclopedia that suggested the NCIC or the Italian community was upset at that apology by the Prime Minister of Canada, or the subsequent apology of Prime Minister Martin.
Then I found something in the Toronto Star. We all know the Toronto Star is not usually the paper that individuals such as I, a Conservative, would read, but they had an article about apologizing. It is by Bruce Campion-Smith. He talks about landmark apologies in Canadian history. He talks about Prime Minister Harper's landmark apology to thousands of Chinese Canadians and he also talked about November 4, 1990, when Prime Minister Mulroney issued a formal apology to Italian Canadians.
He goes on to talk about the apology that the Prime Minister...he called it a landmark apology in Canadian history, Mr. Chair.
The reason I brought all that up, Mr. Chair, is because we have to know what an apology is all about. I had to do some research. How do we accept apologies? What are apologies? What is the definition of an apology? When should an apology be given?
I was able to find a very extensive report tabled on December 11, 2007. The title of the paper is A Time for Apologies: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Apologies in Civil Cases. It's a very good research paper, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read some of the aspects of an apology because it gets to the heart of what Mr. Angus was saying. If we're going to be discussing potential amendments, it's important to set the stage with what happened before and understand what the appropriate elements of an apology are, what needs to be included in an apology if it's going to be accepted by people, so that in the future we don't have to go down the same road, and some people accept the apology and others don't. Clearly, two Prime Ministers have apologized, and that hasn't been enough for some people.
I've done some research. This is some riveting stuff, Mr. Chair, which I'm sure you'll find will be very interesting to you and other members of the committee for when we decide on our amendments—if there are going to be any.
As much as possible I'll reference the people who wrote it. She, the author, writes:
In order to ensure that an apology satisfies both the needs of victims and wrongdoers, this Paper proposes that the parties engage in an “apology process” that involves four fundamental steps: 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.
I'll read it again, just because I know this is pretty important stuff here.