Was it 2004?
I've looked, and the Library of Parliament doesn't have any evidence of a previous bill on this on their research site, so I couldn't find that.
In my research recently I did find some information with respect to Prime Minister Martin, who, in the dying days of a failing campaign, tried to reach out and apologize in the media. But I take him at his word. I'm sure he was an honest prime minister, and I respect the office of the prime minister, so clearly if a prime minister apologizes, I'll accept that.
But then I did find an NDP motion in 2007 by Mr. Marston with respect to an Italian apology.
Having said all of that, Mr. Chair, in 2005.... It wasn't in 2005, but it was in the 38th Parliament in this committee here that there was some discussion on an apology to Italian Canadians, and the minister at the time was Raymond Chan. I can only assume that the member is forgetting what I read into the record the other day, and I'm sure we can provide a copy of Hansard so he can reflect on what Minister Chan said at the time, that he was told that any form of an apology would open the door to legal liability on behalf of the government. That's why they did not bring forward any apology to the Italian Canadians at the time. So that happened in the 38th Parliament and that happened at a number of committee meetings of the heritage committee in the 38th Parliament. I think some of the members were here for that, Mr. Chair.
Just finally to his point of order, he mentioned it was supported by all parties. I made no bones about it when it was introduced in the House. I did not support the bill, and I said in my speech that I thought it was a divisive bill. And I recall actually on the evening of debate while I was saying that I felt it was divisive, some of the members opposite reflected, in very colourful language, on what they felt I was because I didn't support the bill, which was a clear example to me of how divisive the bill was at the time, Mr. Chair.
So I think the honourable member might be incorrect in stating that all of the parties support this bill, because clearly we don't.
I'll finish the thoughts on the point of order and then perhaps I can go back to speaking to that clause and some more of the reasons that I think they are so inappropriate. I think perhaps we need to refresh some of the thoughts I was saying at the last meeting, because we seem to have forgotten some of them. The essential element is an apology. I can do that as well, just to give a refresher of why it's so important.
I'll just end up with this. There was an opportunity, Mr. Chair, to delay this bill by 30 days. We asked. A motion was brought forward by the parliamentary secretary to give us 30 more days to study this. It was turned down. I find it extraordinarily disingenuous now that the opposition is saying there are no amendments coming forward, and we need to.... Now they're trying to bring closure on something that's so important to the Italian people, apparently, that we need to bring closure and not listen to any more thoughts.
So I'll end my thoughts on the point of order, and if you deem so, I'll get back to my....