Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, then, I'm out of order.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I will explain that I forgot I wasn't neutral--as I'm supposed to be.

The quorum is seven, and there weren't seven here.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You didn't have it.

Now, on the issue that has been raised by Mr. Rodriguez and Madam Lavallée, that we are somehow wasting Canadian taxpayers' money by debating this bill, I implore you to consider the liability you're opening Canadian taxpayers up to with this bill. It's billions of dollars potentially, and you accuse me of wasting time. It's outrageous.

I pass my time back to Mr. Bruinooge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bruinooge had the floor.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I did have the floor at this time; however, it was in relation to the motion that was raised by Mr. Rodriguez. So in light of that--in light of the fact that that motion has been withdrawn--I will assume that we're going to let you instruct our committee as to where we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're debating the Liberal amendment to clause 3, which was 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."

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did go away and work on the subamendment that I brought to the committee. It's tabled in good faith. It does change the impact of the bill, such that I think it reflects the feelings and sentiments of Canadians, while at the same time being responsible to our role as lawmakers. The subamendment would read:

That Bill C-302 in clause 3 be amended by changing the original clause to the following:

The Parliament of Canada hereby acknowledges that the treatment received by persons of Italian origin as a result of their designation as “enemy aliens”, their registration and internment, and other infringements during the Second World War was wrong, but carried out in a legal manner at the time. The government should acknowledge that these actions, while legal, were inappropriate by current standards of justice, despite the context that existed. Furthermore, it falls to all parliamentarians and citizens to protect against and ensure that similar actions must never occur again.

In addition, the following paragraph could be included:

The Prime Minister shall in the House of Commons offer his thoughts on the matter, as referred to in subsection 1 on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Canadian people. These remarks should specifically comment on the wrongs committed against the Italian-Canadian community during the Second World War, and express the regret that is felt by all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I've been instructed that this is not a subamendment, and it will have to wait until we deal with the amendment that's on the floor right now.

Mr. Calandra.

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

Are we now speaking to the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As mentioned the other day, there were a number of reasons that I was unhappy with the bill and the amendment suggested by the member opposite. When you take steps toward an apology, without doing the work to ensure that the apology is what the community is actually looking for, you run into problems. The parliamentary secretary has demonstrated that this legislation does not ensure that the Canadian government is not open to future liability. Nor does it include the tests that such a piece of legislation should contain.

This type of legislation needs somebody to reach out in advance, to speak to people in caucus and on the opposite benches. This is particularly necessary in a minority Parliament, which generally requires more cooperation. This is an emotional piece of legislation—it affects the feelings of 1.4 million Canadians of Italian descent. When you open up what some might perceive as a wound and what others might perceive as an unremarkable piece of wartime policy, you are going to have a problem. Emotions are going to come to the fore, as we've seen on this committee.

There are differences of opinion on whether an apology is required. There are differences of opinion on whether this apology is the same as apologies that were made to other groups such as first nations or Chinese Canadians. We haven't done any research on how this proposed apology would compare with previous ones. In the past there was consultation with a broad sector of the people who were affected. In previous instances there were survivors of the acts that prompted the apology. I think this is an extraordinarily important difference.

We've talked at length about the importance of making an apology to the people who actually deserve to receive it. My family started coming to Canada in the late 1950s. We came after all of this happened, but the parliamentary secretary's family was affected by this. Our opinions and our thoughts, with respect to Canada and its liability for these actions, are a great deal different from the feelings that the parliamentary secretary's family might have. In our view, we came to a country that owes us no apology. The Calandra family came to a country that offered enormous opportunities. It has provided us with an extraordinary lifestyle. It has given me the opportunity to be in Parliament.

So if you ask the people in the Calandra family or the people we associate with, they will have a very different emotional response to a bill that suggests that Canada needs to apologize yet again to the Italian people, because they don't feel that it's required. Many of them know of the apology that was provided by Prime Minister Mulroney, and I've taken the liberty over the last couple of days to express also that of Prime Minister Martin, although it was not as in-depth as Prime Minister Mulroney. Yes, we mentioned in the last meeting—and if we need to, we could go over the Hansard of the last meeting—all of those essential elements in an apology and the points that make an apology worthy of an apology. And as we were able to show, I think from the last meeting, the Mulroney apology did in fact have all those elements, and it happened at a time when there were still survivors left who could accept the apology.

We talked about how prime minister after prime minister after prime minister ignored any type of apology to the Italian people. We talked about how members of Parliament on the opposition side refused to ever acknowledge any need for the Canadian government to apologize to Italian Canadians. And we have another Canadian parliamentarian who's just walked into the room and is another shining example of how far the community has come in such a short time period. What an extraordinary contribution we have made to Canadian society, and more importantly, that Canada allowed us to make this type of a contribution to it.

Canada opened its doors to 1.4 million Italians so that we could have a better life, so that we could provide our kids with a better life, so that we could contribute to Canadian society. The evidence of that is staggering. In towns and communities across Ontario, Italian Canadians are having an extraordinary impact on our province and on our country.

We will continue to do that, but we won't do it on bended knees. Nobody is telling Italian Canadians that somehow they are not equal to other people, that somehow they don't measure up and they aren't good Canadians. It's just the opposite. We've seized and made the best of those opportunities, and we are extraordinarily appreciative of everything that Canada has done to help us so that we could achieve those opportunities.

When the witnesses were here, one of the questions that for me was the most troubling was when I asked Mr. Campione, I believe it was, if he considered me to be a proud Italian if I didn't support this bill. He refused to answer the question. He then said something to the effect that I had to look in my own heart. I asked him yes or no, am I? He refused to answer the question.

One of the things that I've been saying right from the beginning, Mr. Chair, is that this bill is a divisive bill. It will only fracture the community more. I think part of the responsibility of that has to lie with the person who drafted the bill, in not first reaching out to the opposite side of the House to find if there was some common ground that we could somehow come forward with something that would protect Canadian taxpayers and respect the families of the people who were impacted by this, those relatives of people who were interned. Again, I'm under the impression that there are no remaining survivors of that time period.

To hastily draft a bill and put it forward without consulting with members of the government who are of Italian heritage, without consulting with other members of Parliament who had a hand in helping to bring about other historic apologies.... For example, Mr. Bruinooge, as he mentioned earlier, was a key player in helping bring about an apology to Canada's first nations. He seized the opportunity and seized on the experiences to help bring about an apology that was supported by all sides of the House, Mr. Chair.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it's one thing to filibuster, which is fine, but to say non-truths I think is extending it too far.

I presented this bill in good faith. I have presented it since I've been elected. I've consulted with all sides. The bill received support from all members and from all parties.

The point of order is that it is up to you to make sure that the member sticks to the facts--the real facts--and doesn't present invented lies.

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

On the point of order, granted I'm new here, but I don't recall--I did do some research--the member opposite introducing a bill previously. He may have, and I'd love to see a copy of that if he has done that.

I did look back to see if there were any other bills brought forward during the 13 years of the Liberals' four mandates. I couldn't find it. I also looked back as far as 1945, in the forties, when Liberal Prime Minister King interned the Italians. I didn't see an apology from Mr. King. I then went in-depth, Mr. Chair, and looked at as much as I could find with respect to the Louis St. Laurent administration to see if there was any form of apology or any acknowledgement of an apology for wrongdoing. I couldn't find one. You'll recall that Mr. St. Laurent was a Liberal prime minister.

Then, of course, I looked at Pearson to see if there was anything from Mr. Pearson.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

On the point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm speaking to the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

He's speaking to the point of order. As soon as he's finished, Mr. Pacetti, I'll let you speak.

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

Granted, I'll say this of Pearson: he was in a minority government situation at the time. So perhaps the reason he didn't bring something forward at that time was because he realized that introducing a bill like that at a time of minority government probably wasn't a good thing. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But I note that the Liberals won a sweeping majority in 1968, I think, with Mr. Trudeau. And I stand to be corrected if the member opposite can show me otherwise, and I'll apologize to him, but I searched--I went to the library, and I searched some more--and I asked some relatives who were big fans at the time and asked if there was anything that Trudeau had done, and they said no, we don't recall. And the library said no, there was nothing there.

I asked then, were there any members of Parliament from that time period who apologized to Italian Canadians or put forward a bill or who reached out, or maybe there was a motion. I couldn't find it, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you.

I then went forward through the entire Trudeau era and couldn't find it. Ironically enough, I didn't find it during the short Clark administration either. The couple of months Mr. Turner was in office, I didn't find anything there.

It wasn't actually until Brian Mulroney came to office that I was able to source anything with respect to acknowledging how important the Italian-Canadian community was to Canada, and how what was done to the Italian-Canadian community was regrettable. And the Prime Minister at the time, as I mentioned earlier--just to continue on the point of order--gave all of the important elements of an apology, as we discussed in the last meeting.

I then went forward, after Prime Minister Mulroney, into the.... We know, and I read it into the record last time, Mr. Trudeau's vehement opposition to any form of an apology.

But I then went forward into the Chrétien era, because Mr. Chrétien was a very successful prime minister. I think the Liberals, with Chrétien and Martin, had four mandates, and three of them were significant majority governments where a bill like this could have been introduced by a private member, by the government, or through a motion. I still could not find anything. And again, if the member opposite.... I know he was elected since 2000.

[An hon. member]

Since 2004.

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

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....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Pacetti had a point of order. You've explained your point. Mr. Pacetti had a point of order, and after that point of order we'll come back to Mr. Calandra.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'll be very brief. I just wanted to correct the record, because in the 38th Parliament, in the first reading version of Bill C-368, which I'm not going to bore the committee with, the introduction is exactly the same as this bill. It reads:

An Act to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Italian origin through their “enemy alien” designation and internment during the Second World War, and to provide for restitution and promote education on Italian-Canadian history

The first reading was on April 21, 2005, and the sponsor of the bill was Mr. Pacetti. So I'm not sure what kind of research the member opposite did. It's not that difficult. All he has to do is call the Library of Parliament if he doesn't know how to look it up on the search engines that the Library of Parliament provides.

I also subsequently retabled the same bill for the 39th Parliament. The first reading was dated June 19, 2007. The bill, again, is Bill C-461, and it reads:

An Act to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Italian origin through their “enemy alien” designation and internment during the Second World War, and to provide for restitution and promote education on Italian-Canadian history

So I am waiting for the apology in writing from the member opposite.

I also would like to read into the record that the members for the Conservative Party are, I believe.... I'll have to go through a list, but there was Mr. Goldring, Mr. Mark, and there were at least four or five other Conservatives who voted for the bill at second reading. So I think there's another apology awaiting me for that one.

But I would prefer if we can just go directly to the bill and vote on the clause-by-clause rather than trying to set up a score sheet and seeing who's right and who's wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Calandra.

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

Mr. Chair, for sure, I'll speak in depth to those.

If the honourable member brought that forward, then I will certainly get back to the Library of Parliament and ask why I couldn't find any of that.

I guess what's striking to me is, again, the Liberal slap in the face to Italians at the time this honourable member was not able to get his party's support to bring forward this bill and to pass it when they were in government. I think that is what's even now more surprising to me, Mr. Chair. I apologize that I was unable to find that.

I've never doubted the honourable member's sincerity and the work that he does on behalf of his constituents. If my research was a bit lacking, I do apologize for that.

I didn't read that aspect of it because the honourable member, as I mentioned earlier, didn't have the courtesy to send forward anything to the opposite side when he introduced this. I can only assume that bill was as poorly written as this bill, and that's why his government at the time could not allow it to go forward. I can't foresee any other reason that the Liberal government would again continue a strong tradition of over 50 to 60 years of slapping people in the face and ignoring what are perceived to be the wrongs.

I don't know if the honourable member has time to explain why his party didn't support that and help in getting it through quickly. I guess we can find time to do that later. Indeed, Mr. Chair, I think that's one of the important things.

I think we can reference back to his earlier attempts when we get off these points of order. We can reference back to his earlier attempts as to why this particular piece of legislation is such a bad piece of legislation. I wonder if some of the elements that make this so bad were present in that piece of legislation as well. But I guess I can get into that when we get off the point of order and get back to discussing that clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're off the point of order right now.

We'll go back to Mr. Calandra to carry on.

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

I'll end it there, because I know that the parliamentary secretary might have some thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Do you have something on the point of order, Mr. Del Mastro?