Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

We've run out of time, so I can't invite comment on that from the panel.

I thank each of the witnesses for their extremely well-informed, dense, as well as compelling testimony on these issues. It has helped us enormously and hopefully will help the subcommittee inform the broader political debate in our Parliament about the human rights crisis in Iran.

So to each of you, thank you very much for your time.

We'll now move to committee business. There is a motion before the committee in the name of Mr. Marston. This relates to the call for an apology regarding the Imperial Japanese Army's practice of comfort women.

Mr. Marston, would you like to speak to your motion?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'd like to start by highlighting the fact that Monday's apology by the Prime Minister of Japan was not an official apology, in many eyes, as it did not acknowledge the government's responsibility for the use of comfort women at the time. What we're looking for in this motion is for the Government of Japan to accept full responsibility for the crimes against comfort women; provide full reparations for survivors in accordance with international standards; and provide direct compensation to the comfort women or their immediate relatives. This came about because people across this country have approached our caucus--Chinese, South Korean, and Filipino--who were greatly affected by this heinous set of events that took place. I think it's very important.

I would touch on one thing. There was a compensation fund called the Asian Women's Fund. It was put together by business and private individuals. Many women did not know about it; others missed the deadline; others did take some of this money but on the condition that it didn't affect their access to reparations from the government.

We find this a very significant issue that we believe should be addressed. The motion, of course, would go to the full committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Just to give further background, first of all, I believe this is identical to a motion standing as a private member's motion in the name of Ms. Chow in the House. I personally agree with the intent of the motion, and I'm sure all the members do.

I think we should be aware of a couple of things. First of all, I understand that Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay did, last week, call his Japanese counterpart to express Canada's concern about Prime Minister Abe's remarks of three weeks ago, and he encouraged the Government of Japan to clearly express its regret and apologies for the comfort women system. Mr. Marston has alluded to the fact that because of the international pressure--and I would say hopefully in part because of the pressure that Canada exerted--yesterday Prime Minister Abe, in a session of the Japanese senate, said, “I apologize here and now, as Prime Minister.”

Now, apparently some of the communities in Canada that are concerned about the issue feel that this was not a full and sufficient apology. I'm just pointing this out. These are the facts. We're in a bit of a grey zone here; it's not as cut and dried as it was two days ago before his apology in the senate. I'm just putting those facts out there.

Ms. St-Hilaire, you have the floor.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand where my colleague is coming from, and his intention is quite laudable, but after having read the motion, I have a number of questions. I am happy, Mr. Chairman, that you raised the issue of the Prime Minister's statement.

Was it right or wrong? I am not comfortable with it. Quite honestly, I feel that we are interfering in the affairs of another country. Apologies were extended. We might wonder why, or for what purpose. There was a program through which those who were known as comfort women—and, by the way, this term makes me rather uncomfortable—were compensated. We understand that the compensation was certainly not very generous.

I think we should look at how it was done. According to the wording of the motion, we seem to interfere with relations—

[A voice]

--bilateral relations.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

That's it. We are interfering in bilateral relations with Japan, and I don't think that is the best way to go about it. It just doesn't feel right to me.

[A voice]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Over to you, Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

We again want to thank Mr. Marston for bringing this motion forward.

I may have supported this motion before the response we recently had from the Japanese Prime Minister. However, when a government is asked to make representation to call on another government and another Prime Minister to make an apology, and we see that after some reflection the Prime Minister then issues an apology, I would have great hesitancy in supporting a motion that says the Prime Minister in that faraway country is not official enough or it wasn't done in the way we would like to have seen it done.

I think we would be at great peril in asking the Prime Minister to enlarge it, to make it more official, or to do a better one than he did. I think we have to in some way say we exerted pressure, we asked for it, and they responded. In their culture, it was perhaps a major step to come forward and apologize in the way they did.

At this point, I really don't feel I can support this motion. I think when we look at a lot of the other things that are on the table, the relationship we have with this very important ally, friend, and trading partner, and the fact that there was a response to our request, I really fear that if we, at our own jeopardy, proceed with a motion like this, it might hurt our relationship. I will certainly not be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Are there any other comments?

There we have it. Would you like me to call the question, Mr. Marston?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'd like to briefly respond, because I recognize the concerns that are being expressed here.

First of all, if we go back to the situation and whether or not it warrants Canada's statements, it's along the lines of what we heard earlier today on Iran. This was a significant human rights abuse in its time, with the degradation that went on. There are many people in our country who are looking to us to take a stand.

Again, on the manner in which this is delivered, I presume our DFAIT officials and our minister have the skills to deliver this in a fashion that's respectful yet firm.

All I can stress is that to date the response from Canada was seen as a rebuke, and it did not have the depth that the women involved really believed should come forth from this country. They have very strong opinions on this.

At this point, I would call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

The question has been called, and there's no debate on it.

All those in favour of the motion as it currently reads?

It's a tie. There's a convention that the chair should break a tie to allow the debate to continue, in which case I feel obligated by convention to vote in favour to allow this to go to the full committee. I want to be clear on the record that I feel bound by convention, without prejudice to the substance.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

There are notices of motion. Should we reserve them for the next meeting? These are the ones by Mr. Silva.

You can request unanimous consent to waive notice.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Generally, from what I heard in this committee, I think there's a willingness to proceed with these motions. I would ask that we move forward, call the question, and vote on these motions.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

I don't think he has unanimous consent.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's too bad.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

I'll just leave it at that.

I want the opportunity to take a little closer look at what this motion contains. I know the general feeling of it, but if we go with a notice of motion and bring this forward at the next meeting, that should be sufficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Fair enough. That's why we have the notice provision.

I assume it's probably the same thing for Mr. Cotler's motion.

[A voice]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

All right.

The next meeting of the committee is Thursday at 9 a.m.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.