You are right, Madam Speaker. I am coming back to the point, but I am giving some examples of what happened and how the issue was addressed.
To continue, Prime Minister Trudeau at that time said:
They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail--
--I do not think it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights.
Also in 1994 a conversation took place in the House in which the minister for multiculturalism at the time summarized the government's position. She said:
Seeking to halt the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments...We share the desire to heal those wounds.
The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future.
Since my time has almost expired I will say that the hon. member is facing unfavourable odds in terms of having the motion passed by the House. The behaviour of the prime ministers past and present does not bode well for the fate of the motion.
Moreover, if it is decided that we need to consider the wider implications of this issue, what happens if we decide in the debate today that recognition ought to be given to the Armenian genocide? Does it mean that the other long ago wrongs perpetrated against other groups are also to be regarded as the collective responsibility of the Canadian people?