Debates of May 28th, 2009

Senate Ethics Act

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take no offence at the minister's comments about the colour of my hair and the fact that I was here when he was born. I appreciate that and I take it in the spirit of the good humour in which it was offered. Since I have just come back from my nap, I am feeling very invigorated this afternoon and I am quite happy to take on the comments.

The minister himself said that this is alongside other pieces of legislation. That is why we have to consider them all as a package. We all have to understand that this is part of a common approach which the government has taken, and I sincerely disagree with the minister.

In the sense of whether they are constitutional or not, I would just say that if the minister has confidence that they are constitutional, he should simply refer them to the Supreme Court of Canada and let the Supreme Court of Canada say yea or nay. That is what Mark MacGuigan had to do when he was a member of the government of Mr. Trudeau in 1977 or 1978. He had to refer the legislation and deal with it in that context.

We have been through this movie before. I know the Prime Minister has been watching a lot of tapes and movies, but a number of us are aware of what goes on in tapes and movies and we have been through this movie before.

I am certainly not recommending that we go back to the constitutional swamp. That is not what I am recommending. The government would launch us into a very expensive set of litigation with the provinces. I can assure the minister that if he follows this legislation through with the other pieces of legislation, he will be sued by many provinces. They will sue the federal government. They will say that this is ultra vires the powers of the federal government. They will go to the Courts of Appeal in the different provinces. It may be Newfoundland. It may be Manitoba. It may be Ontario. It may be Quebec. It may be New Brunswick. Then it will get appealed from there by whomever loses. It will get appealed up to the Supreme Court, and my profession, of which I am very proud member, will do very well out of this. He is setting up a legal nest that will go forward and it is not a good idea.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Toronto Centre's vigorous and enthusiastic defence of the status quo.

I know that the Senate has served the Liberal Party very well in the past and I guess he is hoping that it will continue to do so. In fact, one of the senators, a very admirable man, Senator Prud'homme, has threatened to run for the House of Commons when he retires from the Senate, so his commitment to Parliament is very strong.

The NDP of course is in favour of an elected and accountable Parliament, and of course the Senate is part of Parliament.

Does the member actually think that we have such a rigid Constitution that the political will of the people could not be tested by a referendum in terms of whether they want an elected Parliament or not?

I know he is talking about the rigidity of legalities and what might happen, but this bill would have to go to the Senate. I do not suppose the Senate is going to pass it. That might allow the government to appoint a few more senators and we would get into a whole race over who is going to control the Senate.

Should we not actually try to find out what the will of the Canadian people is? Do they want an elected Senate or are they satisfied with a moribund institution?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are some things which one can set one's clock by.

Certainly, the predictability of the response from my friends in the New Democratic Party with respect to the subject of the Senate is well known. I can only tell the hon. member that I would have thought that having served in a provincial institution, as I have, that he knows very well the provincial situation in every province.

We are a federal country. Every federal country in the world has a second chamber. Some of them are elected. Some of them are appointed. Some of them are half-appointed and half-elected. Some of them are elected on a proportional basis. Some of them are elected by the provincial chambers. There is a whole variety of techniques by which second chambers are chosen.

I have made it clear that I am not defending the status quo. I am simply looking at what I know is the government's agenda, which I am surprised the member would support. I would suspect that the Premier of Newfoundland would be very troubled by a unilateral change in the Constitution of Canada, and an attempt to do that by the reformists on the other side of the chamber. I would be very surprised if that were something that he thought was a great idea. I would be stunned if Premier Charest was in favour of it, or indeed if any provincial premier thought this was a wonderful idea.

We are discussing a very modest proposal on the face of it, which is to deal with the question of ethics, but it is not just a question of ethics. It is the question of the extent to which we respect the independence of the other chamber.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when a person comes to this place, one realizes the work the Senate does, people like Mike Kirby and his work on health and on mental health. I was at the Calgary social forum last week, and Senator Hugh Segal, a Progressive Conservative appointed by a Liberal, was speaking about poverty. He has a great deal of credibility.

I think that changes are needed. Nova Scotia has 10 senators and Alberta has six. There are things that need to be done, but my colleague is quite right that this is not the way to do them. It will not add up to anything.

I wonder if there is any reason Canadians should believe that this is anything other than an attempt to divert people's attention from a government that has the finances of this country out of control. There is a $50 billion deficit and there are people who cannot get employment insurance. The government has totally lost control, and this is just another attempt to divert attention from that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I return the floor to the member for Toronto Centre, I want to remind members that we do not usually refer to members of the other place by their given names.

With that, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I assume, Mr. Speaker, that means we can use nicknames.

I appreciate the question from my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. One of my favourite films, in addition to the tapes that I am sure the government is watching, is Wag the Dog. It is a great movie. Members should see it. I have seen the President of the Treasury Board. I know he does not have much to do because the money is not going out the door at all. He has put a cork in the government and stopped it.

[Vic Toews]

Come to Manitoba.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Perhaps I am only speaking for the purposes of my own riding, Mr. Speaker.

[Vic Toews]

We will take care of it.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I thank the hon. member. I wish he would.

I will say to the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that I think this is an attempt to change the subject. On the face of it, one might say one wants to have an ethics officer for both chambers and what is the big deal. The answer is, maybe not much, but the fact is the Senate says it wants to have its own ethics officer dealing with its own situations, that it will apply the law fairly and it has the ability to apply the law fairly. The House of Commons should have sufficient faith in its institution that this is what it will do.

I do think the government is trying to change the subject and get back to the question of Senate bashing. I know it will please members of the New Democratic Party and others who say that is a great thing to do, but I do not know why they are taking the bait. I would not take the bait, and this side of the House has no intention of taking the bait.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am a young member, not in terms of my age but in terms of my years of service here, and I can say that one can be inspired or notice the work of members who have many years of service. I am as passionate as the member for Toronto Centre, but not about the same things. I do not share his passion for the Senate. Today, however, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of the bill we are discussing and would like to see it studied in committee.

What I am passionate about are matters of ethics and conflicts of interest. Thus, this bill is of great interest to me. When one sits on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, these are often the topics we have to examine. It is our responsibility to make changes or amendments to the code of ethics and to the conflict of interest code for members. And so I was careful to read this bill attentively, and it is my pleasure to debate this matter in this House.

Everyone agrees that it is desirable that various codes of behaviour be established for members of Parliament, senators and public office holders. In our opinion, the idea that these codes be administered by a single person so as to standardize procedures and decision-making is a sensible one. The Bloc notes however that the bill will do nothing to significantly address ethics and transparency in the Senate. We noticed that most of the shortcomings in the Senate behaviour code will remain the same. I will explain a bit later that the bill would only see to the appointment of one person to govern both codes, i.e. that of members and senators. However, the commissioner does not necessarily have the investigative rights and powers needed to administer and enforce the code governing the senators.

Consequently, if what the Conservative government wanted was to make the Senate more transparent and to improve its image, it is missing the mark. You might almost call it window dressing, since the bill is going to introduce fairly minor changes. If the government had really wanted to improve the Senate's image, it could have started by not imitating its Liberal counterparts and not highlighting its partisanship and anti-democratic stance by making several partisan appointments. An example comes to mind readily. It should not have appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate. Moreover, it did not oblige him to run in byelections in Quebec between 2006 and 2008. It was within the Conservative government's power to do all sorts of other things to contribute to improving the Senate's image. However, the government continued the Liberal tradition of using the Senate as a partisan tool.

Consequently, this bill is rather symbolic. I am not a fortune teller, but I think that the government is well aware that its bill will not be passed by the senators, who have already rejected this proposal three times, as hon. members need to remember. The Bloc Québécois wants to remind this House that abolishing the Senate is the best way to put an end to the lack of Senate accountability. It is that simple. The Senate is not an institution that should continue to exist. However, I do agree with the member for Toronto Centre that to abolish the Senate, the government would have to amend the Constitution and enter into rounds of negotiations, which is a bit more complicated.

Hon. members also need to remember that in 2002, under Jean Chrétien, and subsequently under Paul Martin, the Liberals tried to introduce a uniform ethics regime including a single officer who would administer codes of ethics for MPs and senators. That did not work for Jean Chrétien.

For his part, Mr. Martin had to introduce separate regimes so that his Bill C-34 would be passed.

In the Federal Accountability Act, which the Conservatives introduced in April 2006, the Conservative government also proposed to create a single position of conflict of interest and ethics commissioner to replace the separate ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer positions.

The bill was passed in 2006. However, the Senate twice rejected the provisions giving the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner the mandate to apply the Senate code of ethics and insisted on keeping the Senate ethics officer position.

The House of Commons finally agreed to the changes proposed by the Senate so that the Federal Accountability Act would be passed in a timely manner.

We would not be wrong in saying that Bill C-30 is the government's fourth attempt to subject the Senate to a real ethics commissioner.

The measures proposed in Bill C-30, the Senate Ethics Act, would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in order to abolish the position of Senate ethics officer and give the mandate to a single person, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. The position would be an independent one with a mandate to apply standards of ethics to senators, MPs and public office holders. The incumbent would be charged therefore with administering two completely different codes.

Under the new structure, senators would remain subject to the existing rules, that is, the senators' conflict of interest code would continue to govern the conduct of senators.

In actual fact, there are few changes. I see no reason then why the senators are upset, apart from the fact that the codes of ethics will be administered by a single conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.

The bill also contains transitional provisions on the renewal of the mandate of the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner and on the transfer of parliamentary votes and employees of the office of the Senate ethics officer to the office of the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. That makes sense. If the position is transferred, the budgets and employees have to be transferred too.

The bill provides that, unless the Senate passes a motion approving the appointment of the current ethics commissioner, a new commissioner will be selected six months after the legislation comes into force.

Finally, the governor in council will appoint a conflict of interest and ethics commissioner after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and the House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.

The bill will come into force on a date set by order in council.

This bill, despite being somewhat overblown, is fairly simple to implement and makes sense from an administrative standpoint.

As I said, the Bloc supports the principle of the bill. I repeat that it is desirable to have the various codes of conduct administered by a single officer in order to standardize procedures and decision making. It will mean consistency and makes perfect sense.

The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner will administer the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons and the Conflict of Interest Act applicable to elected officials and public office holders. He will thus be responsible for 1,350 full-time public office holders and 1,940 part-time office holders appointed by order in council, and 308 MPs.

I do not think that the addition of 105 senators will result in the commissioner being too overburdened to enforce the code. Basically, I do not think this will impede him in his work or overburden him.

From an administrative standpoint, it seems more economical and efficient as well as easier to ensure consistency if a single officer is responsible for the three codes of conduct.

It is important, though, to understand that this bill does not do anything significant to improve the ethics and transparency of the Senate because most of the shortcomings in the senators’ code of conduct will remain just as they were. I repeat, for the benefit of those who are concerned, that the appointment of a single officer to administer the three codes will not do a thing to change the application of the code or the procedures for enforcing it.

I could give a few examples of the shortcomings in the senators’ code of conduct, shortcomings that undermine the authority of the Senate ethics officer. This will help explain the basic point I am making. The Senate ethics officer exercises his duties under the general direction of a committee consisting of five senators and cannot initiate an investigation on his own. If he wants to conduct an investigation, he has to ask the committee for permission.

It is astonishing to find out that the Senate ethics officer does not have the authority to carry out investigations, decide which ones to do, and determine whether or not he can conduct an investigation, in contrast to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, who has the power to initiate investigations because she is independent.

The connections are very close, therefore, between the Senate ethics officer and the committee of five senators, which is basically like a board of directors. I use this comparison to make it easier for the people watching us at home to understand. It is this committee of five senators that holds discussions and examines documents provided by the Senate ethics officer and then decides whether or not to authorize an investigation.

As I see it, the Senate ethics officer is not necessarily as independent as the commissioner in enforcing the senators’ code.

I see too in subsection 45(1) of the senators’ code that the investigation reports of the Senate ethics officer are not necessarily made public. The ethics officer must report first to the committee of senators, which then reports to the Senate. It is obvious that the senators always maintain some form of control over the work of the Senate ethics officer.

In closing, as another example, the senators' code of conduct can only be amended by the Senate. In our opinion, if the government wanted to improve the Senate's image, and I am repeating myself, it should have set the example by not highlighting its partisan and anti-democratic nature with a proliferation of partisan appointments.

In the interest of properly informing the public watching on television, I would to make another point.

Members will remember that on December 22, 2008, the Prime Minister appointed 18 senators, including a number of Conservative supporters such as Michel Rivard and Leo Housakos, well-known Conservative organizers; Irving Gerstein, former Conservative Fund Canada president; Michael L. MacDonald, vice-president of the Conservative Party of Canada; Stephen Green, former chief of staff for Reform Party of Canada leader Preston Manning; or Suzanne Duplessis, Fabian Manning, Yonah Martin and Percy Mockler, former members or—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind the member that in this place we do not refer to members of the other place by their given names. There have been references made to former members of Parliament by their given names, not current members, and the same standard applies to the Senate. It is not appropriate to refer to sitting senators by their given names.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought this rule applied only to the House of Commons. I did not think it applied to senators. I thought that this rule applied only to those people elected to this House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

There seems to be a rather lively discussion in this House. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is possible for you to settle things down.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

There seems to be another debate in this House, but I will continue. I apologize, I did not know that I could not name senators who are in the other place. I thought that applied only here, to members.

I will continue by saying that the bill—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the member is right. A senator is appointed to be a senator for the province. The only way we can name the senator is to use the last name. We do not use the first names of senators, but we use “Senator” and whatever the last name is.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe the member for Malpeque is correct. Earlier a member mentioned a senator by first and last name without even saying “Senator”. I think that is probably inappropriate. However, I referred to Senator Prud'homme, which is the only way to identify him as an individual in the Senate who says that he wants to run for the House of Commons. I think it is proper to mention their names and that they are senators.

It may not be proper to mention their first names or call them by name or call them by name without referring to them as a senator. I would like a clarification on that because I do not think it is possible for us to have a proper debate in the House if we cannot talk about individual senators. Senators may have a bill or they may have said something publicly that is a matter of public discourse. Therefore, I would like to hear a clarification on that. I can understand not being able to say Mike Duffy, but we may be able to say Senator Duffy. It may require some research, but it should be clarified for the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the assistance that hon. members have given to the Chair with this matter. I will reference from page 522 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it says:

In debate, the Senate is generally referred to as “the other place” and Senators as “members of the other place”. References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator's integrity, honesty or character. This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.”

I believe it is fair to say that the practice of referring to members of the other place by their given name is discouraged and is not the common practice in this place. Use of first and last names is discouraged. There does not appear to be a rule that absolutely forbids it.

A couple of members have commented that possibly it is appropriate to refer to them by their family name, but not by their first name. I see no such reference in this book, but I also appreciate that in a debate regarding the Senate, where members would like to refer to statements made by individual senators who do not represent a particular riding, that it is difficult.

Therefore, I leave this in the hands of the hon. members and close by saying it is generally discouraged and is not something that often happens, but to the best of what I can see in the rules, it is not explicitly forgiven.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I am not being called to order.

What I said was in no way an attack on the integrity of the people and the senators I named. Rather, I was questioning the decisions, the integrity and the transparency of the Conservative government. I want to be very clear on that. I understand from your judgment that this practice is discouraged, but I am not necessarily being called to order.

Can you confirm this?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the question. My reading of the rules is that referring to individual members is discouraged, particularly if a criticism or attack is being launched against a member of the other place when the member has no opportunity to defend himself or herself here. I think the hon. member is saying that she made passing references to individual senators. As I said before, I do not see an explicit rule that forbids it. It is simply discouraged in this place.

The clock has been stopped during this proceeding. When we return to this matter, the hon. member will have three minutes remaining.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-302, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill and I do so somewhat with mixed feelings. I am always proud to get up in this House and speak to the successes of Italian Canadians over the years and everything that they have accomplished in Canada. However, today we are also being asked to remember and to speak about what I think is one of the darkest days in Canadian history with respect to Italian Canadians and their treatment while in this country. I think it is important that we take a look back at some of the history with respect to Italian Canadians and their internment.

It is important to note that it was at the onset of World War II that then Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King decided that Italian Canadians, despite everything they had accomplished in this country for the many years they had been here, all of the successes, somehow should be deemed as enemy aliens. Some 632 Italian Canadians were interned and placed in camps. Others were forced to identify themselves with local police. This was the treatment of Italian Canadians for many years.

Following the end of the war, Italian-Canadians waited for an apology. They waited through many different governments. They waited through Liberal Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, and still no apology. They waited through Liberal Prime Minister Pearson, and still no apology. They waited through Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau, and still no apology. They waited again until, finally, in 1990, then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, addressing the National Congress of Italian Canadians, apologized.

On November 4, 1990, speaking to the biennial convention of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, Prime Minister Mulroney acknowledged the injustices committed against Canadians of Italian origin during World War II and apologized to all Canadians of Italian origin on behalf of the Government of Canada for the injustices perpetrated on a quiet, law-abiding community. In his speech, he pledged that the violations of democratic rights so apparent during World War II should never happen again; and finally, he accepted the principle of redress for the wrongs committed to the Italian people and he suggested, again, that this should never happen again.

Italian Canadians have accomplished so much in Canada. There are over 1.4 million Italian Canadians. They are leaders in business. They are leaders in industry. They are professionals. They are tradespeople. It has often been said, in the greater Toronto area where I am from, that the first generation of Italian Canadians built Toronto and the second generation owned Toronto.

Over the past weekend I had the pleasure and the privilege of being in Halifax. I was able to visit Pier 21, where my father and my mother entered Canada with my aunts and my uncles at that time. These are proud Italian Canadians: my father Tony Calandra, my mother Franca, my uncles Peter, Ross and Carmen. They came to Canada to build a better life for themselves. They did not come to look back. They came to be productive members of society.

Italian Canadians identify themselves not by the injustices perpetrated against them by previous governments in World War II, but by what they have accomplished since coming to Canada. They identify themselves as strong family people, people who helped construct the streets that we came to work on, helped on this building, helped build Toronto, helped build Montreal, helped accomplish so much across Canada. That is how Italian Canadians identify themselves.

Earlier today I was speaking to my uncle, Peter Salvino, who came to Canada a little more than 34 years ago. I asked him how he felt about this, and he said he was not here at that time, but it did have an impact on Italian Canadians all those years that they waited, because people used the fact that there was no apology until 1990 as a reason to be racist in many instances toward Italians.

My uncle has ultimately built a great life here in Canada. He celebrated in 1972 when Paul Henderson scored that goal. He was proud when we launched the Anik II. He remembered when Terry Fox started his run and was sad when it ended. He remembered 1996, because he was in Atlanta when Donovan Bailey won the gold medal for Canada. He could not stop cheering. He lost his voice when the Canadian team won the relay. He was at the Olympics in Canada in 1976, and again in 1988. He was also one of the proud Italians who in 1982, when the Italian team won the World Cup, flooded onto the streets of Toronto to celebrate.

Italian culture is strong, but first and foremost, they are Canadians. They are Canadians who have moved on. They are Canadians who have accepted the apology by Brian Mulroney, then Conservative Prime Minister, for the wrongs of previous Liberal governments. They have accepted the apology on behalf of all Italian Canadians.

We have done so much more as a government, and we are moving on, just as Italians have moved on. But we are not ignoring what Italians suffered. That is why our government recently provided funding in recognition of what Italian Canadians went through, so that we could educate other Canadians on the Italian Canadian experience during the internment.

One of the reasons I am so opposed to this legislation is because, indeed, it looks back. Wrongs were committed. Italian Canadians, as I said earlier, waited a long time, but in 1990 they received an apology.

I object to this legislation because we have already done so much. Not only did we apologize in 1990, but as I said recently, we have provided, through the community historical recognition program, $5 million in grants and contributions over four years, which will begin in 2008-09. This money will fund projects to commemorate and recognize the experiences of the Italian Canadian community in relation to the second world war internment in Canada.

I want to focus as an Italian Canadian parliamentarian not on the injustices of the past, but on the accomplishments of the Italian Canadian people. I want to focus on the things that my parents accomplished, on the things that my aunts and uncles accomplished. Most Italian Canadians want to focus on that.

We can look at the bill and ask, as I would suggest the opposition has done, how can we gain cheap political points? How can we seek to divide the Italian community? Where can we get some seats? How can we use Italian Canadians to break into communities where we have not been successful? That is why the bill is so shameful. We need to focus on what we have accomplished.

A Conservative government recognizes the accomplishments of the Italian people. A Conservative government apologized to the Italian people. A Conservative government provided the millions of dollars that will be spread across this country to help the rest of Canadians understand what was perpetrated against Italian Canadians in World War II by a Liberal prime minister. A Conservative government will help Italian Canadians move on and will help share with the rest of Canadians why Italians have been so successful, why I am proud to be an Italian Canadian.

I simply will not support a bill that seeks to divide the Italian community, that seeks to earn cheap political points over what has been the darkest period in Canadian history.

I hope that all those Italian Canadians who are here today recognize the fact that on this side of the House there is a Prime Minister and there is a minister who appreciate everything that Italian Canadians have done. I as an Italian Canadian and member of Parliament will continue to stand up for them every day that I am privileged to be here.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-302 is 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. This is the fourth time the bill has been introduced. It was previously introduced in three sessions of Parliament. I am very glad to see that it is back, and I am prepared, certainly, to support it.

I will give some historical background. In 1939, special wartime powers were given to the Canadian Minister of Justice to prevent the subversion of Canadian interests and loyalties. Italian Canadians were designated enemy aliens by the Government of Canada, and following Italy's declaration of war on June 10, 1940, our government ordered the internment of many of these so-called enemy aliens.

Between 600 and 700 Italian Canadians were reportedly interned as a result. Most were sent to Camp Petawawa on the Ottawa River.

Italian Canadians were required to register with the RCMP and report on a monthly basis. Travel restrictions were imposed. The teaching of the Italian language was declared illegal, as were various Italian organizations. Boycotts of Italian Canadian-owned and -run businesses started and many Italian Canadians lost their jobs.

In 1990, as my hon. friend who spoke just before me indicated, the National Congress of Italian Canadians briefed then Prime Minister Mulroney on these injustices and called for an apology and compensation. An apology was delivered and the money was announced but was not delivered.

Funding was announced again in June 2008 through Citizenship and Immigration Canada's community historical recognition program. I heard my hon. friend who spoke before me say that the Conservatives say the bill is shameful. I think that was his exact description. He was talking about money to come, but to date, the program's website lists no funds granted for projects related to the treatment of Italian Canadians during World War II.

I will talk briefly about Thunder Bay. Italian Canadians have a very long history in Thunder Bay. In fact, the Italian community was established in the late 19th century. The 1901 census shows 197 persons of Italian origin in Port Arthur and Fort William combined. By 1931, that community had grown to 2,500 people. Italian Canadians remain one of the largest ethnic communities in Thunder Bay, indeed one of the largest ethnic communities right across my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am a proud member of the Societa' Italiana Di Benevolenza Principe Di Piemonte. I am very happy to say, just to illustrate the longevity and how important Italian Canadians have been to Thunder Bay and to my riding, that this society started in 1909. This is the 100th anniversary of that society. It was started by a small group of Italian immigrants who wanted their heritage to stay alive in this new country that they had come to call their own.

The goal of their society was to promote and maintain good fellowship and the highest level of citizenship within members and the community.

A further goal of their society was the promotion and enhancement of Italian custom and culture in all its endeavours. This society and I am sure Italian societies right across this country have lived up to these ideals and continue to live up to these ideals and show how valuable their community is to Canada.

I would like to note that in September 1939, three days after German troops had invaded Poland, the Principe di Piemonte passed a motion pledging its loyalty to Canada. I have already outlined the historical background of what happened after that.

I would also like to mention the Canadian Italian Business and Professional Association of Thunder Bay that was incorporated in 1993. It promotes the recreational, cultural, social, artistic business and professional activities of Italian Canadians in Thunder Bay and the surrounding area. It encourages the participation of Italian Canadians in the economic and public affairs of that region and Canada.

What I am really trying to get at with this description is the importance and value that I am sure all of us in the House and right across this country see, not only in our immigrant population in general, but in particular today with our Italian immigrants. I believe that Canada would be a much poorer place without the contribution of Italian Canadians.

I would be willing to speak with the member later as to whether in fact the funds have flowed. I do not believe they have. As I said on the website, no funds are listed relating to projects associated with the treatment of Italian Canadians during World War II.

The Conservatives say that this bill is shameful. We can easily pass it with the co-operation of everyone in the House and, with the apology that has already taken place, we could ensure that the money that has been announced on numerous occasions is finally delivered.