I'll just begin. Good morning, members of the committee. I thank you for having me here today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill .
As a student growing up in Edmonton, I learned about the history of the Holocaust as a part of the Second World War. Textbooks recounted the events that unfolded; the battles that were waged; the sacrifices of our soldiers, airmen, and sailors, along with their families; and the eventual victory of the allies against the Nazis. I also learned about the Holocaust, how groups of people who didn't fit certain stereotypes were exterminated in the name of racial purity. But to a student reading from a textbook, those events seemed distant and dated. They happened before I was born, to people I didn't know much about, in countries on the other side of the world. I had only a superficial understanding of the Holocaust. It was a part of history. It was something I learned about but never truly understood or appreciated.
For our young people today it is even more remote. For people privileged to live in a country like Canada, the Holocaust can seem wholly foreign, something that people have difficulty understanding because they cannot relate to its atrocities and horrors.
For some, a deeper understanding of those terrible events is provided through the retelling of stories of family members and veterans who were witnesses to the Holocaust, and in some cases survived it. But as time passes and the ranks of those who are able to tell those stories dwindle, there comes a danger that this unparalleled crime will become just a part of history, something that may exist in a textbook but whose real significance is lost.
In a way it's a tribute to the progress we have made that our children have difficulty understanding this brutality. Today's Canada is a nation of hope and opportunity, a beacon to those around the world seeking to find a new home and brighter future for themselves and for their families. As Canadians we pride ourselves on a nation that values and demands respect towards other people, affords a personal dignity to all people, and provides an environment of tolerance and understanding. Our society is the dream for many around the world, and it's something that the thousands of men and women in our armed forces have fought for in distant war-torn and oppressed nations. My own parents came to Canada in order to take advantage of all that Canada affords newcomers.
In today's Canada, those who are honoured to call it home would have tremendous difficulty identifying with the deep horrors of the Holocaust. The dangers we as a country now face are complacency and fatigue, to allow things like the Holocaust to rest on the pages of history. And lest we think that hatred and anti-Semitism are relics of the past, we are reminded on an almost daily basis that there are individuals around the world who continue to deny the very existence of the Holocaust or seek to downplay the extent of the crimes that were committed against humanity.
President Ahmadinejad of Iran continues to outrage people with his denial of the Holocaust. His myopic and ignorant comments on the subject of the Holocaust have resulted in condemnation from virtually all corners of the world. But there are people, even in our own country, who agree with him. The denial of the Holocaust and those who voice such opinions must continue to be fought in the public square. This monument will be a testament to where Canada stands.
The rise of anti-Semitism in some places in the world, whether overt or subtle, is another compelling reason why Canada must continue to ensure that the Holocaust is both acknowledged and condemned.
In my opinion, members of Parliament are charged with two important roles: fighting for the interests of their constituents, and pursuing issues that will benefit Canada as a whole. I believe that establishing a national Holocaust monument speaks to both of these roles and will help instill in generations of future Canadians an understanding of the atrocities of the Holocaust through a visible, tangible icon here in the nation's capital.
Some people have suggested that a monument is not necessary, saying “After all, who has not heard of the Holocaust? Do we really need a monument?” I believe that yes, we do. Remember after the Second World War was over, people began speaking about the Holocaust? Newspapers printed the crimes that had been committed, but they were not understood. No one really grasped what had happened. It was not until we saw the photographs, until there was a more tangible, more visible way to understand, that the significance of the Holocaust began to sink in. That is why I believe that reading about the Holocaust in a textbook is not enough.
Every year thousands of Canadians come to visit our capital, many of them schoolchildren. A physical, tangible monument given space in our nation's capital will make a different impression than the words they read on a page. Like many, I was surprised to learn that Canada remains the only Allied nation without a Holocaust monument in its nation's capital. As is the case in these other countries, with the passage of time, fewer and fewer survivors here in Canada can bear witness to the Holocaust.
A permanent monument to those who died in concentration camps or in their own homes at the hands of the Nazis will serve as a long-lasting reminder of a dark era of hatred and violence that we must ensure never occurs again. By placing the monument at the seat of government in the nation's capital, we accord an appropriate respect and acknowledge the gravity of this terrible event. Great Britain, the United States, France, all our allies have understood the importance of remembering the Holocaust, and so should Canada.
I've been thrilled with the broad level of support I have received from all parties to establish a national Holocaust monument.
The Honourable Irwin Cotler stated:
This monument will be a monument to remember, a monument to remind us. It will be an act of remembrance. It will be, also, a remembrance to act so that never to forget, which is underpinning this monument, will be translated into never again.
Madame Lavallée stated:
The Holocaust was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the bill to commemorate both the survivors and the victims.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis said:
It is truly amazing that we do not have such a Holocaust memorial right here in Canada's capital city. Tonight with this bill we are actually making a significant attempt at redressing an oversight. I hope that we can accomplish this quickly.
Anita Neville also expressed:
...and I am hopeful that all members of all parties will see fit to support this. It is something that is important, not just to acknowledge what happened in the past, but, as we have heard elsewhere tonight, to ensure that our children know what happened and will determine that it will never happen again in the future.
Many organizations throughout Canada have expressed their support, such as B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Israeli Committee, and the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee.
I would also like to recognize Laura Grossman, from the Canadian Memorial Holocaust Project, and the Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who have been strong supporters of moving this initiative forward.
I see this bill as an example of the best of what Parliament can do when we transcend traditional party lines and move forward on an issue of tremendous importance to Canadians.
The Prime Minister says:
This is a very worthy project, which would serve to honour the memory of victims and ensure that future generations of Canadians learn from one of the most horrific chapters in human history.
Members of the committee, this monument will stand as a testament to our own ideals and values and will be the embodiment of the words and stories inscribed in the textbooks of history. This monument is a statement made by Canadians to the world. It honours those who died in the tragedy of the Holocaust, and it says to future generations of Canadians, never again.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Uppal, thank you for coming here and giving us an indication of what motivated you to present this bill. It's laudable. A lot of us, in fact I'm sure all of us, are absolutely scandalized every time we think about the evil that can be perpetrated by organized governments, or disorganized governments, that are moved by ideology, which led to the Holocaust and World War II and the killing, the murder, of so many other millions of people. I'm glad there are people in this place who still recall that war is an evil activity and that genocide is even worse.
You know the House accepted that the principle of establishing a monument here in the national capital region was something that Canadian society could support. It doesn't matter whether we had a minister of the crown or a junior minister of the crown support your bill or not. This bill is a reflection of the will of the House of Commons. It reflects the approach of every single member of Parliament and all parties. Nobody wants to be associated with the Holocaust in a positive fashion. We want to be associated with every condemnation possible about it.
So we applaud your bill because it said the Government of Canada is going to put aside land. You didn't say that in your presentation, but that's what your bill says. It's going to put land aside in the national capital region, i.e., the place that every Canadian recognizes as his and hers, and they're going to establish a council that would get the financing together to establish such a commemorative monument.
Did you discuss the bill with your government before you presented it?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your view, what is the national capital? The national capital could well extend 30 kilometers beyond Parliament Hill. I do not know if you see what I mean. It would not be a good idea to put this up 30 kilometers from here, near the airport. However, there might be several good locations right here, on the Hill.
According to your bill — which I support 100% —, “it is important to ensure that the Holocaust continues to have a permanent place in our nation's consciousness and memory“ and “we have an obligation to honour the memory of Holocaust victims as part of our collective resolve to never forget“. Therefore, “the establishment of a national monument shall forever remind Canadians...“. However, if we erect this monument 20 or 25 kilometers outside of the core of the national capital, it seems that it will not reflect the same feeling. Fewer people will see it and remember. Let us take, for example, the monument to the unknown soldier opposite the Château Laurier and all the monuments on Parliament Hill. In my view, the closer the better. Otherwise, if it is too far away from Parliament Hill, nobody will go visit.
What are your views?
:
Good question. It wasn't the NCC or the government itself.
When I was drawn with a pretty decent number for my private member's bill, when it came close to the time that I knew it would be drawn, I put out some feelers with people who have been here for a long time and asked if they had any suggestions or ideas for a private member's bill, because I had just recently been elected. A few proposals have come forward, different things, some justice, some other types of issues, financial issues and stuff.
This came forward, and it came forward through—actually she's right there—Laura Grosman. She had been working on this before. I think she had worked actually with Anita Neville on her bill. When I saw it, the idea of it, I thought it was a great idea.
It didn't come through any government initiative, no.
:
If they are on notice, Mr. Chairman—and I think Mr. Gaudet will appreciate this—the substance of all these amendments goes to the heart and principle of the bill. As I indicated in my question to Mr. Uppal, the amendments go to the issue of whether the government is prepared to establish a site for the monument and to initiate the development of a monument.
My colleagues, Madame Mendes and Ms. Crombie, have indicated that the government can do that without the benefit of a piece of legislation from one of their members, legislation that they're now proposing to amend completely, clause by clause. They could do that administratively. They could put the funds forward. They don't need anybody's support. The principle has already been established. It was established in the previous Parliament--and, I might say, by one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party.
We support this bill. We support the principle of the bill. The amendments tear that principle apart. When I asked Mr. Uppal whether in fact the government had sought his okay to present amendments, it wasn't because I was being devious but because he, as the mover of the bill, would have to accept an amendment that's friendly.
I don't think there's anything friendly about these amendments. These amendments can only be ruled out of order. They go against the very principle of the bill. They tear apart the business of what Mr. Uppal gave in response to my question—that is, fundamentally the government must provide the territory and it is not doing it.
:
My first point of order, Mr. Chair, is what amendments is he talking about?
My second point of order is, if he does have those amendments—and he has mentioned that they change the bill substantively, which quite frankly I would argue to the contrary—maybe he can enlighten us as to how they change it.
So although you may not substantiate the issue of a point of order, certainly if he's going to rant and rave about how bad the amendments are, he could talk about some specifics in relation to how they change it. My understanding is, from looking at this, that this perfects a previous bill in relation to the administration itself of it.
We're all in agreement on a national Holocaust memorial. We are ready to proceed on the government side to correct any problems it may have. My question to Mr. Volpe is, is he prepared and is his party prepared today, right now, to correct any issues in relation to this and move this matter forward as quickly as possible?
:
I was happy to hear that Mr. Volpe and the Liberals were now prepared to support the bill, after they discovered it was actually very similar—or identical, as he said—to a Liberal bill that was passed three years ago, or was before the House three years ago.
My issue is this. I want to be clear on the record that the government is not looking at who should receive credit for this bill. What we believe is that the substance of the bill is very important. It touched upon a lot of people. Six million Jews and their families were destroyed during this period of time, and I think it's something that as a committee and as a government and as opposition members we should move forward on as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible, without worrying about where the credit lies and without worrying about all of those kinds of political issues. I think what's important at this stage is that we move forward.
I also want to say for the record, and for those people who are listening, wherever they may be, that I think all parties feel this is a very important thing. This committee is a master of its own destiny, so we can perfect any imperfection of this particular bill at this stage. I think it's important that all people who listen to this understand that we can perfect any issue now, by way of a vote. Even any challenge to amendments, or anything else, we could perfect and have this bill done within the next 15 minutes, to establish this.
But Mr. Gaudet has moved a motion that he would like some more time to think about this and possibly talk to his party, in relation to the amendments, which I do not believe are substantively different. If that's what Mr. Gaudet and the Bloc would like to do, I think the government can do nothing but support that at this stage, because what's important is to move forward with this bill. But it's also important that everybody has an opportunity to have a thoughtful process.
I want to make sure that everyone listening and everyone at this committee recognizes that we are not into taking credit for something that is simply the right thing to do. If Mr. Gaudet wishes to have some more thoughtful process to that, and if Mr. Uppal doesn't mind, I suggest that the government would support the motion by Mr. Gaudet to move this matter to the next time.
:
Mr. Chairman, I realize that on occasion we want to make speeches because we want to get to the audience of our deliberations on the bill, and I think that's legitimate. I try not to impugn the motives of anyone else, but I know that everybody around this table agreed that there are several...I'll use Mr. Uppal's words here, with the “intent of the bill”. The intent of the bill was to provide a Holocaust monument in the national capital region.
The specifics of the bill indicated who was going to provide what: land and improvements thereon, i.e., the monument itself. The government initially said it was going to provide the land. The bill is a little different from the previous Liberal bill in this regard, which provided for land and a monument and maintenance. But that's okay. The issue is that nobody here objects to that intent. Nobody objected to the principle, because everybody in the House voted in favour of Mr. Uppal's bill. We could all be partisan and say, I wish it had been an NDP or a Bloc or a Liberal, or the Conservative member, that presented it. The fact of the matter is that the House of Commons took a private member's bill and said unanimously they would support it.
Now, with respect to whether or not there are amendments before us, I had asked for clarification on that beforehand, because in my view the amendments that are on notice go to the heart of both the intent and the principle of the bill. For someone like the parliamentary secretary, our good friend, Mr. Jean, to suggest that some of us, in objecting to anything that takes away from Mr. Uppal's bill, are somehow hurtful to all of those families of the six million victims of the Holocaust—who suffered personally and, by extension, through their families, and collectively as a community—is egregiously faulty. There is not a person, I'm sure, at this table who doesn't think that it's something that ought always to be remembered as a moment and a period of infamy, and that it should always be rejected by anybody who believes in the civility of humankind.
What we want to do with this monument is to put up a remembrance so that all could recall that infamy and always work against it. It would be a hallmark of democratic behaviour. I resent the fact that someone would want to turn it into a partisan moment, and I resent the fact that someone would suggest that we in the Liberal Party would somehow want to gain some advantage from this procedural motion, when we're trying to defend the principle of that bill.