Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 13 - Evidence - November 20, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 20, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which was referred Bill S-219, An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War, met this day at 8 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are at the twenty-second meeting of the Human Rights Committee and today we're looking at Bill S-219, An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War.
I am deputy chair of Human Rights, Senator Salma Ataullahjan. Senator Jaffer couldn't be here today. I would like the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Eaton: Good morning, thank you very much for coming. I'm Nicky Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I'm Senator Nancy Ruth from Toronto.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo, from Ontario.
Senator Cowan: Jim Cowan, from Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to acknowledge that the Vietnamese ambassador submitted additional materials for the committee's consideration subsequent to his letter to the chair, which you have already received. His submission will be filed by the committee and distributed as soon as it is translated.
This morning, we have two witnesses. From the Canadian Immigration Historical Society, we have Mike Molloy, President; and from the Vietnamese Canadian Federation, Dr. Can Le, the former president.
I understand, Mr. Molloy, you will speak first.
Mike Molloy, President, Canadian Immigration Historical Society: Thank you, honourable chair and senators. I am very honoured to have been asked to speak today to you about Bill S-219 and the proposal to designate April 30 as a day to remember the exodus of Indochinese refugees and the remarkable circumstances that attended their resettlement in Canada.
I had the privilege of meeting Senator Thanh Hai Ngo a year ago at York University where over a hundred people gathered, including former refugees, former sponsors, officials, political leaders and others, for three days of remembrance and reflection on the Indochinese movement and the launch of Canada's Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program. I was delighted to hear from the senator about this bill. My interest in this matter is threefold.
First of all, as a rather young officer in the 1970s, I was heavily involved in implementing the refugee provisions of the Immigration Act, 1976, which was the first act that had specific refugee provisions in it. They included, among other things, the basis of Canada's famous private refugee sponsorship system and a designated class making the selection of Indochinese refugees much simpler than that of regular convention refugees.
I was subsequently assigned to be senior coordinator, in the summer of 1979, of a task force set up by the deputy minister of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to manage the movement of 60,000 Indochinese refugees to Canada in 1979 and 1980. As senior coordinator, the best way to describe me was that I the lowest man on the totem pole responsible for everything from overseeing selection to transportation, reception, matching with sponsors, sending the people to their final destinations and the settlement arrangements that were in place for them there.
Second, within the Canadian Immigration Historical Society, we are in the final stages of writing the first comprehensive history of the Indochinese refugee movement since 1983. We decided, since we were all getting old and hadn't told all of the war stories from that time, that it was good to capture them now. We are hoping the book will come out in 2015. It will focus on what it took to move the 60,000 people in a period of 18 months from one side of the world to the other.
Third, coming out of the conference I mentioned earlier at York University, the Centre for Refugee Studies at York, the Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association of Canada and the Canadian Immigration Historical Society are involved with members of the Indochinese community in a multi-year project to ensure that the history of a truly remarkable period in Canadian history is recorded and preserved. I have a handout here that describes that project.
To briefly trace what happened and why it was so remarkable, as Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam fell to the communist onslaught in the spring of 1975, a very large number of young Vietnamese from Montreal arrived on Parliament Hill, terrified about what would be happening to their families back home. The government of the day, shocked to see so many people on the front lawn, agreed that they could return home to Montreal, we would keep the immigration offices open 24 hours a day and, whether they had status in Canada or not, they were allowed to sponsor their relatives in the hopes that we could get at them.
In a matter of a few weeks, they submitted 10,000 sponsorships for 17,000 people, and these were all sent by telex — remember what that was? — to Hong Kong. They came in such numbers that repeatedly the rolls on the telex machine were exhausted and things had to be repeated.
The immigration staff in Hong Kong attempted to extract people from Vietnam at that time. The government provided three Hercules aircraft, but in the dying days of the government of South Vietnam, they refused to issue people with exit permits. All we were able to do — it was not a small thing — was to extract about 90 babies who were brought to Canada for placement in Canadian homes.
When Saigon fell, about 130,000 people got into boats of all sorts and headed out to sea where they were rescued by the United States Navy. The navy moved them first to Hong Kong and then the monsoons came, so they moved them to Guam. Then the monsoons came and they moved them to military camps in the southern United States. In all of those places, a Canadian team based in Hong Kong moved in to try and rescue as many of the people who had Canadian connections as we could and another 3,000 on top of that. In all, in the four or five months following the fall of Saigon, we moved 7,000 people to Canada.
Over the next two years, there was a bit of a lull. It is in that period of time that we brought into effect the Immigration Act, 1976, which included two things that were going to be really important in the subsequent years. One was the sponsorship program and the second was the ability for the government to pass what was called a designated class, which greatly simplified the business of selecting refugees from Indochina.
Over the winter of 1978-79, the number of people heading out to sea in overcrowded small fishing boats to escape worsening conditions in Vietnam — where there was famine and various other natural disasters, and where the government had embarked on the ethnic cleaning of the Chinese minority — escalated to the point where they went from a few thousand a month to a few 10,000 a month, to several 10,000 a month, to 60,000 people taking to the boats in the month of June 1979.
The countries in the area, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore, were so alarmed by this, as these people came ashore, that they closed the shores. For the 60,000 people that came out that one month, probably another 40,000 died along the way. As people were pushed off, the death rate went up.
In reaction to this, the United Nations — not the United Nations High Commissioner, but the United Nations Secretary-General — got involved. The very month that the government of Joe Clark assumed power in Canada, the Secretary-General called for an emergency meeting in Geneva that was to take place in the middle of July 1979.
In that time, the Canadian Mennonite Committee, which was the first community in Canada to sign an agreement on the sponsorship of refugees, held a series of consultations with the new foreign affairs minister, Flora MacDonald, suggesting — perhaps even demanding — that Canada do something spectacular.
Initially, the Conservative government upped the quota from 5,000 to 8,000, and suggested that maybe another 4,000 could be brought in by sponsors. That was in June. In July, in response to the worsening situation and the fact that we were going to have to make an announcement in Geneva, the cabinet met again. The new immigration minister, Ron Atkey, brought into cabinet a copy of Irving Abella's book, None is Too Many, the famous book about that infamous episode in Canadian history where we turned away an oceanliner of Jews in the late 1930s, most of whom perished in the subsequent Holocaust.
Mr. Atkey read from that book when the cabinet meeting opened, and he turned to his colleagues and said, ''How do we want to be remembered?'' It was kind of a dramatic moment, I'm told. We met with Mr. Atkey some months ago and it was the first time I'd heard that story.
When Flora MacDonald went to Geneva a few days later, she announced that Canada would be accepting 50,000 refugees. When you compare that with the Hungarians' 37,000; the Czechs' 11,000; the Ugandans' 6,000; and the Chileans' by that time about 7,000, this was a staggering number. It certainly staggered those of us who were in the Immigration Department in the business of that at that time. We had no idea they were going to bring in such an enormous number.
As an interesting side note, the original plan was for 60,000, but you might recall that the Clark government ran on the platform of reducing the civil service by 60,000. They thought the juxtaposition of 60,000 disappearing civil servants and 60,000 incoming refugees might not go down all that well in the press.
The UN High Commission for Refugees was delighted by the number that Canada announced, but expressed alarm in writing — I have seen the correspondence — that so much of the Canadian commitment would depend on private citizens. The announcement required that there be 21,000 privately sponsored people, matched by 21,000 government- sponsored people. UNCHR didn't think we would be able to carry it through.
Then, the citizens of Canada did something that was quite amazing. In July, the month of the announcement, 359 groups came forward to sponsor 2,200 refugees. In August, 1,420 groups came forward to sponsor 8,000 refugees. When the program closed in December 1980, 7,675 groups had sponsored just short of 40,000 refugees, twice as many as the government had asked for, which caused the people in the Department of Finance to have a conniption, I must say. It was complicated. That was quite something, really something amazing, an unusual moment in our history.
In that 18-month period, small teams of very young Canadian visa officers operated. We had to send the youngsters out there because the conditions were so difficult. Anybody over 30 probably would have perished in the process. Visa offices operating in Thailand and Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Hong Kong and Macau put 60,049 refugees on 181 charter flights that came to Canada, landing in Edmonton or Montreal.
Of the 60,000, 1,700 were sponsored by relatives; 26,000 were sponsored by the government; and 33,000 were sponsored by private citizens. The citizens of Canada took the biggest part of the burden.
It was an amazing achievement. It was made possible by outstanding leadership at all levels of government, from mayors and aldermen right up to cabinet ministers, both federal and provincial, and by hardworking public servants. I will tell you how hardworking it was. The book we are writing is called Running on Empty. When I tell the veterans of the Vietnam movement that, yes, we're calling it Running on Empty, they all say, ''Yes, that's right.''
The real heroes of this were literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who sponsored refugees through their churches and synagogues, service clubs, unions and ad hoc groups of friends and neighbours that got together to take advantage of this program.
As you know, the UN was so impressed by the Canadian accomplishment that in 1986 the people of Canada were awarded the Nansen Medal, the refugee equivalent of the Nobel Prize. We are the first people and the only people to have been so honoured.
We have probably settled over a half a million refugees in this country since the Second World War. Why should we be thinking about singling out this group for special recognition?
First, the Indochinese movement ran from 1975 well into the 1990s and was eventually supplemented by a really vigorous family unification program from Vietnam. It was by far, and remains by far, the largest resettlement operation we have ever undertaken. It brought us close to 200,000 new citizens when all was said and done. The refugees and their dependents now account for over 300,000 of our fellow Canadians.
Second, the astonishing reaction of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who took up the government's challenge and sponsored twice as many refugees as they were asked to sponsor in the first place is an outstanding example of our people living up to our best values.
If approved by Parliament, this special day will affirm to our fellow Indochinese citizens that we are proud that they are now part of our society, and it will provide an ongoing reminder of what we can do in this country when we follow our best instincts.
Can Le, Former Secretary General, Vietnamese Canadian Federation: Good morning, Madam Deputy Chair, members of the Senate Human Rights Committee, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here and express my view regarding Bill S-219, concerning the proposal for a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees, their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War on April 30, 1975.
I believe that a national day of commemoration in Canada, on April 30 each year, for the exodus of close to a million Vietnamese refugees after the end of the Vietnam War and for Canada's acceptance of more than 60,000 of these refugees will enshrine an important event in Canadian history and will enrich the cultural and social mosaic of this country.
The Vietnamese Canadian Federation, of which I am one of the co-founders and a former secretary general, is an umbrella organization founded in 1980 to represent Vietnamese community organizations from coast to coast. At present, the federation includes organizations in the Vietnamese communities in Halifax, Sherbrooke, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. Its national office is located in Ottawa.
Throughout its 34-year history, the federation has helped thousands of Vietnamese refugees resettle in Canada, in addition to promoting cultural mutual understanding and advocating for democracy, freedom and human rights in Vietnam.
I would like to share with you my observations with regard to the background of the exodus of refugees from Vietnam in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which led me to support this bill.
Following the invasion of South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese Communists in 1975, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, members of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam, government officials or supporters, religious leaders and intellectuals were put into hard labour concentration camps, officially called ''re-education camps,'' where thousands would eventually die due to execution, diseases or malnutrition.
Many others were exiled to the so-called ''new economic zones'' in remote regions of Vietnam. In addition, ethnic Chinese Vietnamese were forced to relocate or expelled to the country due to the political conflict between China and Vietnam in 1979.
Under these circumstances, people rushed to flee the country by the thousands. There was a famous saying in Vietnam at that time ''If lamp posts could walk, they would flee, too.''
The flow of refugees from Vietnam reached a critical phase in late 1978 due to the refusal of some neighbouring Asian countries to admit the boat people, who are so-called because most fled in small leaky boats into the perilous Eastern Sea, formerly called the South China Sea. Hundreds of thousands of these refugees perished at sea by drowning or starvation, or were raped or killed by pirates.
Dennis McDermott, President of the Canadian Labour Congress at the time summarized the situation as follows:
It is crystal clear to us that the Vietnamese refugee problem has ballooned into a humanitarian crisis of global proportion and the only human way to react to such a situation is through decisive and immediate action.
In response to the plight of these refugees in 1979, Mayor Marion Dewar of the City of Ottawa called meetings of community organizations, church groups and social service agencies in her office to discuss ways to help them. As a result, Project 4000 was formed with the objective of campaigning for the admission of up to 4,000 Indochinese refugees, the majority who came from Vietnam to the city of Ottawa through the private sponsorship program of the federal government.
Similar community initiatives followed elsewhere in Canada, most notably the Operation Lifeline, spearheaded by professor Howard Adelman in Toronto. Little more than two weeks elapsed from the initial meeting of church leaders, ethnic community representatives and immigration officials in Mayor Dewar's office on June 27, 1979, until the rally at the Ottawa Civic Centre on July 12.
In this short period, the structure of one of the largest grassroots social movements in Canada's history was formed. Within a month of that rally, which attracted close to 3,000 people, many more originally expected, most of the 347 sponsor groups had been formed and registered at the local immigration office.
Subsequently, the federal government under Prime Minister Joe Clark decided to accept 50,000 refugees, as Mr. Molloy just mentioned, mostly Vietnamese but also including Cambodians and Laotians who fled the newly established communist regimes in their countries.
Project 4000 was Ottawa's response to the boat people crisis of 1979. Canadians from across the country were quick to offer help, involving thousands of volunteers from all walks of life. I had the honour and privilege to serve as a member of the board of directors of this project from 1979 to 1983. I learned a lot by working with hundreds of volunteers on the project. I also came to understand the plight of refugees, those who left everything in Vietnam and risked their lives and the lives of their loved ones in search of freedom.
In the words of two former volunteers from Project 4,000, Eleanor Ryan and Sue Pike, it was a huge risk for both refugees and sponsors. It required a leap of faith by both parties, but, in the end, Ottawa emerged greatly enriched from the experience.
The same thing can be said of the work done by hundreds of sponsor groups set up elsewhere in Canada to help Vietnamese refugees rebuild their lives in freedom. The story of this outstanding project was well documented in the book entitled Gift of Freedom. I have a copy here, if you would like to take a look afterward. It was written by Brian Buckley and disseminated in 2008 by the Vietnamese Canadian Federation.
Since their arrival in Canada, all of these refugees have, over the years, rapidly integrated themselves into Canadian society and made important contributions to the prosperity of this country. As well, they helped in the preservation of its great values. There are now thousands of Canadians of Vietnamese origin, the children and grandchildren of these refugees, who now work as professionals in various fields such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering, law, economics, education, information technology, accounting and so on. Hundreds of Vietnamese businesses are blooming cross the country. As well, the community has started to become involved in politics with representatives at both provincial and federal levels.
By approving this bill, Parliament will assure newcomers and future generations of their place in this country and will prove that Canada's inclusiveness is the foundation of its strength and prosperity.
The resettlement of thousands of refugees in the aftermath of the Vietnam War is yet another shining chapter in the history of Canada. It has once again showed the compassion and generosity of the Canadian people in response to the sufferings of people around the world, including those who fled radical regimes in search of freedom. This shining chapter should be honoured and enshrined in Canadian history. This, I believe, is the main reason for Bill S-219.
Madam deputy chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour to support this bill.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you very much for your presentations. We have a letter from the Ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in front of us, and in it he says that he believes strongly this bill does not represent the views of the majority of Vietnamese Canadians. How would you respond to that?
Mr. Le: I don't know where he got the information from, but we, in the Vietnamese Canadian Federation, are not aware of any opposition to this bill except perhaps from the embassy. All the information that we have received so far is overwhelmingly supported by members of the Vietnamese community in Canada.
Senator Tannas: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentations today. I enjoyed your story. It was excellent. Thank you very much for that history.
Doctor, I understand that we accepted a couple of dozen refugees from Vietnam just this weekend here in Canada.
Mr. Le: Twenty-eight, yes.
Senator Tannas: Twenty-eight. So this story is not finished. What would those 28, who arrived this weekend, think about this bill and on reflection would they be supportive of it?
Mr. Le: Thank you very much, senator, for your question. I want to add a couple of pieces of information to your question. These 28 refugees who arrived in Canada last week were from Thailand. They were stranded in Thailand for over 20 years. The Vietnamese Canadian Federation, with an organization in the United States called VOICE, worked together from 2002 until 2007 when we got the announcement from Minister Diane Finley on the humanitarian compassionate program for the refugees, but those are the refugees for the Philippines, stranded in Philippines for 20 years.
After five years of working with the government, finally the refugees were accepted to Canada and they started to come in 2008 and 2009. This was thanks to the efforts of a lot of people in Canada, including Senator Thanh Hai Ngo, and various organizations in the Vietnamese community, as well as organizations in the U.S. and Australia.
I just want to give you a piece of information: For 275 people from the Philippines whom we brought into Canada, we spent around $650,000, an average of $2,500 per person. We raised that money entirely on our own. We took care of everything for them, from medical examinations, the application fee overseas, airfares and resettlement. When they came here, within a couple of weeks, sometimes days, they started to work right away. We never had any problems.
I think that, because of that experience, the government — this time it was Minister Jason Kenney — became aware of what we did with the refugees from the Philippines, so he was willing to let us sponsor some more refugees. We were able to compile a list of around 110 refugees who were stranded in Thailand for over 20 years. We started to collect funds from the Vietnamese community in Canada, in the U.S., Australia and other countries, and the first group of these refugees came just last week, 28 of them.
After they arrived in Vancouver, a large group went to Calgary and Toronto, and I think one group of seven stayed in Vancouver. One person came to Ottawa just last Saturday, and I had the honour to go to the airport to welcome him. I'm sure that, within the next couple of days, he will start working right away. So thank you very much for the opportunity to elaborate more on the situation of these refugees.
Senator Cowan: Thank you for your presentation this morning. It's a remarkable story.
I understand that Senator Ngo has indicated that he intends to propose an amendment that would change the title of the bill from ''Black April Day'' to ''Journey to Freedom Day.'' Do you support that amendment? Does that make it more or less acceptable?
Mr. Le: I think ''Journey to Freedom'' might be clearer and more understandable for Canadians. It has a more positive tone to it, so we fully support it. Besides Journey to Freedom, there is another suggestion. I don't know whether you would be willing to consider it. This is my own suggestion: ''Gift of Freedom Day'' because that is essentially what the Canadian people offer to refugees not only from Vietnam but around the world, the gift of freedom. That, by the way, is also the title of this book, which is the story of Project 4000 in Ottawa.
Senator Cowan: My second question is, perhaps, to you, Madam Chair. Senator Nancy Ruth referred to the letter that we all received, addressed to the chair from the ambassador, and he requested the opportunity to appear before the committee. Can you tell me why his request was not accepted?
The Deputy Chair: We asked for a written submission, which he provided, and we thought that was sufficient.
Senator Cowan: I haven't seen the other materials, but he says that he requested an opportunity to appear. I haven't been here a long time, but I would have thought it would be courteous, at least, to have afforded an ambassador the opportunity to appear. But the committee decided?
The Deputy Chair: To have a written submission, yes.
Senator Cowan: Thank you.
Senator Ngo: I have two questions. I'm going to ask the first question of Mr. Molloy. The Vietnamese Communist embassy, in the article, stated the concern that, if we pass Bill S-219, we will open old wounds. Do you think that's a valid concern? If it is, why or why not?
Mr. Molloy: Obviously, they think it's a valid concern. We have to ask ourselves: What's the Canadian experience with these sorts of things, where people are damaged by the actions of a government, and what's the proper remedy?
What we have learned in this country, with the dark moments in our own history with the Chinese, with the Japanese in the Second World War, with the residential schools, is that we don't heal those by covering them over. We heal those by offering an opportunity for the government to acknowledge, and for the people who have been harmed to hear from the government, that those kinds of actions are regrettable and, if possible, will never happen again. That's the way we do it in this country. I think we have to be true to our own traditions in dealing with our own mistakes of the past.
If Senator Jaffer were here today, she would support the notion that it is possible to have reconciliation between a community of refugees in Canada and the source government. There have been a whole series of events, over the last couple of years, where the Ugandan refugees have celebrated their arrival in Canada, and the Ugandan ambassador is always present at those. But it's a president from the new regime and the government of Uganda, rather than complaining about what's being done, has reached out to the Asians who came from Uganda, has helped restore their property and has done various things to create reconciliation. The strongest supporters of Uganda probably in the world now are our Canadian Ugandan community.
You can't make the hurt of this go away by suppressing it. You have to deal with it. It's going be very hard for a regime like the regime in Vietnam to do that, but, I would submit, that that's their problem not ours. Our responsibility is to our people and our people include 300,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who fled because of dreadful mistreatment. If we choose to acknowledge their suffering, the contribution they make to us and the way our people reacted to that, I think that's our business.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, Mr. Molloy. We also received a letter from the chair of the committee on External Affairs of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Mr. Tran Van Hang. He stated, in his letter: ''This bill, S-219, is a document that fabricates the history.''
Could you tell me what historical facts have been fabricated in this bill?
Mr. Le: May I add some comments to Senator Ngo's question? I don't think that there are wounds and division between the ordinary Vietnamese inside and outside Vietnam. Even the late Prime Minister of Vietnam Vo Van Kiet disclosed, in an interview with the BBC, that the reunification of North and South after 1975 had caused pain to millions.
Bill S-219 exposes the division between the government of Vietnam and the people of Vietnam.
Regarding the opening of old wounds, this is just a lame excuse, most likely because the government that was responsible for those horrors is still in power today and it's the very government that is expressing these concerns. If we follow their logic, we shouldn't commemorate Remembrance Day every year. This had to do with a tragic war, too, but Canadians proudly commemorate Remembrance Day. Lest we forget.
The analogy is inaccurate; this won't open an old wound. The injury trauma has not healed. The bleeding continues to this day, both figuratively speaking and literally. We must not sweep the past under the rug. It is shameful and an insult to those who have suffered and died and, frankly, would be embarrassing for all Canadians.
I would like to draw to your attention an analogy with what we're doing here. The Tribute to Liberty project is off the ground, as you have heard. It will build a monument in Ottawa in commemoration of the victims of communism. Will that open old wounds? I don't think so. Will that create difficulties in diplomatic and trade relationships with former and current Communist countries? I don't think so.
Senator Ngo: I have another question. As you know, it's been since 1975 and it's now 2015, so it's been 40 years. We call it the fortieth anniversary of the Vietnamese community who settled in Canada. What does this remembrance mean to the Vietnamese-Canadian community? Do you think that other Vietnamese diaspora abroad will be highlighting this milestone event?
Mr. Le: I believe so. It will be very befitting if the approval of this bill is announced on that occasion, April 30, 2015, the fortieth anniversary of the fall of South Vietnam.
As I said before, this bill has overwhelming support within the Vietnamese community in Canada, and it has support with the Vietnamese community overseas in other countries. We look forward to its final approval.
Senator Ngo: Can I ask another question?
Mr. Molloy, could you elaborate the role of the Canadian people who welcomed the boat people refugees and why these contributions should be marked our Canadian history? What has happened to the Canadians who helped resettle the Vietnamese refugees?
Mr. Molloy: I must say, for those of us at the time, the speed with which Canadians reacted was quite amazing. But what was also really significant is that there were no religious groups in Canada that didn't participate. What was quite remarkable was that the leadership was taken by two communities with strong memories of war and repression.
The Mennonite Central Committee was the first off the mark, and there were members on the committee at that time who had been refugees from Russia in their own lifetime. As well, the Christian Reformed Church of Canada, the Dutch Christian Reformed Church, is made up of people who endured the occupation of the Nazis during the war. The third strong participants were the Canadian Jewish community with their own strong memories of the horrors of persecution, war and repression.
As we have researched the book, what we find time and again are newspaper clippings where Hungarian refugees were sponsoring Vietnamese refugees. Ugandan refugees, who had arrived five years before, formed sponsoring groups.
We're looking back 40 years ago. We were on our way to being a multicultural country, but we were nowhere near where we are now. For many ''white-bread'' Canadians, this was the first time they were ever in a position to bring people from other parts of the world, other than Europe, into their churches and homes. I think for all of us it was a humanizing event and that's why I'm so enthusiastic about this bill.
We're celebrating the antithesis of what happened to those people. In Vietnam, doors were closed on people. The Chinese were expelled. In Canada, there were all sorts of people all over the place and the amazing thing is that there was not a village in this country that didn't get people from that part, all the way up to Tuktoyaktuk. They didn't stay very long when winter came, surprisingly, but there are Vietnamese who are running businesses in Yellowknife today.
It's quite amazing, even in the places where they didn't stay.
If you talk to people in Prince Edward Island, where 10 or 15 families came and then drifted away, they regard it as a positive experience because it opened their eyes to a common humanity. I think it had an awful lot to do with the breaking down of racism in this country. We still have racism of course. But I think people in little towns across the country who had never seen people from Asia, except maybe the owner of the local Chinese restaurant, suddenly had to deal with the fact that these people had old people with them, babies, they needed jobs and places to live, what they would do at Christmas — all those sorts of things.
It had a humanizing effect on all of us and is an important moment in our history. People often ask if we could do it again. It might have been a unique moment, but it has had a powerful impact on our attitude as to what it is to be Canadian.
Mr. Le: May I add a comment to Mr. Molloy's observation? He mentioned the presence of Vietnamese refugees in Yellowknife. I met them in 1979. I met a family who was sponsored by a church group in Yellowknife. They started a business of office cleaning and they are still there. They have not drifted away. Their business is booming.
I would also like to mention, regarding the remote towns and places in Canada where refugees were sponsored by church groups, the family of Carol Huynh, who won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics a few years ago, was sponsored by a church group in a small town in British Columbia and they are still there.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing no other questions, I thank Mr. Molloy and Mr. Le.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause one, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ngo: For clause 1, on page 2, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by replacing line 33 with the following:
''1.This Act may be cited as the Journey to Freedom.''
The Deputy Chair: We should wait on the amendment to clause 1 because we said, ''Shall the preamble stand postponed?'' We were going to clause 2, and we can revert back to it.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Senators, if I may explain, we traditionally defer the consideration of the titles and preamble until afterwards because these can normally only be amended to reflect changes to the body of the bill. So we would deal with clauses 2 and 3 first and then return to deal with clause 1 and the preamble.
Senator Ngo: Okay.
The Deputy Chair: If you have an amendment for clause 2, you can propose that.
Senator Ngo: Okay, I can do that.
For clause 2, on page 2, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 37 with the following:
'"'Journey to Freedom Day''.''.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Andreychuk: Discussion? Would that be in order?
I certainly approve of an amendment to the existing title. I think a positive title is better than a negative title, and so I thank Senator Ngo for his consideration of changing that title.
My only concern was that this kind of bill may be honouring the refugees who came and are now Canadian citizens and contributing to Canada, but these bills have an educative value. Journey to Freedom doesn't reflect Vietnam; it just says ''Journey to Freedom.'' I just wanted it on the record that I would probably have had some reference to Vietnamese in the title. I'm not pushing that as an amendment; I'm just putting that as a suggestion that, when this bill takes effect, we understand that there is an education quality to this. Therefore, we should be highlighting that it is at the Vietnamese community that we are directing the attention of this bill.
Not everyone is going to read the bill; not everyone is going to know the history. A quick title usually is what captures everyone's attention. If we leave it the way you have it, I think we can work around it in whatever pamphlets, videos or speeches you will give highlighting that it is about the Vietnamese.
I just wanted that on the record, but I'm prepared to go ahead with the vote on that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like to add to Senator Andreychuk's comments that, if ''Black April Day'' is what is used, then it should be what is used. I, personally, think these changes reflect Christian imperialism and I see no need for it. I would prefer that the title stay the way it is.
Senator Eaton: I disagree with both of my colleagues. I think ''Journey to Freedom'' not only commemorates the Vietnamese who have come here but other immigrants who will come here in future years. It's very Canadian; it's very inclusive.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing no further discussion, shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Ngo: For clause 3, page 2, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause, on page 2, by replacing line 38 with the following.
''3. For greater certainty, Journey to Freedom Day is''.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Senator Ngo: Madam Chair, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in clause 1, on page 2, by replacing line 33 with the following:
''1. This Act may be cited as the Journey to Freedom''.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Ngo: For the preamble, I move:
That Bill S-219 be amended in the preamble, on page 2 by replacing line 19 with the following:
''as Black April Day'', or alternatively as ''Journey to Freedom Day'' and is, therefore, an''.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted to raise an issue. I raised it with Senator Ngo.
In the second paragraph, it states:
Whereas on April 30, 1975, despite the Paris Peace Accords, the military forces of the People's Army of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front invaded South Vietnam, which led to the fall of Saigon, the end of the Vietnam War and the establishment of a single-party socialist government;
It seems to me that the last part, ''the establishment of the single-party socialist government,'' is ill-placed there. It gets into discussions about the establishment of what kind of government, et cetera, which is not the issue that I heard from all the witnesses, nor from Senator Ngo.
It also gives some credence to the position of the ambassador's letter, because we're now confronting the government. We should have used the title of the government that was established, the republic of whatever, and not get into the polemics of governance, et cetera. That's the only issue I have. The rest is factual, historic and cannot be disputed. It can be hurtful to some, including perhaps the embassy here, but it's for us to decide what we want to do.
However, I would wish that that part had either been changed to the title of the government that took over or be deleted, because it doesn't add anything to this act and may cause difficulties in discussions elsewhere.
I have asked Senator Ngo to reflect on that.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, senator. After speaking with you yesterday, reflecting and discussing with it others, this is the fact. Because after the Vietnam War, it was the evolution of the — I tried to get away from the words ''of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.'' I put just ''socialist government.'' If you like, we can put the whole title of the government in; I'm fine with that. Since the establishment of that government, that's the flag for the refugees, because this is the key word of the refugee exodus. So if you want to change it to ''the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, government of Vietnam,'' that's fine with me.
Senator Andreychuk: That's the point. You are then in historic facts —
Senator Ngo: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: — and we're not getting into where that government went and where it is going today. That's not the point of this bill. If you put the actual title, if we could agree to that, it would certainly diminish any question the embassy has put forward on that foreign policy debate issue.
Senator Ngo: I think the official title of the government will be the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam government, period.
Senator Andreychuk: Perfect. Is there some agreement?
Senator Ngo: That's clearer.
The Deputy Chair: Is there agreement?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: That's all the business we have. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)