ON ASIA: Marston demands apology from Japanese Prime Minister for WWII use of "Comfort Women"

The Chair (Mr. Jason Kenney, MP -- Calgary Southeast, Alberta): We'll now move to committee business. There is a motion before the committee in the name of Mr. Marston.

Mr. Marston.

This relates to the call for an apology regarding the imperial Japanese army's practice of comfort women. Mr. Marston, would you like to speak to your motion.

Mr. Wayne Marston: I'd like to start by highlighting the fact that Monday's apology by the prime minister of Japan was not an official apology, in many eyes, as it did not acknowledge the government's responsibility for the use of comfort women at the time. What we're looking for in this motion is for the Government of Japan to accept full responsibility for the crimes against comfort women; provide full reparations for survivors in accordance with international standards; provide direct compensation to the comfort women or their immediate relatives. This came about because people, across this country, have approached our caucus--Chinese, South Korean, and Filipino--who were greatly affected by this haineous set of events that took place. I think it's very important.
I would touch on one thing. There was a compensation fund called the Asian women's fund. It was put together by business and private individuals. Many women did not know about it; others missed the deadline; others did take some of this money, but on the condition that it didn't affect their access to reparations from the government. We find this a very significant issue that we believe should be addressed. The motion, of course, would go to the full committee.

The Chair: Just to give further background, first of all, I believe this is identical to a motion standing as a private members' motion in the name of Ms. Chow, in the House. I, personally, agree with the intent of the motion--I'm sure all members do. I think we should be aware of a couple of things. First of all, I understand that foreign affairs minister MacKay did, last week, call his Japanese counterpart to express Canada's concern about Prime Minister Abe's remarks of three weeks ago, and encouraged the Government of Japan to express its regret and apologies for the comfort women system. Mr. Marston has alluded to the fact that because of the international pressure, I would say, I would hope, in part, because of the pressure that Canada exerted, yesterday Prime Minister Abe, in a session of the Japanese senate, said, “I apologize here and now, as Prime Minister.”

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

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire, you have the floor.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

A voice:--bilateral relations.

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

A voice: Thank you.

The Chair: Over to you, Mr. Sorenson.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

Again, we want to thank Mr. Marston for bringing this motion forward. I may have supported this motion before the response that we had from the Japanese Prime Minister just recently. However, when a government is being asked to make representation to call on another government and another Prime Minister to make an apology, and we see then that after some reflection that Prime Minister issues an apology, I would have great hesitancy in supporting a motion that says, “well, you know what, that Prime Minister in that far away country is not official enough, or he didn't do it in the way we would have liked to have seen it done”.

I think we perhaps go at great peril in asking that Prime Minister to enlarge, to make it more official, or to do one better of what he did. I think we have to in some way say that we did exert pressure, we did ask for it, they responded, and in their culture perhaps it was a major step to step forward and say “I apologize” the way they did. At this point I really don't feel like I can support this motion.

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

The Chair: Any other commentary?

Would you like me to call the question, Mr. Marston?

Mr. Wayne Marston: I'd like to respond a little. I recognize the concerns that are being expressed here.

First of all, if we go back to the situation and whether or not it warrants Canada's statements, it's along the lines of what we heard earlier today in Iran. This was a significant human rights abuse in its time with the degradation that went on. There are many people in our country that are looking to us to take a stand. Again, the manner in how this is delivered I presume that our DFAIT officials and our minister have the skills to deliver this in a fashion that's respectful, yet firm.

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

On that point, I would call the question.

The Chair: The question has been called and there's no debate on that.

All in favour of the motion as it currently reads?

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

(Motion agreed to)