This is the long title or preamble that was on bill S-219 when it was tabled in parliament:

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. (Parliament of Canada, 2015).^[155]

Parliament was being asked to approve:

• An annual national day that is a memorial to the Saigon military and a formal recognition of the Saigon military regime as a legitimate nation. The ceremonies are performed by uniformed members of the Saigon military.

  A justification for the national day in the form of a revised origin story for Canada's Vietnamese Community that renounces Canadian history and fails to acknowledge virtually all of the former refugees.

The preamble and the text of the bill justify the memorial day with a revised history of the Vietnam war, Canada’s role in it, the boat people crisis that followed some years later, and the composition of Canada’s Vietnamese community. Some reviewers of the bill described it as being full of “historical errors”.

This history was written to justify the adoption of the memorial day. Passage of the bill signifies Canada’s renunciation of the previously accepted history and replacing it with this history. Among other things the revised history makes the boat people disappear from Canadian history, to be replaced with Saigon’s former ruling class.

The preamble of the bill is worded in such a way as to accomplish another objective: to ensure that government officials who refence the bill, which they do every year in relation to the national day, are continuing to express and legitimize the revised history of Canada's Vietnamese community.

Canadians who repeat the story in the preamble are renouncing the history and Canadian heritage of Canada's Vietnamese community and replacing it with a new history. Canadians cannot deny that that is an expression of hostility to Canada's Vietnamese.

In passing the bill, Canadians abrogated many basic moral responsibilities in renouncing a significant part of Canada's history. In addition, Canada overlooked a broader moral responsibility not to associate people with partisan political movements based solely on their ethnicity. Some reviewers characterize the bill as withholding freedom of expression from Canada's Vietnamese. What we want to examine here is how that happened.

The reason the bill passed was because the party that presented it had a majority in parliament. We have covered their motivations in the chronology of events leading up to the bill. The questions we want to examine here are:

• To what extent did Canada's parliamentary opposition understand what it was debating?

• Did the opposition parties object to a bill that was so clearly hostile to Canada's Vietnamese community?

• Why do all parties today accept the national commemoration and repeat the hostile origin story?

• How did Canada's media handle the story?

The context

Most Canadians know that the Canadian Vietnamese community had its origins in a refugee crisis. Canadians also know that there was a war in Vietnam. Not as many Canadians know that there was no connection between the two events.

Canada admitted the Vietnamese refugees long after the war was over, and acted on a non-partisan basis. Canada shaped its Vietnamese community as a diverse community, with many experiences and perspectives on Vietnam's history of conflict.

That diversity is not a problem for the community, not something that needs resolution. Most Canadians have conflict in their own or their ancestors' past. Most don't bring it to Canada. Most would be harmed if the government of Canada retroactively took partisan positions on those old conflicts.

It is clear from our chronology of events leading up to the bill that it was Harper's intent to renounce this history. He knew that it would make a hostile statement toward the boat people and took steps to marginalize the boat people so that they were unable to respond. During the parliamentary debates it was obvious that the Vietnamese community did not support the bill, but the government would make no compromises. Our chronologies of events after passage of the bill also reflect that all parties joined the hostility after the bill passed.

Member's bills

Bill S-219 originated in the Senate as a Senate private member's bill.

Member's bills technically are not government bills. Any member of the Senate or the House of Commons from any of the parties can, in theory, table a bill and have it passed into law. In practice, member's bills are given a low priority and rarely pass into law, especially if the member is not from the ruling party. Most deal with symbolic matters rather than substance of law -- things like declaring a "national fiddler's day".

A bill originating in the Senate is first debated in the Senate and then passed to the House of Commons for debate. It is also debated by a committee at each stage, as S-219 was. By hearing witnesses, committees are supposed to bring specialized knowledge to the debate that members of the Senate and House of Commons lack. This would be particularly important in a bill like S-219 which had been positioned as an "ethnic" or "cultural" issue. Parliamentarians would look to the ethnic community for advice.

Procedural anomalies surrounding bill S-219

Bill S-219 was unique in that the Harper government had already effectively enacted the bill and was clearly behind it. Senior government officials were already attending ARVN events in an official capacity and the word had already gone out to marginalize the boat people.

That is was essentially a government bill was demonstrated in the way the bill was given an unusually high priority for a member's bill. As long as the bill got through the process, there was no way it could fail because Harper had a majority government.

The best the opposition could have done was to embarrass the government over the bill's content. The ability of the opposition to do even that was very limited by the fact the the government of the day controls the committees. Parliament did not get access to the information it needed. Parliament was aware of that and there was much complaint about it in both the Senate and the House of Commons.

The preamble/title to the bill was framed to make it look like one of the symbolic matters that member's bills normally deal with - declaration of a national day. It was presented in parliament as symbolic.

The substance of the bill is anything but symbolic. Among other things, it is a major foreign policy statement. This was recognized by some in the debate, so that point was not missed, but this could not stop the bill -- they had to proceed with it.

Given that bill S-219 was substantially an attack on Canada's Vietnamese community, it would have been a strategic decision to have it presented as a private member's bill by a Senator who was of Vietnamese origin and could credibly deny its hostile nature. This approach considerably constrained debate on the bill by making good committee support essential. Senator Ngo enhanced the effect by having supporters show up in the gallery at critical times, and by holding outside "social" events to introduce parliamentarians to his supporters.

Parliamentarians are aware, or ought to be aware, that a political faction can never represent an entire ethnic community and should have discounted the Senator and his cronies. None of them made any secret of their political alignment with the Saigon regime; they displayed it openly. The supporter's open display in the House of Commons committee was perceived as intimidation of the witnesses by the witnesses.

The way Senator Ngo and the Harper government framed the bill when it was tabled for debate took the debate off track into irrelevant territory and the opposition never really got squarely focused on the real issues, which were to do with Canada's moral responsibilities to its citizens. The only two Vietnamese MP's and some of the committee witnesses pointed this out, but it was lost in all the distractions. We deal with this in the following sections.

The bill was first tabled in the Senate on 2014-04-10. As a members bill, it did not get priority until October, when it suddenly was moved very quickly through the entire system and it received royal assent on 2015-04-23, just in time for the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon on April 30. Numerous procedural tricks were used to accomplish this.

The bill got a lot of attention and it was known to be controversial from the beginning. It was on Senate or Senate committee agendas 13 times, and in the House of Commons, 8 times. In the Senate there was no substantive debate and in the House about 4 of those sessions entailed some substantive debate.

Our treatment

Rather than analyze every debate, we will draw examples from the debates that will help us to answer the questions outlined above and support our assertions about the strategy, also made above.

Summary

Very early on the bill was identified as controversial. People contacted their MP's, members of the Vietnamese community appeared at committee hearings to speak against the bill. The Vietnam ambassador wrote a letter protesting the bill. The media reported that the bill was controversial, although they never demonstrated any understanding of why the bill was controversial.

Several observers, including members of parliament, recognized that the bill contained many revisions to Canada's history. They expressed a reasonable hope that the 'errors' would be corrected in committee, and that the committees would invite lots of [Vietnamese] witnesses to clear up the controversy. The 'errors' were not corrected, of course, because the 'errors' were the whole point of the bill -- Canada was renouncing its history.

Parliamentarians were counting on the committees because parliamentarians are not equipped to deal with a bill that had been presented as a Vietnamese "cultural" matter written by a Vietnamese author. That requires specialized knowledge and a high degree of confidence about your information. Ironically, few Vietnamese people would have the necessary expertise since the true subject of the bill was Canadian history. The only historical "expert" witness had been co-opted and did not challenge the history -- he shortly after published a book featuring the revised origin story. A Vietnamese witness later made references to a more credible Canadian historian, but the time he was given was extremely limited.

The appearance of witnesses at the committee hearings was well-orchestrated to give the bill favourable treatment and produce the desired result. When the only two independent witnesses of Vietnamese origin appeared, the intimidation was visibly on display. The witnesses performed competently, but they were severely limited by the time constraints imposed by government (which opposition MP's later complained about).

Most of the opposition MP's involved in the debate, as well as all the opposition Senators, signaled that they did not support the bill as it was written. They were careful signal that they did not oppose the conceptual (but false) description of the bill, but the content of the bill as it was written. The objection was based primarily on the lack of time given to witnesses to examine a bill that was obviously controversial in the community. It was clear that the Vietnamese community did not support the bill and that Senator Ngo was not going to offer any compromises.

Summary

The government knew the bill was extremely controversial and so engineered the Senate hearings to avoid having any substantial debate. Senators were aware of the controversy because they had been receiving letters and they read the media.

The government engineered the committee hearings to hear only two favourable witnesses. Senators were aware of the problem and demanded to re-convene the committee. That demand was the only substantive debate on the bill in the Senate. That demand failed, so they objected by abstaining from the vote. The government had enough votes to pass the bill anyway.

Links to all of the Senate debates can be found in: (Canada Senate, 2013).^[342]

First reading 2014-04-10

First reading is a formality, there is no debate. At this time the bill was called "Black April Day".

Second reading 2014-04-30

Senator Ngo (C) made a long speech. No further debate.

The Senator spoke as an official of the Saigon military government and not as a Canadian. He expressed a concept of the Vietnam war that reflects the interest of the military regime which is not at all like that held by Canada at the time. He described Canada's response to the refugee crisis as a rescue of the former Saigon leadership when in fact Canada refused to follow the US lead on that.

His history of the refugee movement and Canada's response to it was so inconsistent that a careful listener could have spotted inconsistencies without event having much prior knowledge of the event. He also added in some fragmentary first person stories just to make sure that we know people suffered, but they were not in any way connected with the Vietnam war, and so added nothing to the justification for the bill as written.

The Senator is asking Canada to abandon its history and its moral obligations to the former boat people in order to adopt a memorial to the fall of Saigon.

The Senator over time gradually refined his speeches to be more politically astute. For example, see his last speech on the House of Commons committee hearing.

Second reading 2014-05-07

Senator Jaffer (ISG) read a speech. No further debate.

A much shorter speech than Senator Ngo's, but she firmly connects the entire refugee movement to the fall of Saigon as was the Senator's wish. Half of the speech is a first person refugees story that has no connection to the fall of Saigon. It appear that she did none of her own research but took her cues from Senator Ngo -- "the refugees suffered therefore we should adopt an memorial to the fall of Saigon as a national day, even though there was no connection between the two events in Canada's history". She was not the only Senator to take this uninterested approach.

Second reading 2014-06-19

Debate deferred at the request of Senator Martin (C). She said she was not ready, but she never did reappear.

Second reading 2014-10-29

No debate. Bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights

Committee 2014-10-30

Introduction by Ngo and questions from Senators.

Ngo's introduction ties the entire refugee movement to the fall of Saigon, another revision to Canada's history that serves the interests of the Saigon leadership.

Asked about the April 30 date, he explained that this makes the commemoration aimed at a specific group of refugees (This is very true, the point being that the homage is aimed at people who identify with the defunct Saigon military regime. That makes it statement of hostility toward the boat people, and a withdrawal of a moral obligation that Canada has toward them). The Senator who asked the question did not elaborate, so we don't know if he was aiming to expose this.

Asked about what this bill will do to Canada's relationship with Vietnam, the Senator specifically denies that there is anything political in the bill and claims that the Vietnam embassy is lying about the content of the bill. (He evidently believes that no one will actually read the bill because the anti-Vietnam political content is obvious and is the substance of the bill. In calling Vietnam a liar he is again speaking as an official of the Saigon regime and not as a Canadian.)

(Canada Senate, 2014).^[332]

Committee 2014-11-20

Debated with witnesses Le (VCF) and Molloy (CIHS), both favourable witnesses with substantial interests in seeing the bill passed. Le is an executive member of a group that supports the ARVN politically, and Molloy was working on an book that portrays Canada's response to the boat people crisis as a partisan response to the Vietnam war. The book was published shortly after the bill passed. His CIHS web site is dedicated to Senator Ngo's revised histories by omitting anything that would conflict with them.

Molloy, as the "refugee expert" gave a fairly accurate accounting of the refugee story. One of the ways in which it was accurate is that it did not explicitly tie it all to the Vietnam war and he mentioned the ethic "cleansing" of the Chinese minority and the family reunification program. He did leave out enough that the connection to the war could still be made by contextualization -- the listener will likely make the connection to the war, and it was left open for Senator Ngo and Le to make it explicit without contradicting Molloy. This is the approach taken generally by CIHS on its web site as well. Molloy also revealed his leaning toward the Conservative party in the way he told the story. (Molloy's book, in the absence of the Senator, is quite a bit more explicit about connecting everything to the war.)

What Molloy did not do was point out the massive historical errors in the bill - he was not asked to comment on the bill. Other historians did, but they were not invited as witnesses.

Mr. Le made a point of claiming that his Saigon-focused political organization represents all Vietnamese in Canada. He told some fragments of the refugee story and made it all connected to the Vietnam war. It was all basically aimed at adding credibility to the origin story in the bill's preamble.

One question from Senator Ruth (C) about who he represented gave him the opportunity to reiterate the claim that he represents all Vietnamese in Canada. In response to another question from Senator Tannas (CSG) he was given an opportunity to tell the story of the Vietnamese "refugees" that were being admitted into Canada on a partisan basis in 2014 and 2015. Senator Cowan (L) questioned the chair's decision to refuse a request from the Vietnam ambassador to appear.

Senator Ngo then addressed a series of questions to both Molloy and Le.

Molloy was asked about the wisdom of the government of Canada making a partisan statement about the Vietnam war, an obviously divisive act. Molloy said that it was not Canada's problem to heal the divisions over the Vietnam war, saying that it was Vietnam's problem. (actually it's Canada's responsibility not to stir them up). This is an incredibly chauvinistic and partisan statement about the Vietnam war that essentially supports Canada's new hostility toward the boat people. This revealed Molloy's rather extreme partisan bias about the Vietnam war, despite supposedly being the expert on the refugee program. What the Senate should have been debating is Canada's moral responsibility to the former boat people, not Vietnam's responsibility to the former Saigon ruling elite.

Senator Ngo asked Le to identify any historical errors in the bill. He said that there were none and that all Vietnamese would welcome the commemoration.

The clause-by-clause review only dealt with the changing the name of the bill changed to Journey to Freedom Day. None of the other content was discussed.

(Canada Senate, 2014).^[331]

Consideration of Committee Report 2014-11-25

Senator Cowan (L) challenged the committee chairs failure to hear other witnesses that wanted to appear or to deliver all the written submissions to the committee members. The chairs response was "It was Senator Ngo's bill, and we spoke to him. What we heard from him is that the community, as a whole, supports this." Of course you did.

Senator Munson (L) listed off a number of Vietnamese organizations that should have been allowed to appear as witnesses. The chair has no defense and the time ran out.

Consideration of Committee Report 2014-11-27

No debate. The Conservative Senator who was supposed to speak did not appear. Committee report adopted.

Third Reading 2014-12-02

Speech by Senator Ngo, no debate.

In this speech the Senator took a different approach and, taking a cue from Molloy's testimony, praised Canada for its incredible response to the plight of the refugees. He still made the connection to the Vietnam war, which is necessary because of the partisan content on the bill. He intends to be an homage to certain refugees, not all of them.

Third Reading 2014-12-04

Senator Jaffer (ISG) read a letter from the Vietnam ambassador into the record, obviously a protest against the committee's failure to call proper witnesses.

She and a few other Senators then effused about how great it is to be a refugee in Canada, but the substance of the bill was not mentioned. The bill is obviously going to pass, so they are getting on side.

An attempt to get the referred back to committee for more witnesses failed.

Third Reading 2014-12-08

Lots of ARVN visitors in the gallery for this one -- Senator Ngo always likes to demonstrate that he has supporters.

Vote along party lines -- 4 against and 14 abstentions. The abstentions were explained as objections against the way the committee hearings lacked relevant witnesses.

The bill was portrayed by the sponsor as an homage to the Vietnamese refugees. Everyone agreed with the idea.

In all the debates, only the CPC speakers expressed unequivocal support for the bill and all followed the party line laid out in the preamble to the bill: it's an homage to those refugees who are victims of the fall of Saigon. They consistently responded to the claims that the bill was divisive by claiming that it was not divisive. The opposition could only counter with yes, it is divisive. No one really dug into what was causing the divisiveness and what Canada's moral obligations might be on the issue.

Both of the MP's who are of Vietnamese origin expressed opposition to the bill as a divisive bill. They did not, however, object to the partisan pro-Saigon content, in fact they proposed adding to it. While this suggests that they themselves might be partisan, it could also be that they did not understand the issue, not having the necessary knowledge of Canadian history.

Generally all NDP speakers opposed the divisiveness, while only some of the Liberal speakers did. All those who saw problems insisted that it be given a proper committee hearing to find a way to solve the problem. Everyone wanted an homage to the boat people, not just to some of the boat people.

All those who expressed objections indicated that they were hearing from constituents, but it is not clear that they were hearing well-formulated criticisms, only that it was divisive. Anyone with historical knowledge could have formulated valid objections; the bill is objectionable to all Canadians.

The bill went to committee where it was vigorously debated by opposing camps from the Vietnamese community, reaching no useful conclusions. The witnesses were severely limited by imposed time constraints. Opposition MP's complained about this both in the committee and afterward in the House.

The government refused to offer compromises and proceeded with the bill as it was written. It was never their intent to satisfy the Vietnamese community, as our chronologies illustrate.

List of all the debates on bill S-219: (Canada Parliament, 2015).^[161]

First reading 2014-12-10

Short introductory speech by Mark Adler (CPC), in which he basically paraphrased the preamble -- the revised origin story.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2014-12-10, p. 10434).^[341]

Second reading 2015-02-05

Longer introductory speech by Mark Adler (CPC) that positioned the bill as an homage to the boat people. He never mentioned that it was actually a partisan statement about the Vietnam war. We are to take the origin story in the preamble as a given truth.

The first question was asked by Ms. Quach (NDP), one of only two MP's of Vietnamese origin. She asked that when the committee hearings are held that there be witnesses from both sides of the issue, thereby acknowledging that the bill was divisive and partisan.

Adler responded by claiming that the divisiveness came from the Vietnam ambassador, thereby following the ARVN line that anyone who does not identify with the Saigon regime is a communist. That was a clear "no, we won't". It was also hostility directed at the Vietnamese community. Good start.

Lamoureux (L) spoke next and made the same request. Adler responded by calling the Liberals communist sympathizers.

Quach then went on to make a good speech about the refugees without any partisan content. She ended by saying that everyone must now be allowed to express their own views. She understands that the free speech rights of the community needs to be respected.

Lamoureux then went on to make a speech in favour of the bill, but characterizing it as an homage to the boat people. He demonstrated that he did not understand what the controversy and the bill are really about (it emerged later that he had spoken to only one of his Vietnamese constituents.)

There were 3 more speeches to use up the allotted time that added nothing to the debate.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2015-02-05, pp. 11138-11146).^[338]

Second reading 2015-03-23

Just before the debate began, John Baird's resignation was announced.

Kent (CPC) opened with short remarks confirming the revised origin story in the bill's preamble and quoting some of the revised history from the bill.

Mai (NDP) the other MP of Vietnamese origin in a carefully worded speech said that he did not support the bill overall, but that he would not oppose it "at this stage". He did not identify directly what the problem was other than to say it is "divisive".

Dion (L) indicated that he understood that the bill contained major and divisive revisions to Canada's history. He insisted that the committee listen to a long and inclusive list of witnesses.

Opitz (CPC) followed the party line and repeated the revised origin story.

Sitsabaiesan (NDP) Criticized the procedure that had been followed in the Senate. She also indicated that she had read and heard all of the opposition from her constituents and understood what the bill was really about. She essentially deferred to the committee.

Lizon (CPC) followed the party line and added his own anti-communist experiences.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2015-03-25, pp. 12135-12412).^[339]

Second reading 2015-03-25

Bill referred to committee. No debate.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2015-03-25, p. 12325).^[340]

Committee hearing 2015-04-01

Because of numerous complaints from the Senate and MP's, the government allowed some opposition witnesses into the committee hearing. The witnesses confirmed what the MP's were already hearing -- that the Vietnamese community did not support the bill. The witnesses were put on short time constraints, so they were not able to fully explain the issues with the bill. At the end of it, none of the opposition MP's were in support of the bill although they were careful to say that they were in support of the idea of the bill, that is, an homage to the refugees.

The ARVN side stuck to their story and refused to make any compromise. Their main defense that that they claimed 100% support from the community, even though it was now obvious to everyone that they did not. Senator Ngo said it is not acceptable for Vietnamese community to oppose the bill because of the suffering of the refugees. He tried to minimize the opposition by saying that is was coming from a few Colombo plan students who came to Canada before the war (i.e. not the refugees). He claimed the bill unites the community, when it is obvious that it does not.

There were four witnesses opposed to the bill. Following are some highlights from what they had to say. In general. they were limited by time constraints and were only able to make some high level points.

Dai Trang H. Nguyen explained how the entire Vietnamese community is constantly intimidated by the ARVN political faction in their efforts to make it look like they have 100% support. This bill legitimizes that effort. She made it an issue of freedom of speech for the community. (She was, in different form, echoing our point that the government has a responsibility not to assign people to political factions based only on their ethnicity. Unfortunately she did not point out that the Harper government has been actively supporting that intimidation since 2008 and that it was present in the room ).

Two of the witnesses made credible points about the historical "mistakes" in the bill but did not have time to elaborate on their significance in terms of Canada repudiating its own history.

The points made by McIninch, a witness who is not of Vietnamese origin, were interesting because we have argued that it does not take any special knowledge of the Vietnamese community to discredit this bill. All it takes is freedom from the intimidation that the community faces. Her comments were the most astute in the entire debate: the issue is Canada's moral obligations to its citizens. Some quotes:

Canada has, as the Prime Minister has said, an excellent relationship with Vietnam, a country we have been there for since the nationalist wars against French occupation. Why sacrifice the hopes and dreams – the substantial amounts of good will we have in the bank- over a private member’s bill which has infuriated -and rightfully so –a major power in South-east Asia with whom we share an important partnership in the region.

The Honorable Senator views the fall of Saigon as a great personal tragedy and has now used his position on the government benches to enshrine his views into a calamitous piece of legislation.

The Senator has cloaked the legislative installation of the legacy of the Saigon regime and its followers into the history of this country by a manipulative plunge into the murky waters of division and hatred. And no country is more susceptible to pious rhetoric and misuse of the fine traditions of our land for personal gain.

Make no mistake about it. April 30 is not about refugees or boatpeople or landings on the welcoming soil of Canada.

Dion (L), recognizing the bill was going to pass no matter what, made a commitment that his colleagues would ignore the content of the bill and celebrate the intent. This commitment was not fulfilled, because the content of the commemoration event is to recognize the Saigon regime as a legitimate nation which is inherently hostile toward the refugees.

(Canada HoC Committee, 2015-04-01).^[337]

Committee sitting 2015-04-02

Committee report received. No debate.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2015-04-02, p. 12708).^[438]

Report Stage and Third reading 2015-04-22

Pacetti (Ind) moved that the date be deleted from the bill, to be reinstated later when the community could come to an agreement. The entire debate was wasted on that red herring, so no understanding was reached on what was wrong with the bill. No one recognized that it was a formal recognition of the Saigon regime as a nation and a renouncing of Canada's moral responsibilities to the boat people (among other things).

No one said that they intended to vote against the bill, but Mai (NDP) and Sgro (NDP) said that the community was divided and that the government should be addressing that. Another Liberal, Lamoureux expressed no concerns about the bill. All three said that they were hearing from constituents.

Kent (CPC) and Adler (CPC) just soaked up time repeating the party line.

Bill passed unanimously.

(Canada HoC Debates, 2015-04-22, pp. 12893-12900).^[333]

The mainstream media did not pay much attention to bill S-219. When they did write about it, most times it appeared that they were working from a press release or other contact with the bill's supporters. Some did a little work to try to balance it and some did none. No one, however, caught on to the idea that the Vietnamese refugees were being exploited and marginalized for a political agenda.

The bill got a lot of attention in Embassy Magazine probably because their reporter Carl Meyer was a Vietnam specialist and he knew what he was talking about. Embassy Magazine has folded and its archive, like so many others, sold to an inaccessible service provider.

2014-07-30

Mazereeuw, P. (2014). 'Vietnamese government fears 'Black April Day' bill would open up old wounds'. Embassy, Ottawa 2014-07-30. Archived. (Accessed:2020-10-15).^[83]

2014-12-05

Bryden, J. (2014). 'Canada, Vietnam Diplomatic Spat Sparked By Tory Senator's Bill', Huff Post/CP 2014-05-12. Archived at: this link (Accessed 2016-09-16).^[165]

Bryden J. (2014). 'Obscure Senate bill infuriates Vietnam, sparks diplomatic spat with Canada '. The Globe and Mail 2014-12-05. Available at: this link (pay wall). Readers comments archived at: this link (Accessed 2014-12-10).^[84]

2014-12-09

Blanchfield, M. (2014). 'Senate passes bill that infuriates Vietnam, sparking trade, investment warnings'. Canadian Business 2014-12-09. Archived at: this link (Accessed: 2020-09-17).^[429]

Blanchfield, M. (2014). 'Bill That Offended Vietnamese Government Passed By Senate'. Huffington Post, Canada 2014-12-09. Archived at: this link (Accessed: 2014-12-12).^[86]

2014-12-17

Meyer, C. (2014). 'Canada’s courtship of Vietnam masks a polarized diaspora', Embassy, Ottawa, 2014-11-17. Archived. (Accessed: 2020-10-15).^[82]

2015-01-14

Ngo, T.H. (2015). 'Boat people bill honours a great humanitarian event', Embassy, Ottawa, 2015-01-14 p. 11. Archived. (Accessed: 2020-10-15).^[110]

2015-02-04

Mackrael, K. (2015). 'Vietnam ‘hurt’ by Senate bill commemorating ‘Black April Day’'. The Globe and Mail, Ottawa 2015-02-04. Available at: this link Reader comments archived at: this link (Accessed 2016-09-06)^[166]

2015-02-04

Vu, V.D. (2015). 'Don't pass that bill'. Embassy, Ottawa 2015-02-04. Archived. (accessed 2020-10-15).^[106]

2015-02-06

Cook A, & Klang A. (2015). 'Breaking the silence around Vietnamese boat people'. CBC News, Montreal 2016-02-06. Available at: this link (Accessed 2016-01-04).^[102]

2015-02-17

Lang, L. (2015). 'On Whose Calendar Is April 30 a Black Day?' TML Weekly 2015-02-07. Available at: this link (Accessed: 2020-09-17).^[433]

2015-02-25

Dinh, K. (2015). 'Bill declares that the wrong side won the Vietnam War'. Embassy, Ottawa 2015-02-25. Archived. (Accessed 2020-10-15).^[109]

Duc, K.V., & Tran, D. (2015). 'Bill will do little to damage relations with Vietnam'. Embassy, Ottawa. 2015-02-25. Archived.^[108]

2015-03-05

Chiang, C. (2015). 'On 40th anniversary of war, Vietnamese-Canadians remain conflicted'. Vancouver Sun, Vancouver. 2015-03-25. Archived at: this link (Accessed: 2016-09-16).^[163]

2015-03-21

Simpson, J. (2015) 'Conservatives are wearing out the dog-whistle'. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, May 21. Available at: this link (Accessed 2015-03-21).^[104]

2015-04-01

Meyer, C. (2015). '‘Vietnamese-Canadians’ to be honoured at Victims of Communism memorial'., Embassy, Ottawa 2015-04-01. Archived. (Accessed: 2020-10-15).^[78]

Meyer, C. (2015). 'Conservatives seeing double in communist Vietnam'. Embassy, Ottawa. 2015-04-01. Archived. (Accessed: 2020-10-15).^[77]

Musabende, A. (2015). 'Is the divisive bill on Vietnamese refugees all about the election?'. iPolitics 2015-04-01. Available at: this link (Accessed: 2016-01-15).^[8]

2015-04-24

Mackrael, K. (2015). 'Vietnam rebukes Canadian ambassador over commemoration of fall of Saigon'. The Globe and Mail 2015-04-24. Archived at: this link^[111]

Ha, T.T. (2015). 'A chance at a new life after the fall of Saigon 40 years ago'. The Globe and Mail. 2015-04-24. Available at: this link (Accessed 2015-09-03).^[79]

2015-04-27

Mackrael, K. (2015). 'April 30 to mark Vietnamese 'boat people' acceptance in Canada'. The Globe and Mail 2015-04-27. Available at: this link (Accessed: 2015-04-28).^[105]

2015-05-07

Nguyen, D.T. (2015). 'Backward Bill Passed, but Vietnamese-Canadians Move Forward'. New Canadian Media. 2015-05-07 [Reprinted from Embassy]. Archived. (Accessed: 2016-01-09).^[24]