Debates of April 23rd, 1996

Supply

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment further to the remarks made by my colleague, but, particularly, I would like to ask her a question. I am going to speak in a few minutes on the same subject and I will have an opportunity to explain my viewpoint.

I do in fact believe that the official opposition is playing its role properly in submitting to the House this type of motion, which, and I will explain this point further in a few minutes, affords us a look at the rather questionable side of government management in terms of its attitude toward international trade.

It is on this remark that I would like my colleague to expound her viewpoint. Now that international trade and international agreements have come into their own, should we promote trade to the detriment of human rights? I know her point of view, but I would like her to elaborate a bit on it.

If this is not the case, how do we reconcile international trade and human rights?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is a whole societal issue the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is raising. How do we choose between the economy, which is vital to our societies, and human rights, which every individual is entitled to enjoy.

The choice requires consideration. There is one basic point: when a human being is not respected he loses his humanity bit by bit. It is true that work is important. It is true that people have to eat. It is true that people should have whatever they need. It is true among our societies and it is true in developing countries where human rights must fight an uphill battle.

The question has to be asked: Which is more important? Is it more important to retain what sets human beings apart-their pride

and their role in society-or to destroy it little by little by giving them consumer goods and nothing more?

I know it is not easy. I know it is easier in opposition to criticize, but I also know that difficult problems require shared solutions. I therefore ask the Canadian government to lend an attentive ear, open to suggestions from this side of the House. Just because it comes from here does not mean it is useless or empty.

I think this is the discussion before us at the start of the third millennium and I sincerely believe Canada will have to be a leader in the area of human rights.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to join in the debate on this very important subject. I would like to again thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic for bringing this issue forward and to thank my colleagues on this side of the House who participated in the discussions. They will be participating again this afternoon.

On March 20 I informed the House that I intended to present again the motion which I presented last year. The letter was dated March 20, 1996 but I have not received an official reply on the wording of the resolution.

However, last year when I presented my motion, I consulted many members of Parliament, including the hon. member who presented the motion today. I was hoping that I would receive the same courtesy, that he would consult me and the communities involved so that we could have a non-partisan motion which could be supported by all parties. I am very disappointed that the hon. member played a cheap trick at the last moment at nine o'clock on Sunday night when he announced his intention to put this motion.

Had I been informed a week earlier we would have participated and made a truly respectable motion of which everyone in Canada could be proud.

I hope the House will do it again next year. All three parties can come together because this is a non-partisan issue. This is not an issue for the Bloc Quebecois, Reform, NDP or the Liberals. This is an issue that affects each and every human being in this land. I would venture to say it involves every human being on this globe.

I wish to take a moment to read a letter from the Prime Minister addressed to the Canadian-Armenian community last weekend. It states:

I am honoured to extend my greetings and sincere best wishes to the members of Canada's Armenian community as they mark the 81st anniversary of the Armenian tragedy in 1915.

The government and the people of Canada deplore the death of a great number of Armenians as a result of the war which brought about an end to the Ottoman Empire, and we extend our sympathy to the Armenian community.

Canada has been immeasurably enriched by many displaced Armenians who came to our shores, and by the contribution their descendants have made since. It is my profound hope that the memories of the past will serve to remind us all of the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity, and the historic attachment of these principles that has made Canada a beacon of hope for people the world over.

Please accept my best wishes on this solemn occasion.

I would also like to share with the House part of the message sent by Senator Dole, the U.S. presidential candidate in the upcoming November election. The message is dated April 22 and reads as follows:

Though April 24 is the day singled out to mark this tragedy, during the Genocide of 1915 some 1.5 million Armenians were subjected to a systematic extermination through a policy of deportation, torture, starvation and massacre. I join with the Armenian-American community in mourning the dead and recalling the suffering and sacrifice of the victims.

This issue is extremely important, especially to Canadians of Armenian origin. After all, they were one of the minorities that suffered in 1915 along with Kurds, Arabs, Greeks, Cypriots and many nationalities that were subjects of the Ottoman Empire at the time.

Since then, as the expression goes, crime not condemned is crime encouraged. Since then many crimes took place starting with the holocaust, Cyprus, Burundi, Cambodia, South Africa, Rwanda. It is important that we designate a week to commemorate all these crimes against humanity.

I am sure that each and every member of this House shares this concern. The question is how to do it so that it best for everybody. That is where the opposition lacks. As I said earlier, that was not a very nice thing to do because they made it as a partisan issue rather than a humanitarian, human rights issue.

What should be done? Individual members of Parliament could write letters to the Turkish government's representative here in Ottawa or they could ask Turkey to recognize the genocide, over and above what other countries will be doing hopefully in the next few years, and saying that crimes of genocide do not pay. Turkey has to admit its mistakes, like Germany has done, and start negotiations with the republic of Armenia to solve this problem. If there is restitution to be paid, I am sure it will have to pay so it can address the issue that will help us to overcome the difficulties we are facing today.

Speaking of Nazi crimes at Nuremberg, American Judge Robert Jackson said: "These crimes", referring to the holocaust, "are unacceptable". One of the reasons why he said they were unacceptable was not because of the number of victims but rather people came together to plot the extermination of a nation.

That is exactly what happened in 1915. The cabinet made a decision to slaughter each and every Armenian living in that Ottoman Empire. The pretext was the first world war. What a fantastic excuse. Everybody had an excuse during the war to kill and eliminate any minority. Armenian subjects were drafted into

the army. They were sent forward to fight the allies and they were shot in the back.

On the other hand Armenians joined the allied forces. They were called little allies. They hoped that when they did their job with the allies to defeat the central powers, which they had, Armenia would become an independent country. Fortunately Armenia became independent in 1918 but Armenian independence was short lived because of international politics.

At that time the western powers played politics with the fundamental issue of human rights. I come back again to my friends in opposition, do not play politics with these kinds of issues. It backfires on everybody and hurts everybody.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Denis. In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said last time when I presented motion 282. When speaking of my visit to Der-zor I said the following:

Even today when one who goes there and puts his hand in the sand, one has to go down only six inches to pick up bones and the remains of human beings. The river running through Der-zor is a very historical scene to Canadians of Armenian origin and many other Armenians throughout the world because we saw pictures of bodies in that river in the same way we saw pictures of bodies floating last year in Rwanda. I saw that river, I walked in that river and I remember the past, 1915.

I conclude my comments with the these words. Unless we learn from the past we are condemned to repeat it. I hope we are united in this House to condemn the past so we do not repeat the slaughter, discrimination and genocide.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will leave aside any partisan consideration and remind the House of the good work done in the past by the member on behalf of his community; I would like to ask him a very simple question.

I know that, irrespective of our own position, we have to toe the party line; however, he has always been a fervent advocate for his community.

He mentioned on several occasions in his speech that stakeholders in other countries and other members have used the word genocide. The motion brought forward this morning specifically mentioned the word genocide to describe the 1915 events. The government's amendment talks about tragedy, whereas the sub-amendment proposed by the Reform Party re-introduce the word genocide.

I humbly ask the member whether the word genocide should be used in connection with the tragic events which occurred in 1915?

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it would have been preferable if the hon. member had phoned me. I was not happy with the involvement on this issue especially.

If he have phoned me we could have formulated a policy or draft that is acceptable to everyone. I regret he did not do that. That is why we are in the situation we are in now, not because of government policy but because of the way the Bloc Quebecois played the game and presented this motion. It would have been fantastic if the Bloc Quebecois members, the Reform Party members and us got together. That is something that would have been acceptable to everybody. That is what we want to do. That is what I did last year. That is what I intend to do with my motion this year. But I regret to say that was not the case.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the representatives of the Armenian community and all the Armenian Canadians with whom I have had the pleasure to work for years and whom I am pleased to represent today in the House of Commons, at least in part.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague for Don Valley North, who is a member of this community and of the Liberal government, for his continuous and exceptional work on this issue. Like him, I deplore the fact that a Bloc member has played on the feelings of a community by announcing the tabling of this motion before it was brought forward in the House.

The 20th century has seen two world wars and numerous historical conflicts. In spite of this, crimes against humanity are not a thing of the past but continue to be daily occurrences in too many countries, countries which routinely practice torture, slavery, and the massive deportation of their civilian population. Everyday, we are witnessing the persecution of minorities on the basis of their opinion, race or religion.

To this day, these unacceptable acts of inhumanity continue despite the fact that the Geneva convention condemns such actions. Even though the international community has admitted that these acts should not be practised, we are still a long way from achieving this goal.

The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal for the first time tried those guilty of committing crimes against humanity. These crimes were

defined in article 6 of the London charter and included murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war, or persecution on political, racial and religious grounds.

While not all the criminals have been tried, the international community recognizes the holocaust and commemorates it every year so that everyone around the world will remember this tragedy to ensure that it will never occur again. Regardless of this, we still live in a world where ethnic cleansing is practised, the most recent example being the horrors that were committed in the former Yugoslavia.

Can we continue to be an active member of the international community and allow these atrocities to continue? I think not. However, we must first be able to internationally acknowledge that atrocities against humanity are unacceptable.

The Armenian genocide which took place during the first world war is perhaps the most vivid example of genocide as an instrument of national policy by the Ottoman Turks. What makes the Armenian genocide such a particular example is that unlike the genocide of the Jewish people which took place during the second world war, the international community did not try the war criminals or even formally acknowledge that this massacre took place.

Why, people may ask, is it so important to recognize an event that occurred over 80 years ago? We must always remember that those who disregard history are condemned to repeat it. Just think if the international community had reacted to this as it should have at the time. Would the atrocities of the second world war ever have taken place? Perhaps not.

There is nothing we can do to bring back these victims or to change the past, but there is a need to designate a week of the year, as my colleague from Don Valley proposed last April, as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another to ensure that future generations do not forget these tragic events and more important, do not repeat them.

While the European community and several other countries such as Italy, France, Israel and most recently Russia have passed parliamentary decrees formally recognizing this event, the international community as a whole has not taken the steps necessary to condemn these horrible acts of inhumanity.

I repeat, our government has recognized this tragic incident that saw 1.5 million people brutally executed by the Ottoman Turks who sought to ethnically cleanse their land of foreigners. We understand the suffering that this brought and the need for the Armenian community to have this tragedy recognized by all members of the international community. That is why we are supporting a week to commemorate crimes against humanity.

As representatives of a country recognized for its support of human rights, we know that Canadians condemn the practice of genocide and the use of violence as an instrument of power. Failure to acknowledge that such actions took place would amount to supporting their use as an instrument of national policy.

The sad reality is that news reports are still dominated by the horrors resulting from a lack of respect for human rights.

While these atrocities are some examples of crimes committed against humanity, there are unfortunately many others, both past and present. Some are well known; others, such as the Asia Minor catastrophe of 1922, are not so well known.

At the end of the first world war, close to two million Greeks were living in a region of Asia Minor on the west coast of modern Turkey. Greeks had been living in that region for over 3,000 years. In 1922, these people, like the Armenians and other Turkish minorities, were the victims of the first ethnic cleansing operation of the 20th century.

During that tragic summer, 600,000 Greeks from Asia Minor were killed by the forces of Mustafa Kemal, the father of modern Turkey. One and a half million people were also forced to leave their ancestral homes and ended up in Greece as refugees. These operations were neither sporadic nor spontaneous, but rather in line with the new Turkish state's cold and calculated ethnic cleansing policy. During this series of well-organized massacres, the government also burned down churches, schools, even cities and towns with Greek ties.

Although foreign diplomats and correspondents, as well as thousands of people from all kinds of backgrounds, witnessed these atrocities, the international community did nothing to condemn them.

Although the United States, Britain, France and Italy had ships and troops stationed on the coast of Asia Minor, they refused to intervene. The failure of these countries to condemn the actions of the Turkish government at that time encouraged other states to practise genocide as a government policy.

Unchecked aggression only leads to further acts of barbarism and genocide. In the last four years alone we have witnessed the

cataclysm that has befallen the former Yugoslavia. All the warring factions are guilty of mass killings, ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide in varying degrees. The war crimes tribunal of which Canada is a representative as one of the judges is presently examining the evidence before it. It will no doubt bring out the sad and tragic reality of what took place in the former Yugoslavia.

The cycle of violence has not stopped. We only need to look to the mass murders that have taken place in Somalia, Rwanda and Cambodia to confirm that fact. In all these examples the killing, destruction and forcible movement of populations have been acts of deliberate policy and not random excesses of rebels or uncontrolled government forces. Many governments have shut their eyes and not acknowledged that these atrocities took place.

By recognizing these historic events as crimes against humanity, we affirm that such crimes, both past and present, cannot be tolerated. As members of Parliament, we must urge the international community to redouble its efforts to prevent crimes against humanity.

Canada will continue to take a leadership role on the world stage to promote peace among the members of the international community. We have no lessons to be learned from the official opposition. As we all know, its mandate is to break up this country which is so respected on an international level. Our reputation for the respect and promotion of human rights precedes us and can no doubt help us to achieve this goal.

What I am about to say may be taken as partisan but we have no lessons to be learned from the opposition. As my colleague from Don Valley said, talk is cheap. The opposition can present a motion, it can say anything it wants, but its words do not have the same consequences.

A government like ours which has shown it is a responsible government at all levels acts responsibly. There are legal and international consequences for words as well as for actions. We have no lessons to learn from the hon. members on the other side of the House. During the recent referendum in Quebec we know what high regard they had for the ethnic communities there. I have lived in Quebec, I was raised in Quebec, I have spent many years fighting many of the words of discrimination and racism that exist in that society. We have no lessons to be learned.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the votes which had previously been deferred to 5.30 p.m. today be further deferred until the end of Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I must tell her that the Government of Quebec fully respect the rights of minorities. Quebec is a very open society. I can testify to that, as a non-francophone member who was elected by a majority of French speaking constituents and by members of ethnic communities.

The hon. member calls the Armenian genocide a tragic incident. It is much more than a tragic incident. It is the extermination of one and a half million Armenians. It is the deportation of half a million people. It is the destruction of numerous churches and monasteries. It is the dispersal of Armenians all over the world.

I am surprised that the Government of Canada stubbornly refuses to recognize this genocide which has been recognized by other nations, including Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Argentina. Monuments were erected in Columbia, etc. It is unacceptable on the part of a government promoting democracy and human rights throughout the world to hold such contradictory views. Indeed, when trade comes into play, it takes precedence over human rights.

How can the hon. member justify the Canadian government's stubborn refusal to recognize this genocide for what it is?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me read again, for the benefit of the opposition member, the amendment that we tabled in this House regarding the motion before us. It says: "the Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives". There was never any question of not recognizing this massacre. This government never said that it did not recognize this tragedy.

As to whether the province of Quebec lives in democracy, I remind the opposition member that Canada is known as the most democratic, tolerant and open country in the world.

If we currently have in the House of Commons the opposition that we know, it is because we recognize and accept our differences. We are known as a government that fights for human rights everywhere in the world. Our government has always tried to protect those in the world who could not protect themselves. Again, we always recognized that 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased with the speech by the hon. member for Saint-Denis. Many Canadians of Armenian origin live in the Saint-Denis riding.

In 1939 when Adolf Hitler was invading Europe and slaughtering the Jews country by country, someone asked him how future generations would react to the holocaust, the massacre and genocide that he had committed. His reply was: "After all, who remembers the Armenian atrocities, the Armenian genocide?"

If the world were to condemn the Armenian genocide would the hon. member agree with me that it would have prevented the invasion by Turkish forces in northern Cyprus some 67 years afterward?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, we must never forget history. If we forget history and we do not acknowledge the atrocities of the past, we are condemned to repeat them. Yes, I do believe that what happened in Cyprus may not have happened if there had been acknowledgement of this tragedy that occurred.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Ahuntsic.

Today's motion is exactly the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North moved in 1994. I was somewhat surprised to hear our colleague from Don Valley North and the hon. member for Saint-Denis accuse the opposition of narrow partisanship because we put this motion before the House today.

As I said earlier, the text of the resolution moved by the Bloc member for Ahuntsic is, for the most part, the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North put forward last year. Following pressure exerted by his own party, the motion was not voted on in the House. It was announced that the motion could not be voted on in 1994.

The official opposition wanted to revisit this issue in the House because of its significance, and also because of the lack of attention the government pays to human rights when it deals with international trade. As the official opposition critic on human rights, I wanted to take part in this debate precisely to address this issue.

Of course, we have to go beyond narrow partisanship-and I mention it mostly for our Liberal colleagues-and decry these actions which are still occurring too often nowadays, actions aimed at completely wiping out a people. That is why I am a bit surprised by the reaction of the hon. member for Don Valley North. It seems to me that no one can deny the serious harm done to certain peoples, among others the Armenian people. Therefore, we have to denounce such actions without any reservation and with no hesitation whatsoever so that, hopefully, they do not reoccur.

As an example of partisanship, let me remind the House of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, to replace the word "genocide" by "tragedy". As we have noticed in the speeches made by the Liberal members and as we will see, I guess, throughout the day, where Armenia is concerned, Liberal members prefer to talk about a tragedy instead of a genocide.

I do not think these two words are interchangeable. The newspaper I was reading this morning, and almost all the daily papers in Quebec, reported many car accidents, as they do unfortunately every day or at least every week. I read this morning in the paper about an automobile accident that happened in the region next to mine, the Montérégie, where three young people died. The report spoke of a tragedy for the families, relatives and friends.

Last week, on April 18, we were reminded the world over of the Oklahoma City tragedy where almost 200 persons died last year in an explosion due to a truly insane action. This was called a tragedy.

In spite of their seriousness or their enormity, can events like automobile accidents and the terrible Oklahoma City bombing really be compared with not only the intent but also the actions taken to eliminate a people, a whole community? Is it really possible?

According to the Larousse Dictionary, a tragedy can mean two things. I think words must have a meaning. It is said that the legislator never talks for the sake of talking. Thus, since the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women moved in this House on behalf of the government an amendment to replace the term genocide'' by the termtragedy'', there must be a reason. This was not done merely to stretch out the opposition's motion. There was an intention.

What exactly does "tragedy" mean? What is the meaning of "tragedy" in the Larousse dictionary? The meaning given in the Petit Robert is almost the same. In the literary sense it means a play, the subject of which is generally drawn from legend or history, which takes well known figures and has them act out events designed to evoke fear or pity-

Is that the intention of the government, which is accusing the official opposition of partisan politics, of wanting to raise this question without giving the government sufficient warning, according to the member for Don Valley North?

I think that by using the word "tragedy", they are specifically seeking to mask the real situation, whereas "genocide" refers to the extermination of a people. It is not the same thing. I repeat, the words must have a meaning.

In his motion, which he repeated this morning, the member for Don Valley North used the term or expression "crime against humanity". A crime against humanity is always a tragedy, but it is different. It is different when that term, which is similar to genocide, is used, it is different than the use of the term "tragedy", which, in its literary sense, refers to theatre intended to move audiences, but which also refers to an unfortunate event or events.

We have to know why. All we can do is interpret-I do not know if I can speak about interpretation-conclude that the intention of the government is to qualify, to reduce the scope of what happened to the Armenians early in this century.

Can one compare-I return to my example-the extermination of a million and a half people, the deportation of 500,000 others, the fact that in Armenia over 2,000 churches and 200 convents were destroyed, that people were targeted specifically because of their race or religious beliefs, is this House, the Parliament of Canada, which is a world leader in respecting human rights and democracy, being asked simply to consider these events a tragedy? This makes no sense.

We have a duty, and I must conclude that the government's intention in introducing this amendment is to water down the interpretation of history as it relates to the Armenian genocide, and also to other similar situations.

My colleagues raised the problem, and we will have to come back to it during the day, of how the Canadian government had no problem talking about the genocide in Rwanda and how it is so difficult to recognize the genocide of the Armenians.

The member's motion also raises the matter of the government's attitude, which will be the focus of my remarks: the government's attitude toward human rights, which are a bargaining point, if I can put it that way, in trade matters between Canada and other countries.

As my colleague for Ahuntsic pointed out, the fact that the Government of Canada has been negotiating various levels of trade with the Government of Turkey for a number of years already, including the potential sale of a Candu reactor, there may in fact be a certain amount of interest in pushing the Armenian issue under the carpet. I hope I am wrong in making this suggestion.

After this government's election, we concluded from a number of decisions made that trade was more important than human rights. I would remind this House about the trip by Team Canada, in fact the two trips by Team Canada, especially to Asia where the Prime Minister stressed the enormous advantages offered by Canada and worked to improve trade with Asian countries.

Everyone in Canada-the official opposition along with the rest of the parties-is agreed on the importance of improving our record in terms of developing the economy. Everyone agrees that Canada should be competitive, that our products should be promoted-but at any price? Should we do so at the expense of our most basic principles, particularly in the area of human rights? The answer, obviously, is no, and this is the answer the official opposition wants to hear from the government. We want a categoric and strong no, not only in this House, but outside it as well.

When government officials, with the Prime Minister at the helm, travel the world, they should carry a clear message. Yes, Canada is open to international trade, yes, Canada wants to reduce, indeed eliminate as much as possible barriers to international trade. However, at the same time, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all government members have the responsibility and the duty to make it clear that human rights are not negotiable.

In conclusion, I want to remind my colleagues in this House, in particular government members, that a 13-year old boy, the young Kielburger, from the Toronto area, had to confront the Prime Minister on this issue for it to be given attention all of a sudden.

This young boy had to denounce child labour, especially in Asian countries, in order for the government to, all of a sudden, pay attention to the issue of human rights.

I know my time is up. However, I want to say in conclusion that as parliamentarians, we do not have the right to use terms such as tragedy to minimize the importance of events that occurred throughout the world, especially in Armenia. When we talk about genocide, genocide it is. When we talk about child labour, that is what me must call it. Words must have a meaning. This is what I want and this is what the official opposition wants by having this motion passed.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the third time in the last two hours I am asking an hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois to put his money where his mouth is. Would he undertake to the House to go to his caucus, pass a resolution and ask the premier of Quebec, the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, to erect a monument in Montreal or in Quebec City to commemorate the genocide of the Armenians in 1915, yes or no?

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, to start with, I will remind the member for Don Valley North that Quebec recognized the Armenian genocide in 1980, that my colleague for Ahuntsic met, I believe, the expectations of the member for Don Valley North since the municipal government in Montreal, headed by its mayor, had planned to erect a monument to commemorate the Armenian genocide, but that, during the election campaign, yielding to pressures from the Minister of

International Trade, the City of Montreal changed its mind. The mayor of Montreal has yet to deny that his project was put on the back burner following pressures from a member of the government.

If I understand what the member for Don Valley North said, and if he is talking on behalf of his caucus and his government, I am convinced that the City of Montreal-and I do not see why the Quebec government would object to being associated with this initiative-would be quite willing to commemorate the Armenian genocide, and to remind our fellow citizens and the world at large of it by erecting a monument. I cannot see any inconsistency in what we are saying, since we are in favour of recognizing it. Not only are we in favour of doing it, but we do recognize the Armenian genocide. For our part, we do not want to reduce these unfortunate events to one human tragedy among many others, rather we want to stress that it is unacceptable for any government to intentionally and systematically try to eliminate a whole people.

In his speech, not in his questions, the member for Don Valley North mentioned the holocaust on several occasions. The word holocaust is associated with the extermination of Jews during the second world war. We are talking about the extermination of a people. The official opposition is not being inconsistent, we recognize the Armenian genocide, this is the subject of the motion. We condemn this kind of crime against humanity and, of course, I believe the official opposition, and the Quebec government, would not object in any way to this being commemorated in a special way by erecting a monument.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaking, I asked a simple question. I did not want to be lectured. Would the member agree to put a monument in Quebec City, yes or no? All he has to say is yes, he agrees or no, he does not agree. That is all I want. I do not want to be lectured.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member for Don Valley North is looking for financing but, if he is, we would like to join him in asking the government to proceed.

I just mentioned that if there were inconsistencies among parliamentarians, they were on the other side, which tries to reduce the importance of these events by referring to them as a tragedy, when we are talking about the extermination of a people.

This is my answer, and if that does not suit the hon. member he could repeat his question.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and compare what the president of Amnesty International said to what the Prime Minister said. I will then ask my colleague for some comments.

During a recent visit to Ottawa, Pierre Sané, president of Amnesty International, said: "The battle for human rights has to be global, otherwise it will be lost even before it starts".

During his first trip to Asia, the Prime Minister said: "I could give a headline-making speech on that issue, but I prefer to open markets and promote trade. The walls will eventually come down".

Given what the Prime Minister said, could my colleague tell us when these walls will come down? Is it in two years or two hundred years?

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question of my colleague from Louis-Hébert is very relevant. As a matter of fact, I pointed out at the beginning of my speech the kind of political jockeying the government is doing by putting on the table-and the reference to the Prime Minister's words is totally eloquent-human rights and international trade. That is not only unacceptable, and the term is not too strong, but totally repugnant.

Like my colleague from Louis-Hébert just did, I would remind the House that despite all the things we can blame on the previous government, the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney, parliamentarians of this House and observers of the political scene in general will recognize that Mr. Mulroney did not miss an opportunity to denounce the way various communities throughout the world were treated and to promote human rights. I remind the House that it was a Conservative government, therefore theoretically more right wing, if you will.

We now see a government calling itself liberal in terms of its political allegiance, but in reality, its decisions are even more typical of the extreme right. When my colleague from Louis-Hébert reminded us of the Prime Minister's words, as I was saying earlier, that is the message people throughout the world remember in terms of Canada's political stand as regards human rights.

If that message is heard around the world, it will surely be heard and understood by many people and groups here in Canada, a situation that threatens the future of our rights and freedoms if we are not careful.

Not only it is justified, but the official opposition would be derelict in its duty if it failed to raise this kind of debate in the House. That is why we have tabled this motion today. We want all members of this House who speak up in support of human rights to have the opportunity to ask the government, by voting on this motion, to be consistent and to promote these rights at the international level.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

May I ask a question?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is over.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to give a couple of minutes of my time to the hon. member to ask questions if he wishes, if it is possible with the consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

We must now resume debate. After your speech, the House will have ten minutes for questions and comments. Resuming debate. The hon. member has the floor.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion and I commend the Bloc member for Ahuntsic who brought forward the motion to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915.

I put on record that our party supports the motion that the House recognize, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives on April 24, 1915, and in recognition of other crimes against humanity, the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

On Sunday I had the honour to participate in a ceremony at the Armenian community centre in Toronto. For two and a half hours we remembered the genocide of 1915. What impressed me most about the ceremony was that so many young people, through song, attendance, speeches and leadership, remembered what took place 81 years ago. It had become part of their lives and part of their culture that the genocide must never be forgotten.

This is not the first time I have participated in this type of ceremony. I have been privileged for a number of years as a member of Parliament to have met with my friends at the Armenian community centre.

When I was first introduced to the issue by the member for Don Valley North it was unknown to me. At that time he was the executive director of the community centre. He and other members of the community, including Aris Barbikian who has come from Toronto to be with us in the House today, talked to me about that incredible tragedy in which 1.5 million Armenians were indiscriminately wiped out simply because they were Armenians. This tragedy has been part the psyche of Armenians everywhere in the world.

After 81 years, we ask, why could people not forget? The answer is very simple. The Turkish government has never recognized its responsibility in this act of genocide. How can the survivors of that tragedy or the families or friends of survivors accept this historical canard where it has never been recognized by the perpetrators? Even the holocaust of the second world war has been recognized for what it was.

When we as individuals can accept and deal head on with the truth as opposed to putting our heads in the sand, then we can cope with whatever the world has thrown or may throw at us in the future. However it is denial which is an insult to those who were wiped out 81 years ago.

I am not particularly proud of the rest of the world. We have been slow in coming to grips with recognizing what actually took place. The historical record is clear. There is no room for ambiguity or ambivalence. That tragedy did take place. That genocide is a fact of history. Whatever we say about it cannot change that incontrovertible fact.

Why are we so reluctant to join with our brothers and sisters in the Armenian community in recognizing what is a plain and simple truth? Perhaps it is part of that world of realpolitik or doublespeak. Maybe we have other reasons which we do not want to talk about. I find it offensive.

As a member of Parliament I have spoken publicly calling for recognition of the Armenian genocide. It may not be in the cards today or in the exact words that we would like to see. However, I will be supporting the motion as amended by our party which puts in stark outline the fact that so many people were murdered and that it was a tragedy of enormous proportion. There is still suffering by those who remember. Perhaps one day we will find a way in the House to recognize, as a few other nations already have, the fact that the 1915 murder of 1.5 million Armenians was in fact the first genocide of the 20th century.

Why is it important that we dwell on an event which took place 81 years ago? I recall the words of Hitler who, when he was embarking on his crusade to wipe out Jewry in the world, said: "Who is to stop me? Who remembers the Armenian genocide?" That is one reason we must remember. If we cannot look history straight in the eye, if we cannot learn from the tragedies which took place, how apt are we to stand idly by and ignore other acts of genocide which are taking place?

We have seen the tragedy in Bosnia where people were wiped out simply because they belonged to a particular race or religion. We have seen the killing fields. We have seen wars throughout the entire world based on the fact that people because they were of a particular nationality, religion or race were considered to be inferior and our enemy. That is so against what every member in the House from every party stands for.

Not only in Canada do we have a human rights code but we also have a charter of rights that deals with discrimination based on race, colour, religion, creed, sex and age and is totally beyond the purview of any legislature and cannot be countered. We have spoken about the types of human rights we seek to respect within our own nation. We are the signatories to numerous documents and treaties which impose this obligation to recognize rights internationally.

Looking at the situation in Turkey today, we see a war led by the PKK, the Kurdish workers party, to try to create a separate state. What we have seen in terms of repression by the Turkish government has been extreme. It is also a matter of record that there have been many violations of human rights in Turkey.

Canada has condemned these violations quite properly, as it is our obligation to do as a member of the world community. We have called for a political solution rather than a military solution to the separatist issue. We hope that by working with our allies and the Turkish officials we are going to be able to achieve some progress in this regard.

My mind goes back to a couple of days ago at the wonderful ceremony of remembrance, the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I was joined at the commemorative service by the member for Don Valley North, the member for Scarborough and Senator Haidasz. All of us were impressed by the intensity of feeling we experienced during that ceremony.

I mentioned earlier the fact that so many young people had made the non-recognition of the genocide a part of their ethos, a part of their mission. These young people are not going to be content until the record is set straight. These people are not seeking reparations or international trials. All they want is a recognition of what their people went through, a recognition that this tragedy took place and that the rest of the world is prepared to join with them in solidarity in recognizing those who died, those who survived and their families.

The motion we see before us as amended by our party is a step in the right direction. It may not be all that we seek but it does not mean that we will give up our efforts to seek more. I commend the member for Don Valley North for the efforts he has made and all members of the House who support this motion.