Debates of April 23rd, 1996

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I have followed very carefully the comments made by the hon. member for Ahuntsic. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his presentation but also I want to remind him that the way he went about doing this was quite upsetting to me. However, that is said and done, it has passed and I want to go forward to the future.

The hon. member made a comment in his statement that the mayor of Montreal promised to erect a statue to commemorate the genocide of the Armenians in 1915. Then he went on to blame the federal government for intervening in this matter.

I want the record to show clearly that neither federal government in any way, shape or form nor the Department of Foreign Affairs were involved in the promise made by the mayor of Montreal. I want him to correct that statement please because that is not the case. The Government of Canada does not get involved in the erection or the removal of monuments.

I was previously involved with the Vietnamese monument here in the city of Ottawa. The Government of Canada took the same position when the Vietnam monument was erected. That is the same position the government has taken in the case of the monument in Montreal which was promised, reneged on and not delivered by the mayor of Montreal.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I want to point out that The Gazette reported comments attributed to members of the national Armenian committee concerning the monument to be erected in Montreal to commemorate the genocide. The comments of the mayor of Montreal were also reported, and the mayor did not deny them. But these comments were denied-

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

The mayor's comments or the minister's comments?

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

The mayor's comments were denied by the minister. No, the mayor did not confirm the minister's comments.

The Minister of International Cooperation and of the mayor of Montreal disagree on what happened. When I asked a question in this House, the member for Saint-Léonard told me that the minister had only restated the way the Canadian government dealt was handling this issue. It is already quite something to repeat that the Government of Canada prefers not to use the word genocide, that it wants to use the words atrocities and tragedy, but not the word genocide. This word was used for the genocide in Rwanda, but the government still does not want to use it concerning Armenia.

Today, you will have a chance to vote on the motion, on the term genocide. If you want to take on the unenviable task of changing the motion by deleting the term genocide, you will be showing your true colours. Then, Armenians and Canadians will know where you stand on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the opposition member on introducing this motion in the House. I would point out, as did my colleague, that it was the member for Don Valley North who initially introduced this motion in the House of Commons.

Secondly, I would perhaps echo my colleague's question and comments. It is all very well to read the comments by the mayor of Montreal in the papers, but there is no evidence. I would like the hon. opposition member to provide written or verbal proof that the minister or a representative of the Canadian government said we were opposed to a monument being erected.

There is no proof, it was only the mayor's word. It is the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Bourque, who is responsible for this matter. He must assume his responsibilities and keep his word to the Armenian community and to others, because the monument is not just for the Armenian genocide, but for all crimes against humanity. We were 100 per cent in favour of the idea, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I would prefer people did not invent stories and did not attribute remarks to someone, if they are not what the person said in this House.

I would also like to ask the opposition member what led him to raise this motion in the House at this specific point in time.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part, with respect to the monument, is concerned, the Government of Canada has no business getting involved in this matter. I recalled the remarks attributed to the mayor of Montreal. I recalled the denials by the minister and I recalled the fact that the mayor of Montreal did not confirm the minister's denials. Enough has been said about this responsibility.

I agree with you that the monument must be erected and that it is the responsibility of the mayor of Montreal. However, when the example of inaction on the matter of the Armenian genocide comes from as high up as our government-either Conservative or Liberal-which refuses to recognize the genocide, we can hardly criticize others for lack of courage when we ourselves lack such courage.

Last year, the member for Don Valley North acted very positively in making his proposal. However, as I said in my speech, he had asked for unanimous consent for a vote and this was denied by a parliamentary secretary. As parliamentarians, we know what this means. It means that the motion is dead.

This year, using an opposition day, one of our exceedingly rare opposition days where a vote may be taken, we are forcing a vote on this issue and on the method, because today or tomorrow there will be 3,000 or 4,000 Armenians on the Hill, who will judge our actions as parliamentarians today. Let us act courageously.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the member for Ahuntsic for tabling this motion in the House.

The points raised by the motion deal with universal rights, equality, and the fight for freedom the underprivileged peoples of the world have been waging since the dawn of civilization.

I support the principles in the hon. member's motion. In fact I applaud them. It is for this reason that I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended (1) by deleting the word "genocide" and substituting therefor the words "tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives", and (2) by inserting immediately after "1915" the words "and in recognition of other crimes against humanity"; and (3) by deleting all of the words after the words "as the week" and by substituting the words "of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another".

I would like to see the scope of the motion broadened to cover all peoples who have suffered in their quest for justice and freedom.

Therefore I would like to see us acknowledge a tragic systemic massacre and degradation of the Armenian people which began in 1915 under the Ottoman empire and recognize the day April 24 as a day to mourn for those who suffered. Yet on April 15 we also mark the holocaust as a day to remember with sorrow the slaughter of millions of Jews and on April 27 we celebrate the death of apartheid, the triumph of freedom over the decades of legislated racism, bigotry and murder of black South Africans.

This amendment seeks to remember all of these peoples and more. It proposes to set a week to mourn man's inhumanity to man, all the women who for millennia have been raped in the name of power, all the children who have been orphaned in the struggle for freedom, all those who have been humiliated, degraded, imprisoned, killed because of their religion, the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.

To narrow this motion to recognize the plight of one people is laudable in its intent but it misses the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of those who do not have a special day of remembrance but who have suffered similar injustices over the history of humankind.

The shameful history of man's inhumanity has never been selective, nor has brutality ever been focused in one place, one community or one people. The tragedies such as we mourn on April 15, 24 and 27 may have been brought on by discrimination, bigotry and the misuse of power but it has not been limited to a particular race, religion or ethnic group. The brutal murder and incarceration of women, men and children simply because they wished to worship their own god or walk side by side in equality and justice with other members of the human race in kinship and respect is a tragedy the entire human family must bear with shame.

The motion moved by the honourable member for Ahuntsic reflects the fundamental values of the people of Canada. As a people we have opened our arms and our country to victims of pain, tyranny and injustice.

We are recognized the world over as a people who not only believe in peace, justice and respect but we practise it. We have legislated it. Our multiculturalism policy has ensured that all of the diverse people who make up our nation must live in respect of each other's culture, religion, race or ethnicity. We seek not to assimilate others but to allow for the ultimate freedom of the individual to pursue what makes him or her unique and special.

We believe that all Canadians can be one people united under one flag and one nation and yet celebrate and respect the diversity of our geography and our people. Multiculturalism is part of making sure we are sensitive to the pain of those Canadians who may at one time have been victimized by the inhumanity of war or by bigotry and oppression. Multiculturalism promotes healing and fosters a cohesion of people.

By and large we are a country of immigrants and refugees within an aboriginal country. We have come together from each corner of the world to build a society, recognized not for a particular language or a specific skin colour but by the values that bind us together, values of justice, equality, respect and peaceful resolution to conflict.

We are a unique nation. We are the global nation and we wear the title with pride. We stand as a role model to the world of a nation where all people can find peace, order and good government, can co-exist in harmony with intercultural understanding and sharing, with respect for differences.

Here in Canada this motion will strengthen the way we hope to build a nation. It will send a message to other nations and people who struggle under the yoke of oppression that in Canada there is a policy of respect, that here they can be free to worship their god and walk down the street equal to other Canadians, equal under the eyes of the law, free from fear of discrimination as enshrined in our Constitution, free to dress in the manner of their choice, free to participate in the benefits of this society fully, and to accept and fulfil the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen in equality.

If we are to change our world, if we are to hope that one day humankind can live together in peace and respect, we must always be mindful of the cruelty of tyranny, of the massacres of peoples, of the incarceration, degradation and inhumanity that man has wrought on each other in the name of power, intolerance and religion.

This motion would enshrine the week of April 20 to April 27 as a week to remember, to mourn and to celebrate the martyrs who have gone before in history, like the Armenians we remember today, so that the pursuit of freedom and justice will remain clear in our hearts and in our legislation, so that we may remain on guard wherever human rights are in jeopardy, as we have done whenever we have traded. We have taken the opportunity to speak to leaders of regimes that do not hold the same human rights values which we hold dear. We have a reputation as peacekeepers around the world.

We will learn from the lessons of the past. It is fitting this motion is placed before the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament. As Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said to our Prime Minister at the United Nations 50th anniversary, the world has always looked to Canada with hope, as a people who have lived together in diversity with respect, as a people who have sought peaceful resolution to conflict.

Let us not disappoint them. Let us remain true to the mandate of our unique policy of multiculturalism which seeks to strengthen a cohesive, respectful, inclusive and democratic society and a shared sense of identity reflective of the diversity of Canadian people.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is being studied and it has not been ruled as being receivable. As soon as possible, the Chair will make a ruling on that matter.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for the sensitivity she has always displayed concerning the issues of racism and social justice. However, I want to make sure I understand the true meaning of the message she has delivered this morning.

She shares the concerns of members as a whole regarding the use of violence which has become too widespread throughout this century. I want to make sure that she believes, as I do, that violence, whatever its form, is unacceptable.

However, there is in Canadian policy a certain amount of inconsistency I have trouble understanding; my colleague will perhaps take the time to clarify this for me. The Canadian government has committed $500,000 to set up a human rights tribunal to investigate war crimes and wrongdoings in the former Yugoslavia. This international tribunal will be made up of nine judges, including one Canadian.

We followed very closely the statements made by the Canadian government on Rwanda. In both cases, the Canadian government had no qualms about talking of genocide. The reason being that, when it comes to words, there is a scale of sorts to describe things.

My colleague will agree that genocide is violence at its worst. Why is it that the Canadian government does not hesitate to talk about genocide regarding events in Rwanda? Why is it that it has no qualms about freeing $500,000 in the case of the former Yugoslavia? Why is it reluctant to describe for what they were the events which occurred in Armenia in 1915 and had the hallmark of a genocide, and to call a spade a spade?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said very clearly that Canada has given aid and brought its own particular principles to areas like Rwanda, Bosnia and other parts of the world where there has been inhumanity to man.

We are supportive of the hon. member's motion. We are just changing the words to express the tragedy of the 1.5 million people who were killed. We are also widening the scope of the motion to make the week one of remembrance for all people, such as April 15 to commemorate the holocaust and April 27 for the death of apartheid. We are just trying to widen the scope of the motion so that it will be a commemorative week for all people who have suffered over the years.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why in her amendment to the main motion does the hon. member recommend the deletion of the word genocide?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are recommending substituting for the word "genocide" the words "tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives". Genocide is a specific term. We do not feel we can use that term at this time. We are mentioning the deaths of 1.5 million people. We are supporting the motion, but we are broadening the scope of it.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is part of the problem we have in the House where there is a play on words and we do not say what we mean. On a number of occasions I have had cause to lament that sort of thing and be upset by it. Obviously, we are all opposed to genocide and the planned killing of people by their own governments or by other governments. We must make a clear statement to all humanity.

It is with pleasure that I speak to the motion which condemns genocide as an instrument of national policy. While there are few problems with the wording of the proposed amendment, I am going to suggest at least one subamendment at the end of my presentation.

As the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party, I am pleased to say that I will be supporting the motion with the amendments. It is important that we clearly let the world know what we think of these acts.

When we received the motion yesterday, it was difficult to decide how to approach it. In many respects it is a motherhood issue. We are all opposed to genocide. This morning I intend to try and develop my and my party's approach to the subject and try to put a little more humanity and understanding into it.

Genocide strikes at the very root of humanity. It is the sort of thing that causes us to shudder no matter where in the world it takes place. When a government or a group attempts to obliterate a people through violent means to achieve their own selfish political goals, all humanity is diminished and suffers because of it.

Those who have committed genocide often attempt to blame the victims or deny reality, but the truth must be remembered. To honour the memory of the victims we must remind our children of

what happened. We must not let these memories die. Hopefully they will prevent future atrocities.

It is a cliche, but a true one when we say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This truth has haunted us in the House of Commons over the past couple of years as we have watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, have been slaughtered in places like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The saddest thing about these recent genocides is that historians 100 years from now will probably see them as only two of a long series of genocides stretching throughout the century. The ultimate horror is that there have been so many mass slaughters this century it is tough to keep track of them. The future does not bode well for stopping them, even though we say this must be the last.

There is the Armenian genocide that this motion speaks to. We have the Jewish Holocaust. We have Stalin's purges. We have the Chinese situation in Nanking. We have mass murder in East Timor, the disappearance in Central and South America of many people, tribal slaughter in Burundi, government sponsored famine in Ethiopia, and the list goes on and on. As I said at the beginning, it touches all of us as human beings living on this planet.

Each one of these represents a human disaster of epic proportions, but all have been reduced to historical footnotes because there are so many. That is why I believe the House should vote in favour of the motion, which serves to remind us and helps us to keep a vigilance; a vigilance that we cannot forget history.

The motion does not cost anything, but it is a powerful show that the House is not indifferent to genocide. It shows that members in this place prefer to speak out rather than perpetually sit in an uncomfortable silence waiting for the next disaster.

A few members today have presentations which will deal specifically with the genocide of the Armenians during the early years of this century. I would like to support those members but I must tell them I do not know a lot about Armenian history and I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about it in their presentations. I will deal with several other issues that relate to genocide with which I am more familiar.

Obviously we could go back to World War II and the Jewish Holocaust. It is amazing that some people deny this happened. Obviously it did happen. It should have been a valuable lesson in history, but unfortunately it was not. The Jews in Europe had suffered for centuries from prejudices and intolerance, but the rise of Hitler brought the hatred of Jews to a whole new level.

Under the Nazis the Jews became the scapegoat for all the ills of society. Hatred became a unifying force and the Jews were systematically dehumanised by Nazi propaganda to such a degree that their mass murder went from being an outrageous idea to the final solution to Germany's problems.

The use of propaganda and the media to dehumanise and discredit people who were subsequently massacred is unfortunately a tradition that has stood the test of time. Therefore this is the first lesson we must learn. We might call it the CNN factor. The use of television, the use of communication today is an important part of ploys used by many terrorist groups. Last week we had an example of that. We must be conscious of it. We must remember the media can be used to promote hate and that it must be monitored in Canada and throughout the world.

We must have set standards in the international community so that we see both sides of the story, not simply the side the CNN reporter wants us to see. We must not let the media be manipulated by various powers. I am sure some terrorist groups have a training program which involves the use of the media. We must be conscious of that and vigilant that we get both sides.

Another lesson we learned from the Jewish Holocaust is the indifference of the international community. As Europe's Jews desperately tried to escape they found many countries would not accept them. Not only that, the international community appeased Germany and continually caved in to its increasingly outrageous policies. This gave the perception of silent approval of Germany's actions, a perception that proved fatal to over six million Jews.

Clearly the international community can never again sit by in stunned silence while such outrages occur. We must be vigilant, speak out and take firm action when the need arises.

I will now talk about a couple of recent examples of genocide. I will start with the former Yugoslavia and then I will talk a bit about Rwanda and conclude with an overall approach to genocide itself.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. member would permit a very brief interruption. The member has indicated he wishes to make a subamendment. It would probably be of assistance if he knew what the Chair has ruled on the previous amendment. With his permission I would like to give that ruling now.

The amendment proposed by the secretary of state is an acceptable amendment. Accordingly, when the member for Red Deer wishes to make a subamendment he may wish to keep in mind the amendment was accepted by the Chair.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that does clarify what I will be doing at the end of my presentation.

I will use a couple of examples. I will use recent ones familiar to the House. Those still speak to the motion of the Armenian question.

When we look at the former Yugoslavia, I know members do not need a history lesson on some of the problems. However, there are a few facts we need to outline as to exactly what happened.

It is fair to say, hopefully in an unbiased evaluation of the situation, that there is no side right or wrong. There are lots of wrongs but it is a matter of not being able to pick the good guy from the bad guy. That is a big problem in today's post-cold war situation in which we find ourselves.

It is often easier for people of the world community to sit idle while these wrongs are occurring. I have mentioned that the media plays a major role in promoting and sometimes in formulating ideas within our community which are incorrect.

We must also recognize in the former Yugoslavia that this is a civil war. It is not like the gulf war. Civil wars are different from where we have an aggressor attacking another country. In looking at the facts we must always recognize that. We must look at the external forces which come into play when such acts of genocide occur. We must also always understand history and look back however far we have to to understand the nature of the problem.

If we look at the former Yugoslavian problem we need to go back at least 1300 years and even back to Greek and Roman times.

We can go through the 6th century and the Slavic tribes as they worked through that area. We can look at the effect of Rome and Constantinople, the Catholic and Orthodox church in the 10th century. We can go through the Islamic expansion of the 14th century. Very clearly we start to see the effects of not only the people but of external forces coming into play.

We have to also recognize the way governments rule. The Muslim rule of the 15th century was pretty grim stuff. The Turkish empire and the way it handled things was a pretty rugged way of running a government by our standards.

As we move to more modern times we see the influence of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. We look at the alliances that occurred up to the end of the first world war. Then we look at what happened during the mid-war period and then on to the second world war and the alliances there. In Hitler's alliances with Croatia, 400,000 Serbians living in Croatia were massacred because of outside forces. They were massacred for all kinds of reasons.

Then we come to Tito's time. Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron hand from 1945 until 1980 when he died. There are six republics and we must understand the history of those republics and why they lived in so-called peace.

From there in 1991 when the Croats and Slovenians declared independence, I guess not unlike Quebec's declaring independence from Canada, we can see the terrific pull that would have on the people of that country.

The point is that no matter what history tells us and no matter what politics tells us, genocide is not acceptable under any conditions. Countries and the peoples of the world must find a way to deal with their problems, but not to those kinds of extremes. That has to come loud and clear from countries like ours. It has to come loud and clear from the UN. The UN desperately needs to be modernized and become efficient so it can respond to these issues.

If there is one thing we can blame ourselves and the world community for it is the inability, the lack of desire, or whatever the reason, to modernize a 50-year old organization that can today not deal with its problems because it is top heavy, bureaucratic, under funded, inefficient, and so on. We must deal with that problem. That is our problem. It will lead to future genocide in other countries if we do not have a UN that can respond effectively, efficiently and quickly. We are all concerned and desire that. We have to have a plan. We have to do something about it. We as parliamentarians must demand that we take that leadership role as Canadians.

I move on to Rwanda. I know members across have heard my speech on Rwanda before. I do not intend to repeat all of that but I do think it demonstrates something that was very graphic to everyone. The genocide that occurred in Rwanda was unbelievable. It is certainly in all of our minds. We saw it because of CNN.

In 1985 I was on an Air France 747 with 20 people. We landed in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. My wife and I got off the plane. The rest said "good luck". I did not really know what they were talking about, but it seemed like we had landed in the jungle, and the plane left. Then we had armed guards around us and we went through the immigration procedure and had all of our medical certificates and documents in order.

As we moved away from the airport we moved into gorgeous countryside that is very similar to what we might see in Belgium.

As I only have two minutes left I would like to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "tragedy" the following: "of genocide."

It would then read the "tragedy of genocide."

As we went through that countryside we saw the markets. We spent close to a month in that country. We were out in the villages, we were travelling with a local Rwandan gentleman who

introduced us to his parents and his relatives. In the markets we saw the salt and the utensils. We saw the barter system. Some people walked 20 and 30 miles to get to the market.

We went to the tea plantations developed by China. We saw the hotels and some of the infrastructure that the Belgians and the French had built. As we got more and more involved in that country we saw some warnings. The NGOs told us there was unrest. The church said there was unrest. The French troops said there was unrest. The United Nations said there was unrest.

I cannot help now thinking, was that what it was like in the period from 1930 when the people knew that something was wrong in Germany?

Obviously genocide is something about which we must all speak. It must be done through the UN, through this Parliament. It is a motherhood topic for all of us.

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

The Chair would like to advise that the subamendment submitted by the hon. member for Red Deer is receivable and accepted.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his subamendment and his vigilance.

As I expected, the government changed the word "genocide" to the word `tragedy". It is not acceptable to us. It is not acceptable to the purpose of the motion.

I thank the hon. member but I noticed he was perhaps missing a couple of minutes. Maybe he could expand on his speech and talk to us a bit more about human rights.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had planned to close with the questions that I believe we as part of the international community must ask, particularly as they relate to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I am sure many years ago they could have applied to Germany or Armenia.

How much intervention would it take to stop what happened? That question has to be asked. In the case of Rwanda, very little. In the former Yugoslavia, probably a lot more. We are probably seeing that now with IFOR.

Second, who should have been responsible? Who is responsible? Are we all responsible? I put forward that we are all responsible for this, that this issue goes far beyond partisan politics, and we are responsible as the world community.

Third, will this happen again? Unfortunately I think the answer is yes. We must deal with this problem. I have suggested the UN is certainly an avenue.

How much external pressure causes this sort of thing to happen? What if there had not been so much external pressure on these countries? I am most familiar with Rwanda. If there had not been the colonial influence of the Belgians and the French, then what? Maybe this is going back to something we cannot have any control over, but we must ask these questions and we must find answers to them for the future. We must look at our history, our past, to understand the future. That is so critical in this whole thing.

I thank the member for the opportunity to complete my remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad I have the opportunity to participate in this debate on genocides, not only the Armenian one, but all those that took place in other countries and are still happening today.

I was listening when the previous member said we should all be concerned. I think he is perfectly right. This is a question of human rights and everybody should be concerned.

As critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I was particularly pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition chose to give the first speech on that motion. I feel it is important for a party leader to state his position and give his point of view on such an important issue.

Last week, I participated with colleagues of all parties in a conference on official development assistance. Some representatives of non-governmental organizations said they were still hoping, after two and a half years of Liberal presence in the House, after two and a half years of Liberal government, for the first speech of the Prime Minister of Canada on the human rights issue. But the Prime Minister will not deliver any speech on human rights. He indicated that very clearly during the first tour of Team Canada in Asia.

At that time, 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". The problem is he did not say when. Will it take 50 years for the walls to come down?

These words show clearly that this government does not consider human rights to be an important issue. However, if we want to deal with poverty in the world, we must consider sustainable development. And the notion of sustainable development encompasses greater issues like democratic development, the participation of populations in their own development, and human rights. We will get nowhere if we think we can help developing countries without taking into consideration sustainable development, human rights, democratic development and the importance that should be given to these concepts.

I am convinced that the tragedy suffered by Jews during the second world war has already been mentioned this morning. I am quite sure that Cambodia was also mentioned because hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Cambodians were killed by the Khmers Rouges.

Maybe we did not talk enough about the Sudan, this forgotten African country which, for the last ten years, has suffered a savage war pitting the north against the south. So far, more than one million people have been eliminated. Yet, nobody talked about the Sudan.

Of course we talked about the former Yugoslavia and the ethnic cleansing there. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about Rwanda and the massacres that took place in that country. Unfortunately, history repeats itself and we do not learn for past errors.

After the last war, the heads of states assembled in San Francisco to create the United Nations said: "No more wars". I am sure they were sincere. However, war continues to be a dreadful scourge.

There is a question related to genocides and human rights which, I think, is too easily ignored. It is the whole question of impunity. Why do we have genocides decade after decade? I think one of the reasons is that the international community has not found an effective way of dealing with people responsible for genocides.

During the last three or four years we have seen the same thing happen in Haiti. We know that 3,000 or 4,000 people were killed. Yet, what happened to General Cédras? He got a pocketful of money and was told to go. The same happened with Duvalier, the previous dictator. For years, dictators inflicted torture on the Haitian people. But when the dictator is finally forced out of power, he does not suffer any consequences.

In the former Yugoslavia, we see people responsible for ethnic cleansing parading in front of television cameras, and the international community seems unable to do anything.

The saddest part of all is that it never stops. There are other hot spots and, regrettably, Canada maintains relations with countries where torture is allowed and practised. We think of China where human rights are systematically violated and freedom of speech is denied: political dissidents are muzzled, human rights advocates are attacked, and so on.

We think of Nigeria where dissidents are eliminated. But we have to point something out here. Because Nigeria is not a very powerful nation, Canada might try to take economic sanctions against it. Will we do the same thing against China? Will we do the same thing against Indonesia? And against Vietnam? We practice double talk, and pay lip service to human rights.

I received recently from the international co-operation minister a paper about the way CIDA intends to promote human rights. It says: "Strengthening the civilian population's role and capacities in order to increase its participation in decision making. Reinforcing democratic institutions. Increasing the qualifications of public officials. Enhancing the capacities of organizations whose functions are to defend and promote human rights. Encouraging leaders to respect human rights more, to govern democratically and to manage public affairs efficiently".

While speeches are being made, while fine statements are issued, the Canadian government, in its foreign policy, is going after one thing only: trade relations. Trade is more important than anything else.

I want to bring up once again the sad case of Tran Trieu Quan, one of my constituents, who was actively involved in the main thrust of Canada's foreign policy. He tried to do business with Vietnam, and has been in prison for two years now. The Canadian government says it is unable to do anything. The Canadian government uses development assistance programs not to promote and defend human rights and to promote economic development, but to promote trade relations. So it is providing about $60 million over a few years in assistance to countries such as Vietnam, not to protect human rights, but in the hope that, in doing so, it will open doors to trade, while it could and should use development assistance budgets to promote and defend human rights all over the world.

It is extremely disappointing that in its foreign policy Canada has so easily given up on what made its glory. What has made the glory of Canada? Development assistance programs, peace missions and human rights defence. The government has simply given up.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today the hon. member for Ahuntsic referred to a monument in Montreal as one the federal government intervened in and did not approve of.

Maybe the member now has a chance to correct the situation and tell us if the premier of Quebec, the former leader of his party, will erect the monument and make sure of the right way of doing it to his colleague, the mayor of Montreal. Would he make that undertaking to the House today?

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

Madam Speaker, it is funny to witness the consummate skills developed by the hon. members opposite. They have developed a kind of automatic reflex so that every time they are faced with a sensitive issue, on which their government refuses to take position, they ask why the Quebec government is not doing something.

Are we not here in the House of Commons? Why should Quebec always take the lead? Is this House, this government, not able to show the way once in a while? But no, the same old reflex always takes over and they turn their attention to the Quebec government.

In their eyes, the Quebec government's lack of involvement in a sensitive matter justifies their own government's inaction. This is a disgrace.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member a chance to correct the situation and put his money where his mouth is. I regret to say that on that side of the House talk is cheap.

A few years ago the province of Quebec passed a resolution about genocide, condemning it. The premier of Quebec a few months ago was to erect the monument in Quebec City or Montreal, wherever it may be in the province of Quebec. They can have more more than one, not just in Montreal.

Why does he not undertake to the House that he will be speaking to the premier of Quebec to make sure he erects the monument, on behalf of all Quebecers, in the province of Quebec so we can all take example from it? Maybe afterward we can put a monument in Ottawa for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Don Valley North, I assume he is about to move to Quebec so he can get elected and exert some influence on the Quebec government. That may be his only way to get involved.

The Quebec government has already passed a resolution like the one we are trying to have passed in this House. The Quebec government has no lesson to receive, especially from the Liberal Party. What we are trying to find out today is if the Liberal Party, the Liberal government will agree to recognize history and to make a commitment without always trying to dodge the issue and have someone else become involved in its place. The ball is now in their court and I hope they will vote in favor of the motion.

I hope they will vote to recognize the Armenian tragedy.

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

Madam Speaker, it almost brings tears to my eyes when I see how members of the opposition now defend the rights of an ethnic community in Quebec. It almost brings tears to my eyes because, in the recent referendum campaign, some of the leaders whom they support said that the referendum was lost because of ethnic groups and rich people in the province of Quebec.

To this day, the former leader of the official opposition, Mr. Bouchard, has not disavowed that statement. I find it strange that opposition members have now become the great protectors of the Armenian community.

If there is living proof here of a member of the Armenian community who looks after his community, it is definitely the hon. member for Don Valley North, who also tabled a resolution in this House to continue to protect the interests of that people.

This government is the one protecting such interests. Moreover, it is strange that a party whose mandate it is to destroy our country would try to teach us lessons in human rights.

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

Madam Speaker, April 24 of this year will mark the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide that took place in 1915 during the First World War. And what a sad anniversary it will be. This first genocide of the 20th century, which would unfortunately be followed by many others, is still today not recognized by the Canadian government. I rise, therefore, in support of this motion to recognize the week of April 20 to 27 as the week to commemorate man's inhumanity to man.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay homage to and to offer my profound sympathy to the Armenian people, especially the 1,540 families of the Armenian community in Laval, who found a welcome in Quebec, where they take part in and contribute to the development of Quebec society.

The genocide of the Armenian people by the Turkish government began on April 24, 1915. That fateful day marked the beginning of this episode in history that ended with over a million people dead and thousands of others deported. It was the first of a series of genocides against peoples, for a people claiming the right to exist runs the risk of being massacred. As proof, we have the Holocaust during World War II, the recent massacres in Rwanda and Burundi, and obviously the situation in Bosnia, all examples showing the risk that those daring to claim status as a people still run in the 20th century.

All these events are a reminder to us that governments all too often use force and violence to repress causes that they do not agree with.

As I mentioned earlier, the genocide of the Armenian people culminated in the death of 1.5 million people and the deportation of over 500,000 others. Not only did the Turkish government almost totally take over Armenia's territory, but it also did not hesitate to destroy a number of religious and educational establishments. The very structures of the Armenian community were therefore destroyed. The rights of Armenians were completely denied, with the goal of eliminating a people that were considered hostile to Turkey.

Memory is often dulled with the passage of time, but democracy must never allow the truth to be denied. This first genocide of the 20th century was and still is a crime against humanity and civilization. Furthermore, in resolution No. 2391 adopted on November 26, 1968, the United Nations declared that genocide was a crime against humanity, and that there is no term of limitation for this crime, regardless of the time or place it was committed.

At that time, of course, there was no UN, and so no country dared clearly denounce the Armenian genocide, no state demanded that Turkey own up to these odious actions.

Today, within a Parliament that is internationally known for its respect of democracy and is quick to proclaim itself a defender of human rights, we have the opportunity to adopt a motion acknowledging the Armenian genocide and to call to mind other genocides throughout history. It is the duty of the international community and of Parliament to clearly condemn such actions, so as to put an end to violence between peoples.

The international community unanimously denounced the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The Nuremberg international war crimes tribunal passed judgment on those responsible for crimes against humanity and civilization.

The Armenian genocide, however, remains unpunished, yet it is an undeniable historical fact. Some states, moreover, have acknowledged this genocide. For instance, on April 10 1980, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide. The legislative assembly of Ontario did the same, also in 1980.

In the 16 years since 1980, close to two thirds of the Canadian population have clearly come to recognize the genocide against the Armenian people. What we are asking of the Government of Canada is that the truth be acknowledged today, no matter how cruel a truth it is.

In its condemnation of the Armenian genocide in a resolution adopted in 1987, the European Parliament stated that "the present Turkish government's refusal to acknowledge the genocide, along with other more recent violations of international law by this country, constitute impassable obstacles to any examination of the future membership of Turkey in the European community".

How can something that seems so clear to the European community not be equally clear to the Canadian government? What is this government waiting for, before it acknowledges and condemns the historical fact of the Armenian genocide?

Today we are marking the 81st anniversary of that genocide. The passage of time is a poor excuse for refusing to take a stand and to condemn these actions. On the contrary; the acknowledgement of the genocide by the states of the international community offers proof that such actions are unacceptable and that no future genocides will occur without an outcry. Canada sees itself as a defender of democracy and human rights. It must condemn this genocide as it condemned the Holocaust.

Finally, I must point out that on November 2, 1948, Canada signed the International convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and this has been in effect since December 2, 1950. There is no statute of limitation for the crime of genocide, and it is not yet too late for the Canadian government to join with the other states that have denounced the Armenian genocide and to show consistency with its past positions, respecting this international convention of which it is a signatory.

The promotion and protection of universally recognized human rights must be our principal motivation in the debate on this motion. Economic interests must not be allowed to dictate our actions when the respect of basic human rights is concerned. By passing this motion, the House will be showing its unwavering support of the respect of individual and collective rights.