Debates of Feb. 15th, 1999

Armenians

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

moved:

That this House:

(a) join the members of the Canadian Armenian community in honouring the memory of the 1.5 million men, women and children who fell victim of the first genocide of the 20th century;

(b) condemn the genocide of the Armenians and all other acts of genocide committed during our century as the ultimate act of racial, religious and cultural intolerance;

(c) recognize the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated;

(d) condemn and prevent all attempts to use the passage of time to deny or distort the historical truth of the genocide of the Armenians and other acts of genocide committed during this century;

(e) designate April 24 of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of this century; and

(f) call on the Government of Canada officially to condemn the genocide of the Armenians and any attempts to deny such crimes against humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Armenian World Alliance for its inspiration to draft this motion as well as Mr. Haig Misakyan and Hratch Tourikian for their support and guidance; also, Mr. Aris Babikian of the Armenian National Federation and Apkar Mirakian of the Canadian Armenian National Committee for their continuous support.

The purpose of this motion is to give official Canadian recognition of the Armenian genocide which started April 24, 1915 and lasted until 1923, during which over 1.5 million Armenians were subjected to systematic extermination through a policy of deportation, torture, starvation and mostly massacre. I would like first of all, just so that we are clear on what is at the heart of this motion, to read the Oxford Dictionary definition of genocide which defines it as “the deliberate extermination of a race or nation”.

The facts of the Armenian genocide are well known and I will not take up the time of the House with a long list of historical references. I would, however, like to point out that this recognition of the death of 1.5 million victims is long overdue.

Parliament passed a motion with regard to this event in April 1996. The motion was, however, changed in a critical manner by dropping the word “genocide” and replacing it with the term “tragic event”. To my mind, the sinking of the Titanic and the great Halifax fire were tragic events. What happened was and is nothing other than genocide and to call it anything else is to deny its existence.

In March and April 1980 the Ontario legislature and the Quebec national assembly passed a resolution asking the Government of Canada to recognize and officially condemn this genocide and the atrocities committed the Ottoman government against the Armenian people. The United Nations recognized Armenian genocide in 1986 and the European parliament voted to recognize this genocide in 1987, as well as the Belgian, Greek, French and Australian parliaments.

I believe that the House made a mistake by trivializing this horrendous act of barbarism and I am disappointed that this motion was not made a votable motion so that the House could take the necessary steps to right this wrong once and for all.

The other section of my motion such as the designation of April 24 as a day of remembrance would I believe be most fitting under the circumstances and it would not involve making it a national holiday.

The condemnation of attempts to deny or distort what happened during the years of the genocide is to ensure that the Ernst Zundels of this world cannot refute what is fact.

As I mentioned, April 24 was the beginning of the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman empire in 1915. On that day 300,000 intellectuals were rounded up from their houses and taken into the desert. The leadership of the community was taken so there would be no resistance to this crime that was to be carried out over the next eight to twelve months.

As a result of this holocaust 1.5 million people were murdered and another 500,000 were deported from their homelands. As of now the crime remains unpunished.

We all know very well what happened to the Jewish population in World War II beginning in 1939. The world was silent. It stood silent while six million Jews were slaughtered. Nobody said a word until the war was over. Why did we have to wait until the number reached six million before we spoke out? Why do we have to wait until the numbers reached 1.5 million before we spoke out? Why can we not make our position known to everyone that this will not be tolerated?

In 1939 when Adolf Hitler was giving his orders to SS units to slaughter the Jewish population he said “Who remembers the extermination of the Armenian people today?” That was on August 9, 1939. Today is February 15, 1999. I hope and pray this House will remember that the message of Adolf Hitler was wrong in 1939.

I and many members of the House have spoken against this genocide. We should continue to do that because it is very important to remember.

I would like to conclude with what has been a rather overused cliché but one I believe is apt under the circumstances, that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

Let us not forget.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to divide my time with the member for Laval West.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to divide the time, I presume equally?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing dispute between people of Armenian and Turkish descent about events that took place during World War I in the Ottoman empire.

We see Armenians in Canada and elsewhere asking for recognition that genocide was committed in 1915 against Armenian populations of Anatolia. This request is often associated with suggestions that restitution should be paid to the Armenians or that territorial adjustments should be made to the existing border between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey has rejected these claims.

On the other hand, we see the Turkish people profoundly hurt by the accusation of genocide. The Turkish government, expressing views of Turkish public opinion in general, reacts sharply against such an accusation. Turkish authorities also fear that the kind of terrorism used in the past by some fanatic Armenian underground organizations to promote their claims could resurface.

In trying to understand the points of view of both sides in this conflict we should always remind ourselves that there was enormous suffering for all the people involved in the 1915 events and that in addition to the death of solders there were literally millions of innocent civilian victims in this conflict on both sides. We have to be respectful of that suffering and therefore tread carefully and avoid making hasty judgments.

There is a tendency nowadays to use the word genocide in a non-technical manner and even sometimes almost as a metaphor. We have all heard expressions like economic genocide or cultural genocide. One should realize, however, that genocide is a very specific crime and a particularly horrendous one. When making an accusation of genocide implied is the fact that there are criminals who are responsible for the crime.

What happened in 1915? Both sides in the dispute have their own parts of view and generally highlight different events. The Turkish side emphasises particularly events at the beginning of World War I. The Ottoman empire entered World War I on November 1, 1914 on the side of the central powers and became automatically at war with the Russian empire.

According to historians favourable to the Turkish side, an Armenian rebellion against military conscription had begun in August 1914, even before the beginning of the war. Particularly in eastern Anatolia, Armenian guerrilla bands organized and obtained some arms and support from Russia. In theory, young Armenian males should have been conscripted into the army along with Muslims, but tens of thousands escaped to join guerrilla bands or fled to Russia, ultimately to fight alongside the Russian army when it marched into Anatolia. The general picture that is created is that of a rebellious Armenian population which had particular affinities with the Russian invading army, one of them being the Christian religion.

One particularly noteworthy episode of this war was the rebellion in and around the city of Van in March 1915 when the imperial Russian army was approaching Van. The uprising quickly took the character of an intercommunal war. Armed Armenian bands attacked Muslims, mainly Kurdish villages. Kurdish tribesmen retaliated by attacking Armenian villages. Victims fell on both sides. The Armenian rebels eventually took control of the city of Van were some 30,000 Muslims perished between February and April 1915 according to Turkish estimates. These events are still commemorated every year in Van. Similar episodes reportedly occurred in other cities and villages as the Russians advanced in eastern Anatolia. The victory for the Russians was also the victory for the Armenians. Large Muslin populations in turn had to flee to central Anatolia.

Armenians focus on particular episodes of the conflict starting in April 1915. On April 24, soon after the events in Van, Ottoman authorities proceeded to arrest some 235 Armenian leaders for activities against the state. This is a date which has a symbolic value for Armenians and they claim that these 235 leaders, the elite of the Armenian society at the time in the empire, were the object of a massacre. This claim is rejected by Turkish authorities.

Soon after, in may 1915, the Ottoman council of ministers ordered the forced relocation of Armenian communities of central, eastern and southeastern Anatolia to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which at the time were Ottoman provinces. The decision was implemented gradually over the next two years. Of the estimated 700,000 Armenians who were thus forcefully relocated, many died due to the manner in which the relocation was taking place at a time when the Ottoman empire was collapsing.

They perished mainly due to disease, harsh weather, exposure and hunger. This is the episode that many Armenians believe constitutes genocide. They portray this deportation as a decision aimed at exterminating the Armenian population in general.

Turkish authorities argue that this was not the case and that although many people died as a result of the relocation it was not intended as a measure to kill Armenians and that there is no proof to that effect. Turkish authorities have argued that the so-called Andonian papers which appeared in the 1950s and attributed genocidal decisions to high Ottoman leaders of the time were simply forgeries, not corroborated by any official documents of the time. On the contrary, they contend that the evidence of the official archives of the time, which are open to historians, reveals that the relocation was intended to be conducted in a humanitarian manner.

What happened after World War I? The armistice that put an end to World War I in 1918 sanctioned the collapse of the Ottoman empire. The empire no longer existed as a sovereign state. Istanbul was occupied by the allies, the ports of northwestern Anatolia by the British, southern Anatolia by the Italians, southeastern Anatolia by the French and the Armenian legion, western Anatolia by Greeks, and northeastern Anatolia by Armenians.

It was in the spring and summer of 1919 that General Mustafa Kemal Ataturk decided to mobilize the country and to wage war against all occupiers, thus laying the foundations of modern Turkey. For all population groups of Anatolia this meant further war. The Turkish army reconquered eastern Turkish cities and territories still occupied by the Armenians and marched north more or less up to the present Turkish borders with Armenia and Georgia.

There was enormous suffering on both sides. There was also immense suffering on the part of innocent civilian populations. The succession of wars and conflicts that took place during this period in that part of the world is staggering. Exact figures of people killed during such a troubled period of history are extremely difficult to determine.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the head of the Armenian delegation set the figure for Armenian losses at 300,000. By 1989, 1.5 million had become the number generally used by the Armenians. Turkish scholars argue that a more realistic figure based on data available would be around 600,000. The same scholars estimate that the civilian Muslim losses during the same period could be between 2.5 million and 3 million people. In any case the figures of those who died, both Armenians and non-Armenians, are very large.

How should Canada respond? What we should do today is to try to encourage reconciliation, tolerance and respect for the suffering of all groups in the region and their descendants for whom these events are not far away in history but unfortunately all too present in their daily lives.

The resolution before the House is not what is needed. It is not helpful in bringing about tolerance, a more dispassionate look at the past, and eventually reconciliation. It asks us to take one side in a matter which is offensive to the other side. If we as Canadians want to be helpful in this respect we should be careful not to exacerbate old and bitter conflicts. We should try to bring closure for the Armenians and Turks and encourage each side to see and recognize the terrible suffering through which the other side went.

It is the sense of government that the House of Commons as an institution should not do anything that would bring new tensions between Canadians of Armenian and Turkish descent.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the members of the Armenian National Committee who are in the gallery, members of the Turkish community who are here, and all those who are watching this issue so carefully. What we have just seen indicates probably how volatile the issue is. We are talking about a time period from 1915 to 1923. Among all parties and all Canadians we find a great deal of misunderstanding and hostility which shows how volatile the issue is.

In reading the documentation on both sides of the issue, one starts to realize how terrible the word genocide is and the type of killing that can go on over religion, various ethnic mixes and so on. We have listened to some of the history and we could get the same history on either side. I was moved by the severity of the information we can read on the issue.

I would like to talk about four points. The first is a motion like this one being dealt with in the House. In the ethnic communities across Canada, of which we are all very proud and which are an intricate part of the country, we so often fail to let them know how the House of Commons works. A motion like this one is put and they actually have hope that their particular area will be dealt with, that they will get something from the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, you have been here long enough to know that will not happen. A motion like this one is not really a debate. It does not put all the issues on the table. It is not coming to any kind of a conclusion. I think that is wrong and is one area we must change in the House of Commons. We must make these things more meaningful because they are so deep in the hearts of the people who are involved.

Second is the issue of genocide itself. We could get out the dictionary and talk about what it is. I probably could bring forward the best meaning from my visit to Bosnia where we went out and actually talked to the people. We went into churches, mosques, bars and restaurants. We stopped little old ladies on the street and asked them what they thought of what was happening.

I was in nine different schools where I asked the students to write in their own words what it meant to be part of ethnic cleansing. I asked them to tell me what their futures were and what would really happen. The words of those kids were pretty touching. They made us cry. If we talk to Serbian children they tell us about the terrible killings that went on and about the 600,000 people who died. They would describe it like it was yesterday, but they were talking about back in 1943.

We could talk to Croat children and Muslim children and they would tell us about things as if they happened yesterday. I will always remember one little girl's face when she was telling me about the killings. She was talking about the killings in 1536 like it was yesterday. That is what genocide is all about.

Whether we are talking about the Roman empire, the Greeks, Napoleon, the Vikings, the African tribes, the first world war or the second world war or whomever, we will find incidents of what we would classify as genocide, a holocaust. Whatever words we use they are all horrible.

In parliament we often have a double standard in the way we think about things. Quite often we do not have all the information. Every time I hear that our prime minister or foreign affairs minister has visited Cuba again—I know about the horrible human rights abuses in that country—I get mad because of that standard. People are being persecuted in Cuba.

I read all the material and to try to put some real meaning to it I took some quotes at random from either side. I heard things like: “People fled with whatever property they could carry. On the road they were robbed, the women were repeatedly raped and then the men were killed. Women and young children were then killed systematically. My mother's cousin, with her child still nursing at her breast, was shot. Later that still nursing baby was killed with a bayonet”. That is genocide. That is horrible. All of us would say that is inhuman. We cannot let that happen.

When we talk about this sort of thing, it is the human issues we are talking about. I can see why people feel so emotional about them and why they remember 1915 and why they remember 1536 and so on. The events are so horrible that they would undoubtedly change people who witnessed them for the rest of their lives and it would be passed on from generation to generation.

It is time to move on. We need to get all the information on the table, whether it is the Armenian-Turkish situation, what happened in World War II or what happened in Nanking, China, when the Japanese came. Wherever it happened it is time to get historians to put all the cards on the table. In a House like ours we look at the history but most important we move on.

Canada has an important world role. We are members of almost everything. We are members of all important organizations and have a very important role in them. The level of respect for Canadians gives us that role. Our role is one of a negotiator. We are good at that. It is one thing we can do well.

Canada has a role whether it is solving the problem of the Armenian-Turkish-Ottoman crisis that is so real to people, or whether it is something between India and Pakistan, between Israel and Palestine, in Sudan between the north and the south and 43 years of war, or north Korea and south Korea. The list goes on and on.

I could talk about the genocide and the killings on both sides, but if there is one message to send it is what should Canadians be doing in foreign affairs. I do not believe a soft power approach is the way to go. I do not believe in simply waiting and seeing what happens, kind of coasting along and making grandiose statements about people and so on.

Let us do something. Let us not let the Rwandas happen. Let us not let the Kosovos happen. Let us take an active role and let us back it up with a modern, well mandated military that knows what it is doing. Let us back it up with some power. We need to do some real reform of how we look at the UN and of how we handle all these issues. It is diplomacy. That is what it is about.

As Canadian politicians we should be putting forward, instead of more conflict, an academic approach to the records. Some of these countries will not even open up their records or files so we have to do that. If there is one message it is that we must move on.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to the motion by the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt on recognizing the Armenian genocide.

This motion allows the Bloc Quebecois to reiterate the position it has stated many times before in this House, which is that it should recognize the existence of the Armenian genocide and add its voice to those of other parliaments affirming this genocide.

The Bloc Quebecois in fact, through the voice of its member for Ahuntsic at the time, Michel Daviault, initiated a major debate on this issue in April 1996, when we devoted an entire opposition day to this matter and tried to convince the members of the House to accord such recognition.

My colleague, the member for Laval East, has since then, in both 1997 and 1998, drawn attention to this unfortunate anniversary of the genocide, which falls on April 24 each year. So, the members of this House and all interested individuals and groups will not be surprised that we in the Bloc Quebecois support Motion M-329.

We support it because it is part of a movement whose aim is not to rewrite history or revise it, as some claim or would claim, but to commemorate it. The great moments of history must be commemorated, but so must its darkest moments, and the Armenian genocide is one of the darkest moments in the history of humanity.

It must not be forgotten, and must not be obliterated from people's memory. This Parliament, like the National Assembly and the Ontario legislature, must write a page in history by giving recognition to the Armenian genocide. Parliament must take the route traced by other parliaments in the international community, the Russian Duma, the Israeli Knesset and more recently the French National Assembly and the Belgian senate as well as the supranational institution that is the European parliament.

It is a page of history the successors to the Ottoman Empire would like us to forget, which the Turkish ambassador to Ottawa presented to me in a different light. I listened to him. I read the documents and commentaries he provided me with, but I also read and reread the testimonies of Armenians about the genocide of which they say they were victims.

I spoke to Garine Hovsepian, who was one of my students in the past and is now studying law in the United States. She is of Armenian origin and has told me of the sufferings of a people which, like so many others, has had to disperse all over the world, reinvent itself, create a diaspora. That dispersion was not ended with the creation of an Armenian state in 1918, and its rebirth in 1991. This created a land for the Armenians, a place for them, but did not bring back the dead, it did not erase the memories of the massacres of children, women and men.

The memory of the massacre in which 2.5 million Armenians met horrible deaths between 1915 and 1923 continues to shock the conscience of humanity 84 years later. What continues to shock that conscience, as do the more recent atrocities committed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia or Kosovo, is the barbary of that massacre. It was described in one of the most eloquent and credible descriptions of the Armenian genocide by the allied powers in a statement made on July 17, 1920, which has been kept in the French national archives:

The Armenians were massacred in conditions of incredible barbarity. During the war, the Ottoman government's actions in terms of massacres, deportations and mistreatment to prisoners went far beyond anything it had ever done in these areas.

It is estimated that, since 1914, the Ottoman government has massacred, under the untenable pretence of a presumed revolt, 800,000 Armenian men, women and children, and deported more than 200,000 Greeks and 200,000 Armenians. The Turkish government has not only failed to protect its subjects of non-Turkish origin against looting, violence and murder, but a large body of evidence indicates that it also took a hand in organizing and carrying out the most ferocious attacks against communities which it was its duty to protect.

After hearing the hon. member for Brampton Centre, who often speaks on behalf of the Armenian community in the House, refer to the Der-zor River, a historic site for Armenians scattered around the world, as a place where bones and human remains lie under a mere six inches of sand, there is no choice but to demand that responsibility be taken a step further, by acknowledging this fact as others did, such as Germany following the Holocaust, making an act of contrition and taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure this is not devoid of any real meaning.

It is not for me to elaborate, because I realize the frustration of people, who wish this chapter in history had never been written, are not proud of what their ancestors did and the fact that their government denies these crimes were ever committed, and take refuge in silence, something they should not feel duty bound to do, no matter how strong their sense of solidarity is. However, it is my duty and it is the duty of the Bloc Quebecois to make a statement of principle that crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity must be recognized. This will heal the deep wounds, help the victims of genocide make their peace with those they hold in contempt and help those who, generation after generation, have been held in contempt to cast off the burden of history.

As an internationalist, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the crime of genocide, as a concept, has long been accepted in international law. The Turkish government cannot hide behind that fact there was no word in the League of Nations terminology between 1919 and 1923 to describe it—the term was coined in 1944 by a Polish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin—to contend that the crime was not committed. Did one of the first resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1946, not state that genocide was a crime under international common law and thus may have been committed even before it was decided to give it that name?

Furthermore, this is in no way altered by the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which we celebrated even more solemnly than that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 9, because it codifies the existence of a crime and provides the legal framework by which states agree to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

A recorded division on this motion would show every member of the Bloc Quebecois in favour. They were hoping to be able to vote on a motion that government members had not watered down, the way they did in 1996, relegating the genocide of the Armenians to the status of a tragedy. They would not be afraid of offending the Turkish government, which must face up to history and prepare to enter the 21st century by recognizing the first genocide of the 20th century. For they know, as do the Turks and many other nations, that although the truth hurts, it also frees nations to grow, to mature, to be appreciated.

Nor are they afraid to say to the other countries of the world that the existence of nations, on whatever continent, must never be threatened, that nations and their cultures enrich humanity's common heritage. They will not be afraid to say that this is also a question of justice and freedom, about which Albert Camus wrote the following, “If humanity fails to reconcile justice and freedom, it has failed at everything that matters”.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise to strongly support the motion which has been placed before the House today by my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt, not only speaking on my own behalf but on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus. In doing so I want to pay tribute to the ongoing leadership of the Armenian National Committee of Canada which has kept this issue alive through a number of parliaments. Today we are joined by a number of of representatives of the Armenian National Committee and I want to salute them: Giro Manoyan, Rouben Kouyngian, Sylvia Baronian and Aris Babikian. It is important to acknowledge these individuals for the leadership they have shown on this issue, along of course with others such as the president, Girair Basmadjian.

I listened to the debate with interest. I appreciated the eloquent remarks of the mover of the motion. The official spokesperson for the government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was very clear. The Liberal government does not support this motion. That was quite obvious. He was quite up front about that which is no surprise given the position the government took in 1996 on another motion.

I have to confess some bewilderment in listening to the spokesperson on behalf of the Reform Party. He talked about Bosnia. He talked about Rwanda. He talked about the United Nations. He talked about international law. But the one thing he did not talk about was the motion. Did he support the motion or did he oppose the motion? No one in this House and no one in the country knows what the position of the Reform Party is after that speech.

I hope that perhaps another spokesperson, maybe the member for West Vancouver, might have an opportunity to clarify exactly where the Reform Party of Canada stands on this motion, because certainly we did not find out from its official spokesperson.

I was very pleased to hear the Bloc Quebecois member for Beauharnois—Salaberry supporting the motion. I recall clearly the very eloquent speech given by Michel Daviault on the subject in April 1996, during the last debate.

It is clear where most of the parties stand on this issue.

This has been an issue that my colleagues and I have been involved in for some time. I have a motion before the House that states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 perpetrated by the Turkish-Ottoman government, which resulted in the murder of over one and one-half Armenians; designate April 24 as the day of annual commemoration of the Armenian genocide; and press the Government of Turkey to recognize and acknowledge the genocide and provide redress to the Armenian people.

That motion is before the House and it is also before the foreign affairs committee where it will be coming to a vote in the not too distant future.

I had the privilege of travelling to Armenia shortly after the devastating earthquake some years ago. I had the opportunity to meet with leaders of Armenia and to hear of the terrible and tragic legacy of suffering of those people. The greatest tragedy, the greatest suffering and yes, the genocide, was in 1915 to 1923, the first genocide of this dark century, the 20th century, a century in which we also witnessed genocide in other parts of the world, the Nazi Holocaust of World War II, the genocide in East Timor, in Rwanda, in Cambodia and elsewhere.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry quoted French archival material from 1920, which describes exactly what happened in this genocide.

While this was a tragedy, it was far beyond that. It was genocide and it was shameful that in this House in April 1996 when we had an opportunity to tell the truth, to be honest, to speak about what actually happened, instead some Liberal members, speaking on behalf of the government, watered down that motion.

We have to ask why they are taking this position. Could it have something to do with economic relations or trade relations with Turkey? It might just have something to do with the fact that we are trying to sell Candu reactors to Turkey. My goodness, we do not want to offend the Turkish government if it might interfere with the sale of Candu reactors. Good heavens no. We do not want to offend the Turkish government if it might interfere with our sale of military equipment to that country. Of course that has nothing to do with the position the government members are taking.

I want to speak for a moment about the Turkish government. The Turkish government has for too long displayed contempt for international law not just in this area but in too many others. Its contempt has been displayed in its reluctance to apply the principles of international law in its ongoing disputes with Greece; the continued illegal occupation by Turkey of part of Cypress; the profound violation of human rights of the Kurdish people in Turkey; the lack of respect for human rights, individual collective freedoms, attacks on journalists and others, attacks on freedom of religion; the continued imprisonment of elected members of parliament like Leyla Zana and others.

It is time our Liberal government showed some courage and honesty and spoke out on the genocide, condemned the genocide and recognized the truth.

Following the Holocaust of World War II, nations of the world adopted a convention on genocide. Canada was one of the signatories to that convention. Why today are we not prepared to acknowledge the truth of what happened? It is a very straightforward matter. We owe it to the victims of that genocide and to their families. We owe it to all Canadians to ensure that this genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians is never repeated.

Today what we are asking for is the truth. That is all. This parliament has an opportunity today to allow the truth to be told and honesty to be our policy.

In closing, I once again appeal to all members of this House but most importantly to the Liberal government to end their silence and their revisionist history. Listening to the history lesson from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs was an astonishing experience because it flies in the face of reality in that region and denies the truth of the genocide.

On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, it is an honour to join not just with Armenian Canadians but to join with parliaments such as the Belgium Senate, the French National Assembly, the European Parliament, the Israeli Knesset, the Russian Duma and many others that have taken this step. If they can take this step and acknowledge the truth, why can we not do the same in Canada?

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for bringing this important matter to the House of Commons.

One of the great tragedies of World War I was the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman empire. It is another sad episode in the history of modern warfare.

Prior to the wars of the French Revolution in 1792, war was very much a matter of battle between opposing armies. Few civilians were ever killed. There were episodes in every war where cities were sacked and women assaulted after decisive battles outside of city gates, but few civilians were killed.

The wars of the French Revolution changed all that. The past pattern of warfare between small professional standing armies came to an end when the French instituted the conscription of troops in 1793 to fight the Austrians and their allies. The days of the small professional armies manoeuvring across country and only giving battle to punish a strategically placed inferior opponent were over with. Henceforth armies were large, unwieldy mobs of civilians in uniform trying to kill each other and battle was given quite freely.

The advent of the industrial revolution just made warfare far more deadly and machine dependent. Due to the combination of conscription and the industrial revolution, the foundation of a nation's military strength changed. By the 1850s the true foundation of a nation's military strength had begun to rest on the size of its civilian population and its industrial infrastructure. Modern warfare was born.

It took almost the next 100 years to perfect it to a point where in World War II one could argue that civilians and industrial infrastructure had become the real targets. That is the real evil of modern war. In World War I, 20 million people were killed, the majority being soldiers, but in World War II, 50 million people were killed, the majority now being civilians.

Many Canadians know the horrors of the Holocaust and the evils of Nazism, but few Canadians know of the misfortune of the Armenians butchered because they were stuck between the Ottoman empire and the Russians. The decaying Ottoman empire found them to be a threat. The Armenians were an industrious, energetic Christian community awash in an Ottoman Turkish sea. Out of a population of two million Armenians, one and one-half million were killed.

The massacre of civilian populations has always been the ugliest aspect of modern war. The Armenians suffered from what today would be termed ethnic cleansing. The survivors escaped into Russia or faced forced resettlement. Indeed the Geneva protocols were brought forward by like-minded nations to protect civilian populations like the Armenians from the ravages of war. Later the League of Nations attempted to protect civilian populations between the wars. After the second world war, the United Nations took on the challenging job of trying to prevent war and protect civilians.

The terrible truth is that even though we see ourselves as more civilized than our forefathers on this planet, we are not. Every day we hear of the terrible human cost of modern war: Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Croatia, and now Kosovo; where ethnic groups are the targets of the most reprehensible acts known to mankind, places where Canada has always dispatched peacekeepers and peacemakers to end these brutal practices.

Canada sent troops to Rwanda under the command of the United Nations and led by a Canadian, a brave Canadian, Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire. They were forced to witness one of the worst episodes in man's inhumanity to man.

Canadians were also in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia and Croatia and again witnessed unspeakable atrocities, atrocities similar to what one and a half million Armenians suffered. In Sarajevo a group of Canadians led by General Lewis MacKenzie distinguished themselves at an airport trying to help the unfortunate in Bosnia. Again outside a small village in Croatia, in an area known as the Medak Pocket, Canadians attempted to put a stop to ethnic cleansing.

Unfortunately for Canada's badly neglected military, they will likely find themselves soon in Kosovo trying again to protect civilians from harm. Canada has always stood up for those who need our assistance and who could not protect themselves.

The fact that wars, horrible wars, both state on state and state on sub-state or ethnic group continue on this planet is the key reason that the Government of Canada must commit some of its coming budget surpluses to its neglected, cut to the bone military. Indeed, the government must re-equip our forces so that Canada will be able to play a more important role on the world stage in trying to stop the horrors of war and ethnic violence.

The fact that the Armenian people suffered at the hands of a dying empire between 1915 and 1918 is of great sadness to all in this House and to all Canadians. Armenian Canadians have contributed greatly to the fabric of Canadian society and culture and we are all richer for that. It is only fitting that we remember them here today below the chimes of the Peace Tower, and that we take steps to prevent this past tragedy and other inhumanities from ever taking place again.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning prepared to defend the motion made by my hon. colleague for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I was shocked, really shocked, to hear the parliamentary secretary give a speech which lies totally against the truth. I have here an article from the Globe dated January 28, 1916. It speaks of atrocities. I do not know who wrote the speech for the hon. member or what he had for breakfast but it puzzles me that we have people in foreign affairs who can twist the truth the way this gentleman has done.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that it would be quite improper for him to suggest that an hon. member of this House would twist the truth. In any event, the member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt will have five minutes to conclude the debate. I advise the House that if he speaks now, he will close the debate.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in view of my colleague for Brampton Centre and his background, I will ask for unanimous consent that we give him two minutes as well as recognize this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt going to continue with his speech?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with great interest. I know he probably does not believe what he said. I know what he said was probably something that was put in front of him this morning.

Today's Turkish government is 75 years old, having celebrated its 75th birthday. It started in 1922. My colleague kept referring to Turkey Ottoman, Ottoman Turkey. Obviously we can see clearly that the member does not have his facts straight.

The atrocities of that particular time happened by the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire was collapsing. Everybody in that part of the world was committing atrocities. The Armenian genocide did happen. The 350 Greeks of the Black Sea were killed. People were moved. An exchange of population happened.

I wonder, would the hon. member also refute the fact that my ancestors had to flee Anatolia, that my grandfather had to go on a ship and had one arm cut off? If the member refutes that, I will certainly point out to him the December 1922 issue of National Geographic . His picture is there.

Let us not muzzle history. Let us not cover up history. Atrocities happen. The Armenian genocide happened. Is my hon. colleague also going to stand here and say that the atrocities in Warsaw did not happen? Is my hon. colleague going to say the Jews just stood there and took it and they did not defend themselves? The Armenians defended themselves.

Having heard what has been put in front of us, I am really shocked. I am really amazed that history had to be turned upside down and recorded as we see fit.

I stand and ask for unanimous consent for this motion to be recognized as votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House that this motion be made votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.