Debates of May 3rd, 2002

Public Safety Act, 2002

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Marleau)]

I am sorry, but this is not a point of order.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I said it earlier. You did not hear me. I told the member for Bourassa that I have a lot of respect for Lucien Bouchard because he at least was consistent. He did cross the floor of the House because he had certain beliefs. He did not act out of political opportunism.

I could keep on quoting the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. For instance, on April 7, 2000, he said and I quote, “This is why I am saying that this government has no economic or social agenda”.

I will stop here to get back to the subject matter of the bill, because I am convinced that this is what people in Quebec and Canada are expecting of us. They do not expect us to criticize those who are supposed to represent voters. They want us to deal with issues they believe are a priority.

Therefore, I am very happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-55, which replaces the now defunct Bill C-42, which we did criticize and about which we raised several concerns regarding its various provisions.

First, if we look at only one aspect of the bill, the controlled access military zones, we must admit the government heeded the advice of the Bloc Quebecois, which was asking for significant changes to the provisions contained in Bill C-42. Bill C-55 is proof the government accepted the Bloc's arguments and tightened the criteria to create controlled access military zones.

However, several aspects of the bill, as they currently stand, seem to us rather unsatisfacatory, namely those dealing with controlled access military zones, as I mentioned, interim orders and intelligence gathering.

Concerning controlled access military zones, we regret that the minister still retains discretionary power to intervene. It is still the minister who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones, the same minister who forgot to inform his government about the prisoners of war.

We find it rather odd and particularly dangerous to give the minister in charge discretionary power to designate controlled access military zones.

For instance, following the decision by the minister regarding taking prisoners during the recent events in Afghanistan, we believe that discretionary power should not be given to the minister alone.

We also worry about what will happen in Quebec. Contrary to what the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord would have us believe, we have never suggested in this House that the bill could extend to the whole Quebec territory.

He should read all the remarks my colleagues have made on Bill C-55. We are not suggesting that this bill could turn the entirety of Quebec into a controlled access military zone. But the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord must admit that certain areas, environments and lands could become military zones.

I have just listened to questions asked in this House about the Quebec national assembly. The member who mentioned the risk that the area around the national assembly be designated a controlled access military zone is not a Bloc Quebecois member.

There is an undeniable danger, and all the more so because military zones are designated at the discretion of the minister, and nothing in the bill provides that the approval of the Quebec government is needed. Therefore, Quebec's approval is not always required for the designation of controlled access military zones in Quebec.

As I said before, not only are a lot of powers in the hands of a single man, pursuant to the discretionary power stipulated in the bill before the House, but there is nothing to ensure that provinces will be consulted when such zones are established.

In areas not under federal jurisdiction and where the designated area is not on crown lands but somewhere in Quebec, we would like the government of Quebec and the rest of the provinces to give their approval beforehand.

The discretionary power to determine the size of these military zones has not changed much. It is still left to the discretion of the minister.

Bills C-42 and C-55 have something in common. The criteria for the designation of these military zones are again left at the discretion of the minister. That is rather worrisome.

Another matter of concern, and maybe the most important aspect of the bill that I will address, is that the government will not allow any action for damage by reason only of the designation of acontrolled access military zone or the implementationof measures to enforce the designation.

Since the Speaker is indicating that I only have two minutes left, I will conclude.

This is a serious issue. The Privacy Commissioner told us so. He said, and I quote “Some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

I shall therefore table an amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-55, seconded by the hon. member for Laval Centre.

I move:

That the amendment be modified by adding after the word “principles“ the following:

“that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are”.

I am therefore pleased to table this amendment to the amendment.

I close with my wishes for a thorough reflection on this, and for the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord to come on side with the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in order to lend this bill greater transparency and greater protection for the public.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has considered the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie and has found it to be in order.

Therefore, the new motion reads as follows:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it.

The debate will proceed on the amendment to the amendment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my views on the tragic events that made so many victims from 1914 to 1925, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and that so deeply affected the—

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are presently on Bill C-55. We just had a subamendment tabled by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. I believe the hon. member is referring to another matter that will be debated later this day.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to return to the House and speak to the amendment to the amendment put forward by the member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie. This amendment alone sums up well the concerns those of us on this side of the House have about Bill C-55. These concerns are shared by many people outside this House and even by our colleagues across the way.

I will not comment further on the fact that the Liberal member for Mount Royal has himself expressed very serious reservations about the potential threat to human rights and freedoms represented by Bill C-55.

As I said, for a Liberal colleague to dare to ignore the rigid party line on this issue must certainly set off a few warning bells for us and cause even greater concern.

But, before going any further, I wish to take a few moments to comment on the remarks made by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, who supposedly came to the House to support Bill C-55 and who, once again, could not resist spewing his venom on other parliamentarians, this time the Bloc Quebecois members in particular.

As everyone knows, insults are the weapons of the weak. And the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has not been without quite a stock of them during his long political career. The Progressive Conservative, Independent, Liberal member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has often used this means of arguing his point of view. He has built up a long list of insults, and I am going to refresh our memory with some of them now just to show how consistent the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has been. Here are a few gems. On November 29, 1999, he said:

Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada.

On March 20, 2000, not all that long ago, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord said:

How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?

How? Probably by joining his ranks. Perhaps the best way of getting rid of a Prime Minister is from inside the tent. If I were the Prime Minister of Canada, I would be asking myself some very serious questions and I would also be worried.

On the topic of federal-provincial relations, he said on April 7, 2000, and I quote:

The federal government sees itself as the father of all provinces, which it views as big municipalities. It is contemptuous.

On poverty, he stated on March 20, 2000:

In the seven years since the Liberals took office, poverty in families and child poverty have gone up 50%.

On November 30, 1998, he said:

I see that the government does not know where to start in the fight against poverty.

On the constitutional debate, still referring to his good friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, he stated on December 15, 1999:

He is the one who cooked up that procedure one night at the Chateau Laurier, a concerted effort by the federal government and nine Canadian provinces to crush Quebec, to marginalize it, to strong-arm it.

So, when they talk of the charter of rights and freedoms, the 20th anniversary of which was celebrated on April 17, the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord forgets to remind us of what he said in 1999 about the terrible night of the long knives.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member's speech is very interesting. However, I believe that there is a rule of relevance in this House and I am asking the Chair to enforce it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We do have a rule of relevance. It is a very generous rule that many members do stretch sometimes in their introduction.

They eventually come back to the relevant subject, but they must be given a certain latitude. It is just like an elastic. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that I managed to get the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport out of his lethargy.

I would remind him that, when I spoke earlier, I made a connection between the charter of rights and freedoms, the 20th anniversary of which the members across the way were celebrating a few days ago, and the fact that Bill C-55 threatens this same charter of rights and freedoms. You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned in my previous remarks that, in connection with the charter of rights and freedoms, some have a tendency to forget to mention the shameful events surrounding the unilateral patriation of the constitution, a view that was obviously shared by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord when he stated, on December 15, 1999, “He [the Prime Minister] was also, along with Mr. Trudeau, behind the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982, despite the near unanimity of the national assembly against it”.

I will go even further. Regarding the unfair and revolting Bill C-20, the so-called clarity bill, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, at a time when he had more spine, stated, on February 22, 2000:

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure...Arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

On March 20, he said:

—the wondrous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—

I hope that he has since patched things up with him.

—found a means for getting a bill passed for the sole purpose of disgusting everybody in Quebec and showing the rest of the country “Here we are teaching Quebecers a lesson, here we are putting them in their place”.

It did not take him long to change his tune, because only a few months later, he became a Liberal member. It appears as though he liked being taught a lesson, and now he seems to want to teach Quebecers a lesson himself.

I could go on and read pages and pages more like this, but I do not want to unduly embarrass my colleague from Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I would like to provide my colleague the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport with an opportunity to return to his coma, and all my other colleagues a few moments to focus on Bill C-55, currently before the House.

In my earlier remarks, I talked about the very serious concerns raised by Bill C-55 in terms of respect for the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and, more recently, by the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.

For example, when the Minister of Defence is given the authority to designate, on his own, security zones, the size of which is not defined, around military establishments or equipment, when we think of the powers that are given to cabinet members and even to bureaucrats—people who are not accountable under the principle of ministerial responsibility, which the Patriotes fought for in 1837-1838 and won since we have this responsible government today—that constitutes a very serious violation of democratic freedoms.

As I was saying earlier, the same applies to personal information regarding air travelers to which CSIS and the RCMP will have access. This bill raises very serious concerns.

I urge all members of the House, including Liberal members who share our views but who cannot speak up because of the very hermetic, monolithic and strict party line imposed by the Liberal Party, to make their views known and to encourage the government to go back to the drawing board, as it did with Bill C-42, and come up with a bill that is much more acceptable than this one in terms of respect for rights and freedoms.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to thank the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for adhering to the rule of relevance.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Armenian People

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

moved:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

Mr. Speaker, over the next hour we will debate the following motion:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

As members must surely be aware, a large and vibrant Armenian community has been established for decades in Quebec and Canada. Most of its members have parents or grand-parents who survived their people's genocide, which occurred at the time of the fall of the Ottoman empire, between 1915 and 1920. Over one million Armenians were killed because of their ethnic origin. Yet Canada has never recognized that genocide. It prefers to refer to it as a tragedy. Why is the Canadian government so overcautious?

We can only speculate. Maybe the Armenian diaspora living in Canada is not large enough Yet there are over 100,000 Armenians living in Canada, with 60,000 of them established in Montreal and Laval, and the rest of them living in the Toronto area.

The word genocide, which is central to this motion, was used for the first time by the Polish jurist, Raphael Lamkin, in 1943. Here is how he defined the word:

By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group...In general, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. It means, rather, a co-ordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, unanimously adopted in 1948 by the United Nations general assembly and ratified by Turkey, defines the legal rules. Thus, the UN definition of genocide reads as follows:

Deliberately inflicting on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

On August 29, 1985, the Armenian genocide was recognized by the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights.

But the federal governement's position remains an exercise in rhetoric. Since 1993, it has referred to tragic events instead of genocide. It would be unfortunate if this government refused to officially recognize the Armenian genocide because of significant economic interests in Turkey, such as the sale of Candu reactors.

Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the members of the House have addressed the issue of the recognition of the Armenian genocide on a number of occasions. It is increasingly obvious that the people of Quebec and Canada recognize this chapter of our common history, and it is important that the House assume its moral and civil responsibility by recognizing it also.

Since 1993, six petitions coming from different areas of Canada and Quebec and asking for the recognition of the genocide were presented. These petitions show that, as citizens of Quebec, of Canada and of the world, we are all concerned about the Armenian genocide.

Many motions, introduced by hon. members, have drawn the attention of the House to this issue. On April 23, 1996, the hon. member for Ahuntsic moved, during a Bloc Quebecois opposition day, that the House recognize, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide that took place on April 24, 1915, the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week to commemorate man's inhumanity to man.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre amended the motion by changing the word genocide for the word tragedy. The motion as amended was adopted, which clearly demonstrates the Liberals' inability to recognize reality.

Since then, parliamentarians on both sides of the House presented motions on the genocide. All of them were not deemed votable. But this in no way alters the gut feeling we have that we must continue to demand that the Armenian genocide be recognized as such, in the interests of the Armenian people and of our duty to recognize and respect the truth.

Did the Armenian genocide really happen? Although some people deny it, internationally recognized historians whose reputation is well established have confirmed that the events that occurred between 1915 and 1920 do in fact constitute a genocide.

Approximately two million Armenians lived in Anatolia, near the Russian border, and many were scattered all over the Ottoman Empire. After war was declared in 1914, Armenian units fought next to the Russians in the Caucasus, which constituted a threat for the Turks.

Armenians were considered as enemies within by the authorities, following the intercommunity conflicts of April 20, 1915.

Armed agression by the Turks against the Armenians caused 18 deaths among the Turks. The uprising gave them the perfect excuse for the night raids, pillage and mass murders that happened five days later on the western border.

On April 25, at dusk, they set out to arrest hundreds of Armenian journalists, artists, intellectuals, lawyers, professionals, business people and clerics who were taken away and shot. During the two following years, close to one million innocent defenseless Armenians were killed or died from cold or sickness, in camps or in the Syrian desert where they had been deported. That represented half of the entire pre-1914 population.

The chief of police of Constantinople, Bedri Bey, had planned the operation for the night of April 24 to 25. His objective was clear: to get rid of the Armenian elite. That night and the following days, 600 persons were thrown in prison and were unable to alert the international community about the massacre that was taking place.

The internationally acclaimed British historian Arnold Toynbee says that about two out of three Armenians living in the Ottoman empire were killed or died during deportation. The official Ottoman census showed that, in 1914, 1,295,000 Armenians lived in the Ottoman Republic and, in 1919, the Turkish minister of the interior himself admitted that the number of deaths was 800,000. Nowadays, Toynbee's figure is the one we recognize.

The Armenian genocide actually took place. It was deliberately orchestrated and planned by a government that, by way of a legislation dated May 27, 1915, authorized the deportation of Armenians, thereby endorsing, insidiously however, the massacre of more than one million people. This deportation was a legal cover, and the death orders were given secretly.

The final destination of the deportees' long journey being the Deir ez-Zor desert in Syria, not the green banks of the Euphrates, how is it possible not to recognize that the specific goal of this deportation, moreover under these climatic conditions, was the final solution, that is, death?

Apparently, on August 22, 1939, when announcing to the military leaders meeting in Obersalzberg that he was about to invade Poland, Adolph Hitler stated that after all, nobody remembered the extermination of the Armenians. This statement of the dictator shows that things that go unsaid, even the most horrendous, do not exist.

Is it really surprising, then, to see, 20 years later, that some members of the German mission in Constantinople, after having advised the Turkish authorities on the deportation of the Armenians in 1915, applied the final solution to the Jews?

Ever since genocide was recognized as a crime against humanity, some fear that the term “genocide” may have become misused and abused to describe crimes that do not tally with the definition. But what is the real situation? Most experts on the crimes against humanity agree that in the 20th century, there have been three or even four genocides.

The first one was of course the Armenian genocide. The second one was the Holocaust. The third happened in Rwanda, where it is estimated that 800,000 moderate Tutsis and Hutus were killed in 1994. And the last is in reference to the events in Bosnia, where the pattern of massacres was likened to a genocide without being officially recognized as such.

Each case, as specified in the definition of genocide, involves the notion of “deliberately inflicting on a national, ethnic, racial or religious group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, in whole or in part”.

Since its inception, the Bloc Quebecois has always officially recognized the Armenian genocide and promoted its recognition in the House of Commons. The Quebec national assembly and the Ontario legislature also recognized and condemned it a long time ago.

Canada is lagging behind in this issue. Many states do recognize the Armenian genocide. In the United States, the states of New York, Massachusetts, Delaware and California have recognized it.

Many other democratic jurisdictions, including Lebanon, Greece, Russia, Bulgaria, Belgian and Cyprus, took a stand on this matter. They all recognized the Armenian genocide.

It is the same for New South Wales in Australia, Italy, Uruguay, Argentina and Sweden. Interestingly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European parliament both recognized the Armenian genocide. Just over a year ago, on January 18, 2001, the French national assembly did the same. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to show political and social courage.

Besides the political recognition by these states and international organizations, I have to mention the following statement, which Pope John Paul II made on November 27, 2000. The message is pretty clear. Among other things, he said:

The extermination of a million and a half Armenians, generally considered genocide, and the annihilation of thousands more under a totalitarian regime are tragedies which must still live on in the memories of the present generation.

On June 10, 1999, the member for Halton, in a statement to the House on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, set out our government's position on this genocide. He said:

We remember the calamity afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities which included massive deportations and massacres.

Of course, a genocide is a tragedy, but so is an earthquake, the September 11 attack or a famine. The definition given in that statement by the hon. member for Halton fully reflects that of a genocide according to the UN definition, but it avoids the ignominious word.

Here is further proof that this government is sitting on the fence by choosing meaningless words to avoid the reality, while making believe that it is sympathetic to this cause. Here is an excerpt from a letter the Armenian community received from the Prime Minister on April 24, 2001.

I am honoured to extend my sincere greetings to all those participating in the activities commemorating the 86th anniversary of the calamity suffered by the Armenian community... Let us thus be reminded how important it is to work together to eliminate intolerance and fanaticism wherever it appears.

“Calamity”, “tragedy”, the government certainly had time, over a period of 87 years, to consult a dictionary of synonyms to use an emphatic term to replace the only word that truly reflects the reality: “genocide”. The true calamity is the attitude of a government that chooses to erase from history the first genocide of the 20th century.

While it is important to work together to eliminate intolerance, as wished by the Prime Minister, I would suggest to him that his government should avoid using meaningless terms, so as to give back their full dignity to the descendants of these victims.

Denying the word will not erase the memory of a people marked in its very identity. Denying the genocide strengthens among Armenians the feeling of injustice to their ancestors. It kills the hope of recognition by others and, more importantly, it gives support to the idea that the genocide is just a myth. Is this how the Prime Minister thinks he is working to “eliminate intolerance and fanaticism wherever it appears”? Or is he himself, with this double language, taking part in the cleansing of History? Will Canada continue to condone this war crime for a long time?

In light of this government's lack of action, how not to believe that diplomatic representations based on economic considerations could have a bearing? How can one explain the fact that many European countries had the courage to take such action?

It is interesting to see that there is a surprising trend in the statistics on trade between Turkey and those countries which have recognized the genocide. For most of the countries like Belgium, France, Russia, Argentina and even Greece, bilateral trade has increased since they have recognized the genocide. For example, Greece recognized it in 1996 and, in 1997, the value of its bilateral trade almost doubled.

Turkey and Canada enjoy friendly relations, which would certainly not be jeopardized if Canada were to recognize the reality of Armenian history. Today's Turkey is not the former Ottoman empire.

The genocide was perpetrated by the Ottoman empire, before the republic came into being. It is impossible to hold the current regimes responsible for that, unless the Turkish state itself admits its own responsibility.

Silence is a crime that trivializes the collective memory. To escape this unfortunate facility, which would take the focus away from the historical events, the Armenians in Canada and Quebec commemorate April 24. We owe it to them to acknowledge their history, since it is also our own.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing her views concerning the events of 1914 to 1925, during the closing years of the Ottoman empire, which claimed so many victims and had such a devastating impact on the Armenian people and other peoples in the region.

As hon. members are aware, this was a period of history when so many atrocities were committed and many people suffered. Millions were forcibly displaced, causing much suffering and many deaths.

On a number of occasions, our government has compassionately expressed its sincere sympathy for the sufferings of the Armenian people at that time. I would like to quote an excerpt from a personal message from the Prime Minister to the Canadian Armenian community on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Armenian tragedy of 1915.

Canada recognizes and deplores the fact that a great number of Armenians were killed during the wars which marked the end of the Ottoman empire and extends its sympathy to the Armenian Community. Following the war, numerous displaced Armenians came to Canada and their contribution, as well as that of their descendants, has greatly enriched Canadian society. It is my hope that the memories of the past will serve to remind us of the importance of tolerance and respect for the diversity of our people

I would also like to remind hon. members that this House passed a motion during the 1996 debate on the Armenian tragedy, recognizing the week of April 20 to April 27 each year as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

As hon. members are also aware, after indepth consultations, the position of the Government of Canada toward these events was set out by the hon. member for Halton on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a statement on June 10, 1999 before the House.

I would also remind hon. members of the response given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House this past April 18, to a question by our colleague, the hon. member for Brampton Centre. The minister said the following:

As he will recall, the government and the Prime Minister on many occasions have expressed the sympathy of our government and our people for the tragedy that occurred to the Armenian people with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

It is very clear, from all these statements, that we share the remembrance of these painful times and attach great importance to ensuring that remembrance of this human tragedy remains in our collective memory and that future generations know of it.

Canada has always been a land of hope for the millions of immigrants who have settled here and who will continue to do so in a spirit of renewal and reconciliation. Our diversity remains one of our country's great assets. It is this diversity which helps us not only to forge economic, political and cultural ties with the rest of the world, but also to project and promote our ideals and our values, such as tolerance, respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

We are all working hard to make sure that these values are reflected in the work of international organizations and in the mechanisms created in order to prevent a recurrence of the horrors of the past and to protect human rights.

We can speak with considerable credibility in international forums, such as the United Nations and OSCE, about the potential for persons of different nationalities and cultures to live together in peace and security.

In the same vein, how could we fail to mention the recent 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? This is another example of the importance we attach as a nation to the protection of human rights.

Canada has consistently supported the development of international instruments to promote and protect human rights and the rule of law. We are particularly proud of the leadership role played by Canada in promoting important international initiatives such as the Ottawa convention and the International Criminal Court.

I would also like to say a few words about the importance Canada attaches to establishing productive, indepth, positive bilateral relations with all countries in the region, including Turkey and Armenia.

A stable and prosperous region, where reconciliation has triumphed and where mutual trust reigns, will lead to positive developments which will have an impact outside the immediate borders of the countries concerned, for the benefit of all, including Canada.

In conclusion, the tragic events of 1915 remind us that today more than ever it is important to encourage tolerance and reconciliation between peoples so that past tragedies, such as the one which so devastated the Armenian community, will never recur.

I would add that we must also look to the future, for what happened in the past must not be an obstacle to reconciliation, peace and prosperity.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for having moved the motion.

The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, characterized by the mass slaughter of innocents based solely on their race, religion or ethnicity on an unprecedented scale. What Pope John Paul II has called the century of tears saw the deaths of millions of Ukrainians at the hands of Stalin, the Shoah in which six million European Jews were exterminated by Hitler, the killing fields of Cambodia, and more recent tragedies in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The first modern genocide was the attempted mass extermination of Armenians in the former Ottoman empire, which began in April 1915. The Armenian genocide was very much a modern 20th century genocide made possible by the ideology of nationalism and the technology of mass warfare. The Ottoman empire had seen coexistence between different ethnic and religious minorities for many centuries but it was also an absolutist empire which became in the 19th century a cauldron of nationalist discontents.

In 1908 the young Turks movement seized power and transformed the Ottoman empire into a constitutional state. At first this change was welcomed by the empire's ethnic minorities, but their attempts to achieve autonomy led to nationalists on the Committee on Unity and Progress seizing power in 1912.

Turkish nationalists saw the presence of Armenians as a challenge to their desire to build an ethnically pure Turkish state on the Anatolian peninsula and to pursue a pan-Turkish empire in Central Asia. The loss of Ottoman territories in the Balkans to the Russians made the young Turks even more nationalist in their orientation.

Furthermore the young Turks led the Ottoman empire into an alliance with Germany against Russia in the first world war. The presence of over two million Christian Armenians between Muslim Turkey and Orthodox Christian Russia seemed like a potential internal threat.

With the outbreak of war, the young Turks decided to take action to solve what they called the Armenian question once and for all by a systematic policy of deportations and ultimately, mass slaughter; in a word, by genocide.

Young Armenian men like those in the rest of the empire were conscripted en masse into the Turkish army. Through the fall and winter of 1914 Armenians fought bravely on the front, even while at home anti-Armenian pogroms were being carried out by the young Turks' secret service and irregular units called chetes .

Starting in February 1915 Armenian troops were segregated into unarmed labour battalions to end the possibility of armed resistance. That same month Talaat Pasha, the interior minister, told the German ambassador that Turkey intended to use the cover of war to settle the Armenian question once and for all.

In March 1915 mass deportation of Armenians from the town of Zeitun to the deserts of central Turkey and Syria began. Local Armenians supported the Russian army taking a particular town, which then gave the government the pretext to begin mass deportations and slaughter on an unprecedented scale in history.

On April 24 and April 25 in Constantinople and elsewhere, some 650 Armenian religious leaders, intellectuals, politicians and businesspeople, in other words the entire leadership of the Armenian community, were arrested, were deported or were murdered in the following months. Meanwhile ordinary Armenians in Constantinople were butchered in the streets and in their homes. Orders went out by telegraph to begin mass deportations of Armenians on a precise and scheduled timetable co-ordinated by the secret service.

The massacres followed a common pattern. The Armenians in a community were rounded up. It was announced that they would be deported. By the hundreds and thousands they were then marched, often barefoot and without food, into the deserts. Many died on the long marches. Finally they were herded into concentration camps, where they starved or died of thirst in the burning sun. On the Black Sea Armenians were often loaded onto barges and drowned. Over the next year and in further massacres after the war in 1922, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed.

There is no question that this was genocide, the first true genocide of the 20th century. Indeed the United Nations War Crimes Commission in 1948 said that the Armenian genocide was “precisely one of the types of acts which the modern term crimes against humanity is intended to cover as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals”.

The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 stated that acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such constitute genocide. The legal scholar who coined the term genocide, Rafael Lemkin, said that it applied to what the Turks did to the Armenians and the Germans did to the Jews.

It is hard to grasp the systematic slaughter of one million people, so let me focus on one tragedy: the slaughter of Armenian Catholics in the town of Mardin in June 1915. Their bishop, Ignatius Maloyan, was beatified by Pope John Paul II last October at a ceremony that I was privileged to attend in Rome.

On April 30, 1915 Turkish soldiers surrounded the Armenian catholic church in Mardin, falsely accusing the church of hiding arms. On June 3 Turkish soldiers dragged Bishop Maloyan in chains to court with 27 of his colleagues. A kangaroo court was held on charges of arms smuggling. During the trial the chief of police asked the bishop to convert to Islam. He said he would never betray his faith. The chief hit him on the head with the rear of his pistol and ordered him put in jail. The bishop was beaten savagely by soldiers crying out “Lord have mercy on me” with each blow. After they had finished beating him, the soldiers extracted his toenails.

On June 10 the soldiers gathered the bishop along with 446 other Armenian prisoners and marched them into the desert in a convoy. The bishop encouraged his parishioners to remain firm in their faith. They prayed together and the bishop celebrated the Eucharist with a single piece of bread.

After a two hour walk, hungry, naked and chained, the soldiers attacked the prisoners and killed them before the bishop's eyes. Finally they came for him. The police chief asked Maloyan again to convert to Islam. The bishop answered “I have told you I shall live and die for the sake of my faith and religion. I take pride in the Cross of my God and Lord”. The chief drew his pistol and shot Maloyan.

I relate this story for two reasons, to put a human face on the tragedy and to remind the House that the Armenian people are one of the oldest Christian peoples in the world having converted to Christianity in 300 A.D. and mainly through the Orthodox tradition have maintained it against tremendous challenges, the greatest of which was the genocide of 1915.

Consider these words of some of the contemporary witnesses to these events. The U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman empire, Henry Morgenthau, said:

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversation with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.... I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.

More devastating perhaps is the statement from Count Wolff-Metternich, German ambassador to the Ottoman empire in a July 1916 cable to his chancellor:

In its attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by the destruction of the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to be deterred neither by our representations, nor by those of the American embassy, nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the allied powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the west representing one-half of the world.

These massacres were not happening secretly: the world knew about these terrible events at the time.

Some will question how useful it is to dig up such long buried memories and suggest that supporting this motion would only complicate our relationship with the Turks, our allies within NATO.

In fact, we must honour modern Turkey. It has proven to be a loyal friend of Canada, the United States and Western Europe. It is a democracy that is quickly moving toward an aggressive market economy. It has been able to resist threats from both Muslim fundamentalism and military dictatorship.

But it is precisely because Turkey is a democracy and an ally that wants to have an even closer relationship with Canada and the rest of the western world that we must respectfully ask it to take responsibility for this sad chapter of its history.

Germany spent hundreds of millions of dollars compensating individuals for the Holocaust and two generations educating its children about the horrible genocide against European Jews. It is now Turkey's turn to own up to its past.

Furthermore, the world has a responsibility to remember the horrific events of the Armenian genocide as we remember the six million Jews killed by the national socialists, the 100 million killed by the communist regimes of Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot and others. The 20th century brought a terrible new reality to human history, the reality of genocide. What we saw in the killing fields of Cambodia, the jungles of Rwanda and the mountains of Kosovo had its origins in the Armenian towns and villages of eastern Turkey in 1915. Hitler himself remarked to his SS officers in Poland to continue their massacres of Jews because, after all “who today speaks of the Armenians?”

Let me close by saying that to better understand the past century and to guarantee that its wars and genocide are not repeated, historians need to reintroduce the Armenian genocide into historical consciousness and demonstrate the historical similarities between the genocide and the Holocaust. Any less would deny future generations the knowledge they need to make sure that the horrors of the past are not repeated.

Let us hope the government will accept this motion and that Canada can join many other civilized countries in commemorating this terrible beginning to the tragedies of the 20th century.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily a pleasure but it is extremely important to rise to speak to Motion No. 482 brought forward by the hon. member for Laval Centre. The motion reads:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

Before I go on to debate I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for South Shore have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that all motions and private member's bills be votable. If they were we would have fewer of them and would spend more time on them. It is not because I support or do not support Motion No. 482 that I ask for it to be votable. It is because all motions should be votable. Members could then stand and vote and be accounted for.

I am not a historical revisionist. I do not know if we can correct the mistakes of the past. However we can prevent ourselves from committing the same acts in the future. That is what the discussion and debate should be about.

The sensitivity of the issue cannot be emphasized enough. The suffering of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks is an historical fact. It goes without discussion and without having to lay the burden of proof. The issue is this: Is it important to recognize it today and continue to let the wounds of the past bleed in the future? It is time we allowed the wounds to heal and let people move on with their lives. This should be done with regard to many issues and not only this one.

We learned a number of lessons from World War I and World War II. Our enemies in World War II are now some of our best trading partners. We sit on international joint commissions with people we met 50 years ago on the battlefield. Surely the rest of the world can find a way to do the same thing.

If we brought up every grievance, every massacre and every crime committed against another race of people we would never get to the end of the list. Man is not a perfect creature. Crimes have been committed against humanity time and time again. However is it is the role of parliament to deal with the issue? I am not denying the importance of the issue to many people. However there are other issues we should be dealing with.

We had this discussion earlier regarding national drinking water standards. We could go on and on about the issues not being addressed by the government. I am not saying this is a frivolous or deleterious motion. I am questioning whether it is the role or job of parliament to make a decision about a crime committed 85 years ago.

After 85 years surely there should be a way for people of Armenian or Turkish heritage to put aside the wrongs of the past and worry about how we will live together in the future. I do not know what that way will be. However I do not know how addressing this motion in the Parliament of Canada will contribute to the healing. We may simply be inflaming the issue and contributing to something else altogether.

It is not always important to lay blame. Sometimes it cannot be done. It is important to find a way for not only Armenians and Turks but all Canadians to live together. Let us take a lesson from what happened and not make the same mistake again.

Let us not spend all of our time in the House of Commons trying to right the wrongs of the past and, quite frankly, trying to right the wrongs that occurred on another continent. We have the second and third generations of some of those Armenian families living in Canada. We have the second and third generations of some of those Turkish families living in Canada. Our own ancestors fought wars in the British Isles and there are still people fighting wars between Britain and Ireland. Only now are they starting to be extinguished.

My own ancestors came from Scotland because they lost the war with the British. Surely that should not cause me to hate all the British. Surely we are beyond that. Who was right and who was wrong in the highland clearances does not change the fact that they occurred, nor should it change how I look upon someone in the future. Quite frankly, it is not the sins of our fathers that we need to be concerned with but how we live our lives and how we contribute to society.

For those reasons, I certainly did ask, and it was refused, to have the bill made votable because I think all bills should be votable. However, also for those reasons it would not be a motion that I would tend to support, not because I believe the motion is not important to a lot of individuals but because I do not think that is the role of the Parliament of Canada.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the members would use up the whole hour allocated to private members' business, but seeing that nobody else was asking to speak, I had to get up and say a few words. I would first like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Laval Centre for raising this important issue in the House once again.

Unlike what the previous speaker said, however, I believe that it is most important that parliament take a stand on such an issue. Not that we should rewrite history or think we can rewrite history, not that we can rectify history. We simply want to recognize what happened.

As my colleague from Laval Centre was saying, if history is not recognized, it does not exist. There is nothing more dramatic in the collective memory of a people than when the great moments of its history, happy or tragic, are considered as non events, as never having occurred.

I am in a particularly good position to say this. As everybody knows, a short while ago I submitted a motion to the House. No later than last Friday, I have submitted to the House a new motion asking that a tragic moment of our history be recognized.

As my colleague, the member for Laval Centre, mentioned earlier, the Armenian genocide may well seem like a distant even that took place at the gateway to Asia, and therefore it may seem far removed from us and we may not feel that it affects us much, if at all. However, this is not the case. First, many Canadians are of Armenian descent, and by recognizing the Armenian genocide, this in no way reflects badly on Canadians of Turkish descent, since, as my colleague from Laval Centre said, the Republic of Turkey is not responsible for the former empire, the Ottoman empire.

Obviously, we are concerned because of Canadians of Armenian descent. Incidentally, I have the pleasure of employing here on the hill, a Quebecer of Armenian descent. Which goes to prove that each and every one of us in our respective communities is affected by this issue.

As citizens of this planet, which is getting smaller and smaller as a result of globalization and improved communications, we have a responsibility vis-à-vis the history of humanity. We must record these tragic events that did occur, if but to ensure that human memory strives to avoid a recurrence of them.

I will come back for a few moments to a specific issue. I certainly would not want to give the impression that I am trying to branch off the debate on this fundamental issue of the Armenian genocide to another issue that seems just as fundamental. I simply want to indicate how greatly I am affected by the issue brought to our attention by my colleague from Laval Centre.

I am a Quebecer of Acadian descent. I am proud of my roots, but there is another major, fundamental, undeniable historical event, the deportation, which caused the extermination or disappearance--if I can put it that way--of more than half of the Acadian population at the time. This event is still considered to some extent, in the eyes of history, as a non-event.

It is a non-event, because it has never been officially recognized. No one has taken responsibility for this tragedy. In fact, for a long time, Acadians took the blame or felt they had to take the blame for this, as if they we responsible for what they were subjected to in 1755.

To come back to the issue before the House today, I would like to say that we should not suggest, as some people tend to do about the deportation of the Acadians, that there were reasons for such a horrendous event. Nothing can justify the inhuman and degrading experience Armenians had to go through in 1915 and in the following months.

This is the latest attempt to ensure that this parliament, just like the Quebec National Assembly, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and several European parliaments, does what history and fundamental justice require from us, which is to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was.

Ever since it took office in 1994, the government has used lots of euphemisms to avoid talking about a genocide. Let us find the political courage--which is what our constituents expect from us--to call a spade a spade.

There certainly was a tragedy, a disaster. However, since the definition set out by the government which, as pointed out by my colleague from Laval-Centre, is the exact replica of that definition by the United Nations of what is now called a genocide--because this disaster, this tragedy in light of the definition put forward by the government and the UN actually is a genocide--why do we not call it just that?

Mr. Speaker, I urge you once again to ask unanimous consent to make this motion, brought forward by my colleague from Laval Centre, a votable item.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that close to some 700,000 Armenians were killed or died of starvation and disease while being relocated during the first world war in eastern Anatolia. It is also a fact that more than 2 million Turks and Muslims were massacred in eastern Anatolia at the turn of the 20th century and during the first world war by Armenian revolutionary bands acting in co-operation with the Russians who were the Ottoman Empire's enemy.

What happened in eastern Anatolia during the first world war were tragic events from which lessons should be learned, for all of us here today and for the future, so that similar incidents of such ultra-nationalism that result in the total uprooting and devastation of any community around the world is not allowed to occur again.

The world has heard a lot about the Armenian losses due to the tireless efforts of Armenian individuals who in some cases it is sad to say have resorted to terrorism. The Turks recognize the Armenian deaths and they also acknowledge the suffering that took place in eastern Anatolia so many years ago.

What the Turks so strenuously object to is the Armenian activists' one sided portrayal of the tragic events to the world community and labelling them as genocide using in some cases distortion or exaggeration of facts to further their political agenda of obtaining money and land from Turkey. While doing so Armenians ignore the death and massacre of more than twice as many Turks at the hands of the Armenian revolutionary bands and the Russians whom they were helping during the first world war.

The Armenian accusations or allegations were not countered in North America and Europe until the 1980s because there were no significant populations outside Turkey until then. Armenians were unopposed in terms of the viewpoint of history they depicted to the North American public. Therefore others around the world did not have that understanding of another point of view on things.

Now that world opinion is becoming aware of the Armenian massacres of the Turkish and Muslim population, Armenian activists accuse anybody who questions their version of the events as attempting to rewrite history.

No Armenian publication or conference ever mentions the massacres of the Turkish and Muslim population by the Armenian revolutionary bands and terrorist organizations such as Hunchak and Dashnaktsutiun. In the kinds of genocide that Armenians claim, the alleged perpetrators ended up having ironically more dead than the victims, some 2 million Turks and Muslims.

After the first world war the Ottoman capital was under allied occupation and all state archives were under the control of the British authorities in Istanbul. As a result of constant accusations by Armenian individuals the British finally decided to transport more than 140 Ottoman high officials and cabinet members to Malta for a trial; almost like an anticipation of the Nuremberg trials.

The prisoners were held in Malta for 30 months while the British, French and the Americans searched feverishly for evidence. If there were any credible witnesses or evidence regarding the alleged Armenian massacres they should have been found in that period of time.

However, as a matter of fact, no evidence could be found in Paris, Istanbul or Anatolia to support the charge that the Ottomans had planned a mass slaughter of the Armenians. This is not at all to deny that very tragically and even horrifically large numbers of people were killed. I guess some would maybe question, and I am not the one who has a perfect knowledge of this, that it should be called a genocide.

The British high commission was unable to forward any legal evidence to London. There was nothing in the British archives that corroborated the accusations of the Armenians. I guess at the end of the day these individuals had to be released. Even though there had been those with utmost zeal trying to bring it forward, no evidence was produced.

I stand here today saying that we should move on, that we would not necessarily benefit a whole lot by looking back when there is a differing point of view here. Horrific events were perpetrated on the Armenians but also upon the Turks by these Armenian bands. I stand before the House today not having a final, settled, and determined conclusion about the matter. However I want there to be a more serious look at some of the other atrocities that were perpetrated upon the 2 million Turkish people in those days.

I am appealing for some balance in looking at some of the evidence and information. I am not convinced there is a reason and benefit in declaring an Armenian genocide, such that we would benefit in a big way from that in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by first thanking my colleagues who have spoken to the motion before the House, whatever their views might have been.

The fact that we have different viewpoints clearly indicates that the time has come for this parliament to take a strong stand on this issue. If we had to wait for unanimity, we would get to vote on very few issues. Parliament is where decisions are made.

It is most unfortunate that the unanimous consent which was requested twice was not given. In my mind, that is miscarriage of democracy. Since September 11, democracy has been miscarried a few times in this House, which has ordinary Canadians and political analysts in Canada and around the world a bit worried.

Today, we were given the opportunity to demonstrate our values and the significance we give to history, and to say how despicable we find those well-orchestrated plans to eradicate a whole nation.

Of course, a people can be eradicated in very subtle ways. I will not go into this today, but one thing is clear, the events that took place between 1915 and 1920 nearly eradicated the Armenian people.

However, the Armenian people, because it has suffered so much, was incapable of recovering. Indeed, one only has to look at the numbers of Armenian artists who make us proud in Quebec and Canada because they have become integrated into our culture.

Finally, I would like to invite hon. members to go to see the lastest movie by Atom Egoyan, an Armenian filmmaker, who has won many prizes for his work. It deals with the Armenian genocide. By watching this film, many of us will have a better understanding of what the destruction of a society means.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The period provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion has not been selected as a votable item, the item is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.29 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)