Debates of Feb. 12th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number, but let me talk about the main one, the complete ban on contributions from businesses, corporations, non-profit associations or unions.

I said it earlier, but I will repeat it, on principle, it must be individuals and not groups that finance political parties. Second, from a practical standpoint, in an election campaign, how are we going to prevent a business from contributing more than $1,000 when there are 301 ridings?

Let us presume that I agree with this, and receive a $800 cheque in my riding, and the member opposite receives an identical contribution from the Royal Bank. The same could happen to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. One company could contribute to all of the parties. In my opinion, this is unenforceable.

I think that if we were to make an improvement, this would be the main one.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act requires that all Canadians or Quebeckers pay income tax. This tax is managed by the federal government. If the federal government passes legislation, it must be fair for everyone. The Canadian Alliance has made some demands. The Canadian Alliance does not have any members of Parliament from Quebec, nor in a number of Canadian provinces. Yet, all of these people pay taxes and income tax to the federal government.

We know what the Alliance did on the issue of members' pensions. Yet, today, they are all eligible. Would the member accept having a double standard in the House, by having one party, because it promotes Quebec's sovereignty, penalized by Canadian legislation?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, a right is a right is a right. You cannot give a right only to some people or to one group. There should not be a double standard. This is a principle we should all respect.

My hon. colleague talked about the Income Tax Act. I think we could also improve the way this legislation dealswith students and those who do not pay income tax. For instance, it could be amended to ensure that the people who do not pay income tax are entitled to the tax credit on political contributions. Then, these people would be able to make political contributions if they wanted to.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Armenia

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

moved:

Motion No. 137

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) recognize the genocide of the Armenians and condemn any attempt to deny or distort this historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity; and (b) designate April 24 th 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 the twentieth century.

Mr. Speaker,the debate this evening is about truth. The debate this evening is about honesty. The debate this evening is about telling the truth about one of the darkest stains on the history of the 20th century, the first genocide, tragically not the only genocide, but the first genocide of the 20th century, the genocide of the Armenians, the 1915 genocide of 1.5 million Armenians who died when they were forcibly deported from eastern Turkey by troops of the then Ottoman empire.

Today we are seeking not compensation but an affirmation of the historical truth of what took place, an affirmation that indeed this was genocide. I have raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions, as have a number of my colleagues. I want to pay tribute to those members on all sides of the House who have supported this principle of recognition.

I speak today on this motion on behalf of all of my colleagues in the New Democrat caucus and our leader, Jack Layton. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary dedication and commitment of the member for Halifax, our spokesperson on international affairs, who has done so much to keep this issue alive, this issue of the recognition of the Armenian genocide.

Many members of the House were present at a recent screening at the National Gallery of the magnificent film by Atom Egoyan, the film called Ararat . It was a powerful, graphic and deeply moving film about the lives of people who were touched and affected by the genocide. It also depicted the horrors of that genocide. I want to thank Atom Egoyan and all of those who were responsible for the creation of that magnificent film for helping to bring the reality of the Armenian genocide into the homes and hearts and onto the movie screens of Canadians. I want to also pay tribute to the magnificent actors who starred in Egoyan's film Ararat .

Indeed, the struggle for recognition of the Armenian genocide has been going on from the time of the genocide itself. It would not have been kept alive without the leadership of people in the Armenian National Committee of Canada. I want today to pay tribute to them as well, people like Girair Basmadjian, Aris Babikian, Rouben Kouyngian, Sylvia Baronian, Giro Manoyan, and many others from coast to coast to coast in Canada. I have had the great privilege of having been able to work closely with these people over the years in their efforts to persuade our government to do the right thing, to recognize this historical truth.

Since this issue was last debated in the House, there have been a number of significant steps, both in Canada and internationally, on the road to recognition of the genocide. On June 13 of last year, the Canadian Senate voted almost unanimously, by a vote of 39 to 1, for a motion proposed by Senator Shirley Maheu, seconded by Senator Setlakwe, and amended for clarity by Senator John Lynch-Staunton. That motion passed in the Senate was in the identical terms of this motion before the House today.

So I will not repeat the motion. The Speaker read out the motion at the start of these proceedings. It is a motion calling for recognition of the genocide and the designation of April 24 as a day of remembrance for the Armenians who died.

If the Senate of this Parliament can take that important and courageous and, indeed, long overdue step, surely we as elected representatives of the people of Canada can do the same thing.

Indeed, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade did pass a motion some months later, in November of last year, albeit not unanimous. The official opposition members on the committee were split.

I am pleased to see the member for Calgary Southeast in the House today. He has been a strong supporter of the call for recognition of the Armenian genocide. Indeed, he supported this motion when it came before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The motion was passed in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs as well. Again I remind members of the House that this is a committee which includes representatives from all sides of the House. I see the parliamentary secretary in the House today. I have to sadly report that she was among the Liberals who opposed the recognition of the Armenian genocide in that committee vote.

Indeed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself refuses to acknowledge and recognize the Armenian genocide. When I put a question to him last fall with respect to the adoption in the Senate of that historic and virtually almost unanimous motion calling for recognition of the genocide, he could not bring himself to say, yes, let us tell the truth.

Instead, he talked about a terrible tragedy. Of course it was a tragedy, but it was much, much more than a tragedy. It was genocide and we should certainly be calling it for what it was. That is the least we can do to honour the memory of those who died and in many cases died in such terrible, tragic and appalling circumstances. The least we can do is tell the truth.

We would not be alone in doing that. As I mentioned earlier, there has been significant progress on this front in a number of areas. Indeed, over 20 years ago, in March 1980, the Ontario legislature adopted a motion officially recognizing and condemning “the atrocities committed by the government of Turkey upon the Armenian people who were victims of persecution and genocide...”.

On April 10, 1980, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion condemning the Armenian genocide and urging Quebeckers to commemorate this event on April 24. The motion was as follows:

That, on the 65th anniversary of the Armenian genocide carried out in Turkey, on April 24, 1915, the Assembly take the opportunity to condemn this barbarous act against this unfortunate people, which violated the very principles of collective and individual human rights, and that the Assembly invite all Quebeckers to commemoratethis event, on April 24 of each year, as a show of solidarity toward the Armenian community.

This motion was passed by the Quebec National Assembly almost 23 years ago.

If the National Assembly of Quebec, the legislature of Ontario and national parliaments around the world in countries such as Argentina, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States House of Representatives twice, in 1975 and 1984, can take this important step, why on earth will our government not do the same?

Lest there be any doubt about the nature of genocide and whether the events that took place in 1915, the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians in Ottoman, Turkey, fit the internationally accepted definition of genocide, I point to an international study that was released just a few days ago. This study was conducted by the International Center for Transitional Justice, a very respected New York-based human rights organization. That body came to the conclusion that without doubt, the 1915 mass killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians met the four basic criteria laid out by the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It pointed out that the massacres included all the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the UN convention. That conclusion has been drawn by many other distinguished scholars as well.

What is preventing the government from doing the right thing? I suggest that unfortunately and sadly it is its desire not to rock the boat with Turkey, one of our allies in NATO and important in our economic relations and trade relations. Shamefully that relationship has silenced our government from speaking the truth.

We know the Turkish government has for too long shown contempt for international law in a whole range of areas, whether it be its ongoing disputes with Greece, its continued illegal occupation of Cyprus, its profound violation of the human rights of the Kurdish peoples in Turkey, its lack of respect for the human rights of Turkish people and its lack of respect for journalists. One of the worst records of brutal suppression is the killing of journalists in Turkey, and the continued imprisonment of Leyla Zana, an elected representative whose only crime was to speak out on behalf of the Kurdish people.

We know the Liberal government is not prepared to stand up for basic human rights and for the truth. Just this week we saw the extent to which our government was prepared to get into bed with George Bush to respond to Turkey's request for advanced deployment of NATO troops and equipment. Thank God some countries like France, Germany and Belgium were prepared to say no. Canada is ready aye ready with George Bush. I suggest it is that same agenda, that same destructive kowtow for economic reasons, that has led to our government being prepared to deny the truth.

We hear talk of Holocaust denial. This is genocide denial. It is just as shameful. Elie Wiesel, a past U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council chairman, said:

Before the planning of the final solution, Hitler said, 'Who remembers the Armenians?' He was right. No one remembered them, as no one remembered the Jews. Rejected by everyone, they felt expelled from history.

I am here today to plead with my colleagues on all sides of the House not to forget that genocide, to tell the truth about what happened, to honour the memory of those who perished and to give some sense of closure to the families of those who died. I met with a number of those family members at the screening of Ararat. They had tears in their eyes as they spoke of their anguish and the pain they felt that their government was not prepared to tell the truth about the genocide.

In closing, I want to once again urge all members of the House to support this motion, and in view of the fundamental importance of this issue and the fact that the Senate has spoken on it as well, I would like to at this time seek the unanimous consent of the House to have a vote on this important motion at the conclusion of the debate today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there the unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Some hon. members]

No

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this motion because history does matter and as we know those who do not learn from the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.

Unfortunately, that is the sad history of the 20th century, what Pope John Paul II has called the century of tears. It was a century when ideologies of nationalism and totalitarianism, ideologies of hatred, conjoined with the technology of mass killing, brought about genocides through the last century which resulted in unimaginable human suffering. The first instance of which was the Armenian genocide of 1915.

I spoke last year in favour of a similar motion and outlined the historical record regarding the Armenian genocide, which I believe is largely beyond any serious historical question. There are those unfortunately, from the Turkish community and the Turkish government, who claim that what happened in 1915 and 1916 was the tragic result of the fog of war, the chaos of the first war in the Anatolian peninsula, that tragedies happened on both sides and that there were moral equivalents all around.

However this just does not square with the facts. It is unfortunate. One thing I would like to disassociate myself from the member for Burnaby--Douglas is that I believe the Turkish people and the Turkish government today are striving mightily to adopt standards of human rights and democracy which we ought to applaud and support. I strongly support our Turkish friends as an ally within NATO, defending our common values. To point out the reality of the genocide of 1915 is not in any way to diminish our contemporary friendship with the people of Turkey, Turkish immigrants to Canada and the Turkish state.

Rather than going back and quoting historical sources, about which there is unfortunately endless debate, I have chosen instead to spend a few minutes quoting from contemporary Canadian media at the time of the Armenian genocide. I want to put ourselves in the minds of people who sat in this House 85 years ago as this tragedy occurred. I want us to imagine how we might respond if we were faced with the kinds of headlines that I will present tonight. I will be quoting directly from not redactions but from actual photocopies of newspaper articles from the major Canadian media based on firsthand, eye witness, confirmed, verified accounts by western media outlets operating in and around Turkey in 1915 and 1916. This is a random selection which gives us a true sense of the historical flavour, not the opinion of historians, not the opinion of Armenian apologists, not the opinion of myself, but the actual historical record as presented to Canadians in Armenia at the time.

From Le Droit , July 19, 1915, “Chrétiens massacrés”, is a story about the massacre of Christians. In August 4, 1915, “Le Massacre des Arméniens” is another story detailing the beginning of the genocide. September 1915, from L'Action Catholique , “Le Massacre des Arméniens”. It states:

Horrible scenes of carnage are taking place in inland Turkey. Help has been sought from the Greeks. The Turks have started systematically exterminating the Armenians again, throughout their Empire. Reports of horrific scenes of carnage have reached us. Women have been raped or sold as slaves, men have been slaughtered. La Presse of Montreal, on September 21, 1915, reported as follows:

Massacre of 100,000 Armenians. The convention of the Swiss Protestant Church, currently in session here in Nuptal, has decided to send United States President Wilson a telegram asking him to intervene to protect the Armenians against the Turks. Armenian refugees in Switzerland estimate that 100,000 of their fellow citizens have already been massacred. Le Canada , on September 22, 1915, under the heading “Unspeakable Atrocities”, reported the following:

Viscount Bryce, a former British ambassador, spoke of the vile acts committed by the Turkish government to exterminate Armenian Christians. Men of military age have been slaughtered in cold blood. Younger Armenian women are being abducted and taken to Turkish harems. The reminder of the population, older women and children, are taken to places unfit for humans in Asia Minor, and others to the desert between Syria and the Euphrates River. Many are killed along the way; and all die sooner or later. Le Devoir , in October 1915, under the heading “Armenians Massacred”, said:

Viscount Bryce estimates that some 800,000 were killed in Armenia. This is deliberate and premeditated extermination by the Turkish government. L'Événement , in October 1915, stated:

The Turks are wiping out the Armenians.

I will switch to some of the English clippings from that time. The Vancouver Daily Province , of February 23, 1915, said, “Done to death by the Turks. Hundreds of Armenians were massacred in Trans-Caucasia. Corpses left in the streets for dogs to devour”.

The Toronto Daily Star of April 26, 1915, stated, “Terrible tails of Armenian slaughter. Ten villages wiped out in massacres by Mohammedans. Pools of blood seen. Mothers threw their babes in river to save them from death by hunger”.

The Ottawa Evening Journal of July 1915 stated, “Turks drag 10,000 Armenian Christians to Tigras, shoot all and throw bodies into river”.

The Winnipeg Free Press of August 20, 1915, stated, “Massacre by Turks. Frightful outrage is perpetrated upon Armenians in Biblis”. It talked about 1,000 women and children being slain. The Globe , the predecessor to the Globe and Mail on August 26, 1915, stated, “Turks slay 14,000 in one massacre. Blackest page in Ottoman history revealed by former Italian consul who said, “The results of the proclamation was carnage on a big and bloody scale. Out of 14,000 Armenian Catholics and Protestants residing in Trezibond, only 100 escaped”.

It goes on and on. The Montreal Daily Star of September 1915 stated, “Correspondents confirm the reports of the wiping out of Armenians. Christian cities cease to exist as such and inhabitants are driven far from home”.

The Globe on September 24, 1915, stated, “Armenian men are systematically murdered. Extermination, the watchword”.

The London Evening Free Press , on September 23, 1915, stated, “A slaughter of Armenians is growing worse”.

The Toronto Daily Star on September 30, 1915, stated, “Nothing in the whole range of human history, ancient, medieval or modern, will begin to compare with the systematic, diabolism of the process of extermination to which the Armenians are at present subjected--the sudden destruction of a whole people in the name and by the methods of ordinary civil war would be bad enough, but the method used by the Turks to get rid of Armenians is immeasurably worse”.

The Ottawa Evening Telegraph on Tuesday, October 5, 1915, stated, “Not since the dark middle ages a thousand years ago have such barbarous practices been witnessed. The crimes now being perpetrated upon the Armenian people surpass in their horror and cruelty anything that history has recorded during the past 1,000 years. The educated and the ignorant, the rich and the poor are all being subjected to every form of barbarity and outrage”.

The stories go on about people being burned or skinned alive, parents watching their children being dismembered and disembowelled. This is not a question of historical debate. These are contemporary, verified firsthand accounts which appeared in the Canadian media.

When people ask why then should the House take a position on historical debate, it is precisely because history matters. Let me close by quoting from our esteemed colleague for Mount Royal.

He wrote, “The Armenian genocide provides us with two important and enduring lessons. First, the danger of crimes of indifference, of conspiracies of silence. Indeed, we have witnessed an appalling indifference to ethnic cleansing in the early part of the century, the unbearable genocides of the past 50 years to the unspeakable genocide of Rwanda.

It is our responsibility, then, to break down the walls of indifference, to shatter the conspiracies of silence wherever they may be. In the case of the Armenian genocide the indifference not only existed at the time but since, and so Hitler's famous dictum, itself a commentary on the dangers of indifference and silence. As Hitler arrogantly put it, who remembers the Armenians?

Is that the indifference to memory as well as to the killing itself that paves the way for the next killing fields?”

We all at this time and in this place of history, remember the Armenians. Let us do so by passing this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for expressing his views. As well I listened to those just expressed and the litany of newspaper articles.

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas has expressed his views of the tragic events of 1914 to 1925, which was the time of the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Indeed it claimed so many lives and had such a profound effect on the Armenian community as well as on other communities in the region. Statements have also been made by other members of the House during previous debates on the subject.

That part of the world without a doubt experienced a particularly horrific period in history, marked by numerous atrocities and great suffering.

Whether it be through the Prime Minister's messages to Canadians of Armenian descent on the anniversaries of the Armenian tragedy of 1915, or during previous debates in the House, or in response to questions asked of the Minister of Foreign Affairs during question period, the government has expressed its heartfelt sympathy and compassion for the suffering experienced by the Armenian people during the period in question. The government has stressed the importance we attach to ensuring that the memory of this human tragedy is preserved in our collective consciousness.

I would particularly like to point out that during the debate on the Armenian tragedy in 1996 the House adopted a motion recognizing the week of April 20 to 27 each year as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

We will also recall that on June 10, 1999 following comprehensive consultations, the position of the Government of Canada with regard to these events was set out in a statement made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Halton, who spoke on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon. member stated:

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 Armenians were subject to atrocities which included massive deportations and massacres. May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as well as to reconciliation of present day nations and communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work together toward world peace.

Canada is a land of immigrants. As such it promotes tolerance and respect for diversity in international organizations and in the development of effective multilateral tools that embody our ideals and our values, including tolerance, respect for human rights, democracy and rule of law, to prevent any recurrence of the tragic events of the past, such as the one which took such a terrible toll on the Armenian community.

Unfortunately we cannot change the past. What we can and must continuously do is work very hard to build a future of peace and tolerance for all people. For example, our peacekeeping missions in various regions of the globe reflect our desire and our willingness to provide concrete help in creating environments that foster reconciliation and tolerance.

By our Canadian example we show the rest of the world not only that it is possible for people of different cultures to live together in harmony and to flourish, but also that in doing so it is a remarkable, enriching and fascinating experience for us as individuals and as a nation on a cultural as well as on an economic level.

Canada seeks to establish positive, comprehensive and productive relations with all the countries of the region, including Turkey and Armenia. Indeed a reconciled stable and prosperous region will generate positive developments beyond the immediate borders of the countries concerned. Everyone stands to gain, including Canada.

In closing, let me repeat what we have already said, because in our eyes it is still essential, even fundamental, and we will all have to continue to devote our energy and efforts to it.

The tragic events of 1915 underscore and remind us of the importance of promoting tolerance and respect through diversity among peoples to ensure that the tragic events of the past, such as the ones which took a terrible toll on the Armenian community, are not repeated. We also invite the parties concerned to look to the future because the events of the past should not stand in the way of reconciliation.

In closing, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas said that the stand of this government is about not wanting to rock the boat with Turkey, but that is not what this government's position is. It is about refusing to be divisive. It is about refusing to inflame old hatreds and refusing to reopen old wounds as he continues to do. It is about building a nation of tolerance and healing, looking to the future and building the kind of relationships abroad and here within Canada which move us forward and not to act from political motivation to reopen and create the hatred and divisiveness. I am very proud of this government's stand which shows considerable courage in the road we continue to take.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to convince the parliamentary secretary to try to change the government's position on this.

First, I want to say that I am proud to rise, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to speak to this motion, which we support. I must point out that the member for Laval Centre brought forward a similar motion in the House. That motion was debated on two occasions. It read as follows:

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

I will remind members that Mr. Daviault, who was the member for Ahuntsic—I can refer to him by name since he is no longer with us—had also brought forward such a motion, which was debated in the House in 1995 and 1996.

A lot has been said in the House in support of recognition of the Armenian genocide. I would not want to repeat everything, but I do want to talk about an article that I read and that I must share with my colleagues.

This article is at the heart of a new trend that emanates from Turkish and Armenian historians who do want the recognition of the genocide, and again I draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to this most important issue, but who also want to go beyond that and to promote dialogue between the two communities and between the two countries as well.

I remember going through Armenia and Turkey. Armenia greatly needs Turkey. And people in Turkey would come to realize that things would be better if they had more contact with Armenia.

The author that I will be talking about is Taner Akcam and he currently works, from what I understand, out of the Zoryan Institute, in Toronto. A Turkish historian, he has published and is still publishing reports on his work at the Zoryan Institute.

In July 2001, the prestigious Monde diplomatique published one of his articles entitled “Turkey's carefully forgotten history”. I want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the article was written after France got into serious trouble with Turkey following the recognition by the French Assembly and Senate of the Armenian genocide.

The author reminds us that the French Ambassador was summoned to Ankara by the Turkish government. Demonstrations were held and French products were boycotted. “The recognition by Paris of the Armenian genocide led to official reactions and popular backlash”, he said. I remember seeing and reading that.

Mr. Akcam also said, “In fact, for Turkey to acknowledge this bloodbath would force it to recognize that some of the heroes who helped build its modern State were also killers. The whole vision of the country would then crumble”.

This is what he explains throughout his article.

He writes:

Regardless of the decision by France, it cannot serve as a pretext for once again cevering up what was done in 1915-17 by the party forming the Ottoman government, the majority of which was Turk, to the Armenian population.

He goes on:

There are many instances that support the view that the reaction against France is intended to conceal the facts and not as defence against a false accusation. One of the most telling of these might be these inflammatory words by a journalist, “Let it be made clear for world public opinion, in the past we chastised all those vile mixed bloods who, not content just to take over our lands, also moved against Turks' assets, lives and honour. We know our forefathers were right, and today, if such threats were to recur, we would do what was necessary, without a moment's hesitation”. There is nothing exceptional about these words, said in a moment of great anger. There have been works with a claim to a scientific nature that have said something similar.

He follows with an important question in an attempt to guide us in the response:

Why such anger in reaction to the term “genocide”? Such a reaction is all the harder to grasp when Turkey could, if it wanted to, acknowledge that such massacres did take place while declaring its non-responsibility. Mustafa Kemal, the country's founder, spoke dozens of times on this matter, condemning what he termed the infamous massacres, and calling for punishment of the guilty parties. The leaders of the Ottoman Ittihad ve Terakki (Union and Progress Party) who organized the massacres were judged in 1926, although the proceedings addressed other crimes. A number of them were executed. In light of these facts, Turkey could have regretted the crimes committed against the Armenians and explained that they were acts committed by the Ottoman state and not the Republic.

Why? The historian in him responds, by saying the following:

The collective amnesia from which the country suffers is one of the major obstacles to any public debate. This shared loss of memory comes of the fact that the historic conscience of the Turks has been paralyzed for decades. The founders of the Republic have literally broken the country's ties with its past.

This is interesting, because it brings up Turkey's history. In creating a new modern republican state almost from scratch, Kemal Atatürk and those with whom he founded the country had to make it forget 600 years of its history, or so the historian tells us. The creators of this new Turkey are so important in present Turkish history that they are considered heroes. Kemal Atatürk is a great hero. If you go to Turkey, you will see pictures of him everywhere, and everyone speaks highly of him.

It is said that he could not have built the country surrounded by criminals. That is what the author tells us, meaning that it was better to forget the past than to acknowledge the crimes committed.

I think that the idea is clear. I believe that our debates can be useful not only because they will afford Armenians from the diaspora or from Armenia some small measure of solace, but because, by calling on people such as Mr. Atcam, they will also foster a rapprochement, which is what the parliamentary secretary said she wanted.

Mr. Akcam also said:

Eighty-six years of forgotten past have not produced the yearned-for democracy in Turkey. Quite the opposite.

So, he is proposing, and this is what I am working toward, that the genocide be acknowledged and that, at the same time, an effort be made to understand and help the Turks to see their history in a different light, in all humility. Similarly, we still hope that the House will recognize the wrongs done to the Acadians in 1755.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue again. It comes up quite often. In fact, it recently came up at our foreign affairs committee when there was a motion moved that we supported. The motion was to bring the debate on the Armenian genocide to the House of Commons so we could all discuss it. Actually the motion passed at our committee and then, for some reason or other, the Liberal members of the committee voted to not report it to the House.

I want to respond to the parliamentary secretary, for whom I have respect. She just said that we are a nation of tolerance and understanding. However I cannot understand why that motion could not come to the House for debate, in the same way I cannot understand why the Liberals voted last night to not allow the House to vote on whether we would send our military to war or not, in the same way I cannot understand why the Liberals did not allow our foreign affairs committee to invite officials from Iraq and the United States to come and tell us firsthand their position on the potential war in Iraq. I do not understand these things. Only the Liberals understand these things, such as why we can go to war against a people but we cannot talk to them, cannot have a debate with them and cannot ask them questions, but I guess that is the Liberal way.

We have a great deal of sympathy for all the people who died in this horrible event that happened about 88 years ago. We wish it could have come to the House for a full debate by everyone and a vote but that did not happen because of the Liberals.

However it is important that we discuss these issues and it is important that we continue to discuss them in a peaceful way. This is a very volatile issue which raises very strong feelings on behalf of everybody. In Canada, our way of dealing with these issues is in a peaceful way.

I want to take this opportunity to raise another issue I have been thinking about lately. It seems that this past event highlights current events, or a convergence of current events really, and I would like to bring those together.

One issue has to do with the Statistics Canada report that said that Canada needed much more immigration. It stated that we needed immigration to maintain our labour force and maintain our momentum in the economy because, through natural resources, our population would not be able to supply the workers, the imagination and the entrepreneurs.

I think we all agree that immigration adds a tremendous flavour to our country, brings new ideas and allows us to be part of the world. However, at the same time, it also raises issues about how we deal with problems. When immigrants come to Canada and bring all their treasures, their assets, their ideas, their qualities and their abilities, we also want them to bring the issues that are of concern to them, but we want to maintain the way we solve our problems, which is through debate and discussion.

Just in the last few days we were reminded of Air India flight 182, where an issue between two groups of people in another land was imported to Canada. This is not the way we resolve issues in Canada. We welcome immigration absolutely, but if we are going to discuss issues, we must discuss them and leave the violence somewhere else. That is what Canada is all about: non-violent solutions to problems, peacekeeping and trying to solve problems.

It is important for us to make it very clear that we have the right to discuss and debate any issue, and to take any side on any issue, whether it is the Armenian issue, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the Iraq issue, the Sikh issue with India, or whatever, but violence in Canada, no. Violence must be left elsewhere. That is what Canada is about. People should come to Canada because we have this approach to problem resolution, and it is important that we do that.

A few months ago we had a situation at Concordia University. A former Israeli prime minister was to speak at the university but his speech was prevented because of minor violence. Nevertheless, it was not debate nor discussion and it was not the way we resolve issues here. Everybody should have the right to speak in Canada. Whether we agree with them or not, they should have the right to make their presentations and to be heard and then the other side can make their presentation.

Again, the Canadian way is the non-violent way, the peaceful way and no one gets hurt. We discuss our issues in the same way that we are discussing this issue today. However, because of the changing population in Canada, after 88 years that issue is here on the floor. Our percentage of immigration is increasing which brings new challenges for our country. We should always welcome immigrants. We need them and want them, but we want them to leave their violence at home. If that is their way of resolving issues we do not want them here. We want to discuss and debate issues, which is exactly what we are doing in the House.

Those are the issues I wanted to raise. We in the foreign affairs committee supported the motion to bring this question to the House of Commons. I voted in favour of it and it passed. Unfortunately it will not be voted on here tonight. It should have been. It should have come to the House after the foreign affairs committee passed the motion which, by the way, was put forth by a Liberal. However the Liberals voted it down so we will not vote on this issue. We do have the opportunity to speak to it but it will not go any further than that because the Liberals have denied us that right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed looking into the history and the background on the events leading up to the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and whether genocide was perpetrated against the Armenian Ottoman citizens in eastern Anatolia. The short answer to that one is no.

I will sketch some of those reasons, but there are numerous sources in books et cetera on both sides of the issue that help to get at some of the facts.

A century of ever increasing external and internal conflict began roughly in 1820 and ended with the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. Millions of people, Armenians, Turks, and other members of other ethnic groups, perished in eastern Anatolia during that period of time, during the collapse of this colossal 700 year old empire as a result of inter-communal warfare, relocation, famine and illness.

We do not want to deny the human tragedies of eastern Anatolia in the early parts of the last century, but to rewrite history and to paint these tragic events as a genocide of one affected ethnic group is an injustice to the millions of people who died in the area over that period of time.

The allegation of Armenian genocide falls short of the minimum standards of proof required by the 1948 United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. In fact, a number of the Ottomans were tried by a tribunal because of the allegations of genocide back at that time and were acquitted

After the Ottomans lost World War I the British convened the Malta tribunal to try Ottoman officials for alleged massacres and crimes against Armenians and allegations of genocide. Despite the fact that the Ottoman empire was under allied occupation, the British and the Americans, and any required evidence would be fresh and readily accessible the tribunal acquitted all of the accused for lack of proof. In fact, the one who was gathering the research and documentation was an Armenian himself. Finally, the prosecutor said there was not enough evidence and he could not proceed. It failed for lack of proper evidence. All 144 detainees were acquitted, exonerated, and released after two years and four months.

I need to also make a point of referring to some of the dubious and prejudicial sources that have been quoted in the House today. Some of these journalists were not on site over there and the source of their information was somewhat skewed, in particular Ambassador Henry Morgenthau who is often cited. He was an individual who was really over there at the behest of President Wilson. His correspondence with President Wilson reveals that his intent was to uncover or manufacture news that would goad the U.S. into joining in the war. It was really more political, and not for humanitarian aims, as to why he was over there.

We could get at the numbers that are bandied about here. It is probably some tragic 600,000 Armenians who were killed in that period of time, but nowhere near the 1.5 million that is often postulated. In fact, historian and demographer Dr. Justin McCarthy makes it plain that it was less than 600,000. Not to get into debate on the figures though, but it is grossly exaggerated with respect to the numbers.

I want to draw attention to a quote often referred to as supposedly having come from Hitler, but in fact it is a fabricated and fraudulent quote. It is not in the Nuremberg transcripts. They do not contain the alleged quote. It is attributed to the AP's bureau chief during World War II, so it is not an authentic source at all and in fact often repeated again and again.

Suffice to say that it was a tragic period of time, but we do not agree with the basis of it. There were in fact the terrorists, the Dashnak and Hunchak guerillas and civilian accomplices, who admittedly organized revolutionary groups and waged war against their own government. They were in a violent political alliance with the Russian forces which rendered those in the war zones subject to relocation.

There was relocation and some awful things otherwise happened, but we cannot call it genocide. I think we fall short of the criteria in the United Nations conventions with respect to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Southeast and the member for Mercier for their support.

I listened with care to the speech of my friend from New Brunswick who spoke on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is still not clear to me what position that party takes on the substance of this motion. I would welcome some elucidation and clarification on that point.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Nova Scotia.

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

I am sorry, from Nova Scotia of course. I will welcome in the future clarification of that party's position on this important issue.

I must say that I was astonished to hear the speech of my colleague from Saskatchewan on this issue. We have had the opportunity to work together on some issues, particularly on the issue of Sudan. We have not always agreed on other issues, but his speech today was, frankly, historically wildly inaccurate. I would suggest, with respect, that he go back to the history books and then he will recognize that much of what he has said has no foundation whatsoever in truth or in historical accuracy.

As for the parliamentary secretary's comments, one can only hope that she would recognize that it is important that the truth be told and that we take the step that her colleagues in the Senate took. Senator Maheu and a number of other distinguished senators on both sides of the Senate voted overwhelmingly for recognition of this historical fact of the reality of the genocide. It was not just a tragedy. It was genocide and the House should have the courage, the integrity, and the honesty to call it what it was.

Mr. Speaker, while this debate may collapse today, I want to assure you and, through you, those who are watching the debate that we will continue to speak out on this fundamentally important issue until both Houses of the Parliament of Canada have recognized the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians for what it was.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am up on a general question that I put to the Minister of Health before Christmas regarding health care funding. The Romanow report had been published, we had time to look it over, and we expected the government to respond favourably to it.

Since then we know that the Prime Minister truly hammered out an agreement with the provinces. I think the word hammer is probably the right word because he sort of bludgeoned them to death, simply dictated how much money would be going into health care and walked out on the premiers, stormed out on the premiers, and some of the territorial leaders did not even sign on.

In fact, none of the premiers did. Usually in an accord, technically one does not have to sign on, but usually there is a formality, there is a press conference, there is agreement, handshaking and backslapping, and all that goes with those types of agreements. It did not happen this time for very good reason.

The reason of course is because of the heavy handed approach the Prime Minister took on this issue. I have often said in the past that we know the Prime Minister's career is winding down and this was a perfect opportunity for him to leave a legacy in health care after having taken a wrecking ball to it.

One of the questions that I put to the minister at the time was on the report card system that had been part of the previous agreement with the provinces on funding in the year 2000 and basically how that report card system was working. The point that we are making is that there must be accountability in the system, accountability on behalf of the federal government, and certainly on behalf of the provinces. None of us are arguing that. I do not think we need artificial restraints on the provinces and they all agree on that point.

We do not mind strings attached and I do not think the provinces do either. Rules must be attached to any funding mechanism. None of the premiers disagree with that, but they do not want the straitjacket approach or being put in handcuffs by the federal government in terms of spending. We believe the provinces are the primary deliverers of health care and they know best where that money should be spent. However, there has to be an accounting process.

One of the difficulties that we have had, and this is one of the things that Romanow recognized, was on the accountability side of the equation. I am referring to the federal government health transfer. We should do away with the Canadian social transfer where the moneys can be spent on education, welfare and health.

We and the provinces must know exactly how much money is being transferred to the provinces. That is the point we are making. It is the point that Romanow made and we are hoping that the federal government will follow that recommendation so that all Canadians will know how much money is being transferred precisely for health care from the federal government to the provinces.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a good speech; it was very interesting. However, his question of November 28 dealt specifically with report cards. I will attempt to shed some light on this issue.

This accord was reached between the first ministers in September 2000, and laid the foundation for the recent reports by all 14 jurisdictions, federal, provincial and territorial, on comparable health indicators.

All of the 14 reports were released, as scheduled, on September 30. They have been referred to in some press reports as report cards.

The mandate provided by the first ministers to their health ministers was clear: begin a process of comprehensive and regular reporting to Canadians. This reporting is to not only inform Canadians about their health and health system, but also to provide valuable information for governments and health care providers, allowing them to make better informed choices.

These reports were reviewed independently by the various auditors general, in order to ensure that the information was as reliable as possible.

Before mentioning a few of the highlights of those reports, I want to underline the very high degree of cooperation between all jurisdictions in producing these reports, the first of their kind.

This is a spirit of cooperation of a different kind, to ensure greater accountability to the people of Canada, so that they know what public funds are used for.

These reports represent a crucial step forward in creating greater transparency, which will again allow Canadians to participate more actively in the ongoing debate on our health care system.

What have we learned? On health, the federal report shows that Canadians are living longer than ever, and have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. Life expectancy for Canadians reached 79 years in 1999, compared to less than 75 years in 1979.

What about health outcomes? Potential years of life lost due to heart attack and unintentional injury have declined significantly. This is becoming very valuable information for health care providers, those who work in the field as well as for governments and health departments.

I recommend the full report to the hon. member. I think it is very informative.

The process to carry out this complex undertaking was set in motion immediately following the first ministers' meeting in the fall of 2000. An outcome indicator reporting committee was established.

It is in this spirit of cooperation and collaboration that we are trying to have indicators that would enable us to compare how things are going in health care across the country, from one province to the next, and in the territories. The accord signed recently with the provincial premiers was put together in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will not take offence at anything the parliamentary secretary said, but the fact of the matter remains that there is a lot to be done on the health care file, particularly by the federal Government of Canada. It imposed financial restraints on the provinces that arbitrarily took money away in the mid-nineties. Basically it starved the provinces of money for so long that for them to play catch-up now requires even more funding.

However, the point I will come back to is that I do not think the provinces want to be dictated to by Ottawa in terms of where money should be spent. I guess we can all agree that there will never be enough, but I think the provinces need flexibility for some of the successes they have enjoyed. Let them enjoy those successes. Let the other provinces follow those models that they have developed on their own. I will leave it at that. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's reply.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member has said. I want him to understand that we have been working with the provinces, in this same spirit, to try to establish common goals and to reach agreement so that we will be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The question is whether we are getting a better return on our health dollars compared to previous years. It is with this in mind that we want to renew the health care system.

I do not think that pointing fingers, accusing one other and continuing to live in the past is going to get us anywhere. I would prefer to move forward, not backward.

I believe that we must keep this in mind, as we work with the provinces and the territories. I thank my hon. colleague for having listened to my answer, and I am convinced that he is very clear about where we want to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was on October 24 of last year that I rose in the House to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, pointing out that there had been a number of studies prepared for the Romanow commission that looked at the potential impact of trade deals like NAFTA and the GATS on the expansion of medicare to include a national plan for home care, pharmacare and dental care.

In my question I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the government was prepared to take at that time to prevent any further privatization in the health care field, to prevent private, for profit health care companies from claiming massive compensation under NAFTA and GATS. I asked at that time whether the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal government were prepared to stand up for public health care in Canada.

It was the parliamentary secretary who answered the question. I use the word answer very loosely because in fact he did not answer the question at all. He went on to answer something that was asked perhaps by another member but certainly not by this member.

Last week, we saw that in fact the government did answer the question. The answer to the question was that the Liberal government was not prepared to stand up and make it very clear that these trade deals, whether it be NAFTA or GATS or the proposed FTAA, must not be allowed to threaten Canada's public, not for profit health care system. In fact, there was not a single word in that health accord about the threat of private, for profit health care providers to our universal medicare system.

One of the gravest threats is the fact that under the provisions of NAFTA, for example chapter 11, once one of these big, multinational health care companies like Extendicare or MDS get a foot in the door, we cannot, in many respects, reverse that attack on our public health care system. If in the future a progressive New Democrat government under prime minister Jack Layton wanted to move ahead, for example with a national pharmacare plan, we would be told that we could not do that. The big health insurance companies like Liberty Mutual would tell us tough luck and say that we could not do that because under the provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA we would have to compensate them.

I am calling upon the parliamentary secretary and the government today to make it clear to Canadians that they will listen to the concerns of Roy Romanow as expressed in his report. He noted in his report:

In almost every one of the Commission's public hearings, as well as the regional roundtables, concerns were expressed by experts and citizens alike that Canada's health care system should be protected from the impact of international trade agreements.

Two of his key recommendations, recommendations 44 and 45, clearly stated that this protection must be there. I am calling once again upon the government to make it clear that our public health care system is not for sale and that trade deals will not be allowed to be used to weaken universal medicare.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and am very pleased to work with him on the Standing Committee on Health. As a new committee member, he will I am sure come to know us more and to realize that sometimes a person has but a few seconds to answer a question, not time to finish one's answer properly, which is likely what happened when this question was asked.

Now, I shall attempt to give a little more detail on our position as a government. I must, however, point out that the government's commitment has always been, and always will be, to protect the health system in Canada, and we will not put health services on the list of subjects for discussion in trade negotiations, whether now or later. Canadian governments possess the necessary flexibility coupled with control to administer the Canadian health system and to decide what is best for it.

The first ministers now have an accord on one way to renew health care. The next stage is to decide on the best way of implementing the reforms. Under GATS and NAFTA, Canada has certain obligations with respect to private health insurance providers. These are allowed to provide extended health insurance coverage.

It is too early to speculate on the possible trade implications of a proposed policy change. However, these implications, should they arise, would not require Canada to review the health care system. The Government of Canada is committed to working in close cooperation with the provincial governments and deciding on the best way to implement the changes.

I would also like to direct the House's attention to a conclusion taken from a research document prepared by Jon Johnson, of the Romanow Commission, which reads as follows:

It is easy to invent NAFTA and WTO worst-case scenarios but the actual impact of these agreements must be assessed realistically. An expansion of the public component of the health care system into new areas, with the resulting exclusion of private interests, would result in NAFTA compensation claims or WTO challenges only if the private economic interests adversely affected were significant. If these interests are non-existent or insignificant, the risk of claims or challenges is negligible.

There are more national insurance providers for home care and drug plans in Canada than foreign providers.

Consequently, I will back Mr. Johnson's comments, according to which we must look at introducing changes to health policy in a realistic manner, by saying that this must be achieved both nationally and internationally.

In terms of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, I would like to underscore the fact that the agreement expressly recognizes the right of governments to regulate services to meet national policies and objectives. The GATS also specifically excludes service delivery under government authority. It also states that freer trade must occur in respect of the objectives of national policies.

I can assure you, once again, that it is out of the question for us to negotiate the Canadian heath care system through NAFTA or the World Trade Organization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too look forward to working with the hon. member on the health committee. I am very excited about the challenge of my new responsibilities as health critic for the federal New Democrats and I welcome that opportunity.

Just briefly in response to the parliamentary secretary, I want to point out to him that Canada and the Canadian government have already exposed health insurance to threats under GATS. We know that there is a critical opportunity coming up next month. Canada is going to be asked what sorts of services will be negotiated and included under the GATS. I want to ask the hon. member for a guarantee that our government will not engage in any negotiations on trade in health care services in the upcoming GATS negotiations next month: no trade whatsoever in health care services.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, again, according to the information that I have, Canada has no intention of putting its health care system on the table in the next NAFTA or GATS negotiations.