Julian Reed

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that this debate is not about whether we bomb anybody. It is not about whether we send troops into a conflagration. It is a debate about peacekeeping forces and whether they should go into the Central African Republic and into Kosovo. It has nothing to do with bombing. It has nothing to do with striking.

I would like to cut through all the convoluted rhetoric I have heard across the House and ask the hon. member for Red Deer whether or not he wants to send troops. Yes or no.

[Armenians, February 15th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Armenians, February 15th, 1999]

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

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will clear up a couple of things, if I might. My hon. colleague asked about bulk water export and that is within the purview of the federal government. I should have known that off the top.

The fact is that in the NAFTA there is no provision. Yes, there was concern about it and the concern was very legitimate because we do not want there to be any export of bulk water. However, after examining the NAFTA we found that it was not there.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can make it much clearer than I have. The provinces to this point are opposed to interbasin transfers. We have so far arrived at a consensus among the provinces that they share our concern. I do not know how much further I can take the member on that.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there was a concern in 1993 about this whole question and about the interpretation of when water is a good and when it is not a good. To suggest an amendment is required in NAFTA is not on because there is nothing in NAFTA now that obliges any export of water.

Canadian would make a decision as to whether to declare water in bottles are a good or not a good. There is nothing in NAFTA that demands an amendment. I do not know how much clearer I can possibly make it. It is not there.

Yes, we are concerned about the future of water. Yes, the government is taking action on it. I am sure the hon. member will agree with the statement when it is made, which we hope will be very soon. The fact is that it is not part of NAFTA.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Wait for it. Not only has it been federal policy since 1987 to oppose bulk removal of water by tanker, diversion or other interbasin transfer. Our provincial partners have or have been developing similar policies or legislation to protect our natural waters from commercialization beyond current usage. Canadians can be assured that Canada is not on the verge of a major water giveaway.

There are federal and provincial responsibilities for the preservation of water. I will try to spell out the differences between the two. The federal government has a particular responsibility for boundary waters and transboundary waters along the Canada and U.S. border. Extending back to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 it is a responsibility that this government and many before it have taken very seriously, so much so that the government announced its intention—and my hon. friend raised this suggestion—to seek an agreement with the U.S. to make a reference to the International Joint Commission.

We have been consulting with provinces to ensure that our reference to the International Joint Commission will produce the kind of findings that will be useful to all governments. We are confident that the IJC will produce sound recommendations, as was the case with the 1977 reference on the Garrison diversion project, with the 1985 reference on diversions and consumptive uses in the Great Lakes, and with the 1997 reference to the Red River flood. We will soon be in a position to announce the terms of reference to the IJC.

There are legitimate concerns about trade obligations. A handful of critics believe that through the North American Free Trade Agreement Canada has somehow ceded control of our water resources to multinational corporations. The member has called for immediate steps on the part of the government. I state categorically and for the record that water resource management in Canada is in no way subject to the whims of multinational corporations. Nor is it directed by NAFTA. Water is a public good.

There is nothing in NAFTA that would prevent Canada from taking steps to prohibit the commercialization of our water resources. These principles date back to the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They are not new. For the information of the hon. opposition member I refer to the 1993 joint statement of the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States following NAFTA which reads as follows:

Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a good or product, it is not a good or product.

That may seem like an obvious truth, but it leads to the next part of the same sentence which states in reference to water which is not a good or product that it “is not covered by any trade agreement including the North American Free Trade Agreement”. The statement goes on to affirm our sovereignty over water by stating:

And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form.

Nothing forces us to export water particularly in bulk. That leads to the final explanation of the 1993 statement:

Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product, is not traded and, therefore, is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

Canada does not now take water from its natural state and package it in bulk form for sale. We do not support the commercialization of water in bulk for any reason.

We have chosen to put water in smaller quantities into bottles and to offer it for sale, but the total effect of such shipments is very small compared with the net effect of large scale removal. Consistent with these provisions we will shortly be announcing measures aimed at preventing water from being taken from its natural state and converted into a good. I hope all hon. members of the House will endorse that.

The provinces have a responsibility as well. We consulted with the provinces especially during the last half of last year. Under the Constitution provinces have the responsibility for water management within their borders. Permits to draw large quantities of water for an reason from natural sources are provided by provincial authorities. Our provincial partners are opposed to interbasin transfers, so clearly the federal policy of 1987 was on the mark. They agreed the proper management of water resources is first and foremost an environmental issue.

Perhaps what we have learned most from these consultations with the provinces is that a collective approach to water protection by governments is needed now before too many mistakes are made.

We were impressed by the degree of consensus with the provinces that exists on these issues. Our measures will be built on established and comprehensive environmental principles and on the concerns of all provinces and territories, not just on the question of exports but on the overall management of our water resources.

Such an approach is prudent and justified. Not only must we work with the provinces and territories to develop this understanding. We must work with our closest international ally, the United States, with whom we share the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater resource in the world.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and certainly welcome the motion.

Some of the exchanges in the debate would lead me to put forward the thought that one of the reasons why previous governments have not taken the water issue seriously is a lack of knowledge or a lack of individual knowledge about the state of water in this country.

For instance, my colleague on this side suggested that Canada held 25% of the world's freshwater supply. Across the way the statement was 9% and in the notes I have information that it is 20%, so this is an indicator that the message is not clear.

What is clear is that water is a renewable resource. The water cycle replenishes our water supply on a continuing basis, but there is an old adage that you never miss the water till the well runs dry. This year in the province of Ontario the wells ran dry. There are wells that are still dry in Ontario. Farmers in the riding I serve are having either to buy water for their cattle or are having to move their cattle to other farms which have wells that are supplying water.

This year is the worst drought in recorded weather history in the province of Ontario. That should give us an indicator that we must be very conscious and very careful about the way we treat water and the way we look at it.

Until the present time it has been very difficult to convince municipalities and engineers that create domestic water supply to conserve water. It has always been the business of searching out bulk quantities of water without regard for water conservation. Yet many techniques could be put into place not only to help us conserve our water but to raise the consciousness of Canadians about the necessity to protect our water.

The concerns of members are very well founded. This is a domestic and global priority. Canadians feel strongly that water should not be removed from our country in bulk form. There are global shortages at the present time. The location of water is paramount. There may be demands placed on Canada's water in the future.

For environmental considerations more than anything else we need to protect our watersheds and the health of the ecosystems. The government is acting now and has acted in the past on behalf of all Canadians to preserve what is one of our most precious resources.

[Foreign Affairs, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague for her ongoing contribution to the subject of foreign affairs.

In 1997 the Prime Minister made a commitment that the OECD convention on the corruption and bribery of foreign officials would be ratified in this House. Thanks to the co-operation of members of all parties, this bill has been passed into law. Canada is one of five OECD countries necessary to make this convention law.

[Skilled Employment, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a critical shortage of skilled tradespeople.

In the riding of Halton, high tech companies tell me they have had to postpone growth and job creation because they simply cannot find enough skilled workers.

Jobs paying $50,000 and $60,000 a year are going unfilled. The existing skilled workforce is aging.

In Halton something is being done.

Today, December 8, leaders of business, Human Resources Development Canada, the Ontario education ministry and the region of Halton are staging a symposium aimed at developing a made in Halton solution to the problem.

The people attending this event are all dedicated to developing a program that will make it easier for young people to get apprenticeship placements.

I congratulate these organizations on their efforts which will ensure the long term viability of Canada as the place for attraction and retention of high tech business.