Daniel Turp

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same question as the parliamentary secretary.

I have also heard a lot of rhetoric. I heard someone whose position was not very clear. The government's position is that we should offer to take part in these peacekeeping missions, if peacekeeping is what is involved.

The Reform Party critic is not acting as a responsible member of the official opposition should. I think the Bloc Quebecois was a much more responsible official opposition.

This is an important question: Should Canada participate or not in a peacekeeping force to Kosovo and the Central African Republic? I repeat the question: What does the Reform Party member think? I would like him to give a clear answer.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in tomorrow's edition,

Le Monde

quotes President Milosevic, who says this on the subject of the potential deployment of an international force of 30,000 in Kosovo:

Our negative attitude to the presence of foreign troops in Kosovo is not just that of the Yugoslav government, it is also that of the people of our country, and the unanimous attitude of the representatives of the people in the Serbian Assembly, independent of their political leanings.

These are the words of President Milosevic. In the light of this attitude, it is highly likely that the troops to be deployed will not be doing peacekeeping, but rather carrying out air strikes.

I would like to know from the Minister of National Defence what the situation is in his opinion, in the light of the statement by President Milosevic, and whether the Canadian contingent would be different depending on whether the mission is one of more peaceful deployment or has the mandate to carry out air strikes in Yugoslavia?

[Armenians, February 15th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Late King Hussein Of Jordan, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Bloc Quebecois joins with all those in the Middle East and elsewhere in the international community who mourn the passing of King Hussein of Jordan.

The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to this man, who understood that war was a scourge and who, until very recently, played an active role in the peace process to bring about a reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis, between the Jewish and Arab worlds.

Bloc Quebecois members wish King Hussein's successor, his son, the new King Abdullah, a calm and peaceful transition, in the critical days ahead. They urge him to play a leadership role in the search for a lasting peace in the Middle East, as King Hussein did for the 46 years of his reign, in order to restore Jordan to prosperity.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

—visionary, even—my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has such a way with words—in that I think that, internationally, the trend now is no longer just to tolerate, but to accept and even encourage multiple nationalities and not just dual citizenship. The trend is to even add the category of supranationals as Europe has done, with the Maastricht treaty that was recently passed to recognize citizenship in the European Union, which is entirely consistent with French or British nationality.

This is something sovereignists will continue to ponder. Would it be a good idea for a sovereign Quebec to share supranational citizenship with a sovereign Canada, in other words citizenship in one Canadian union for two sovereign states? These are debates we will also be having.

In the present legislative setting, amendments are certainly important. My colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and I will be making constructive suggestions during the committee debate.

I conclude by recalling the fundamental distinction established by the French when they passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.

The French understood “man” in the generic sense, including “woman” of course, as a universal being with a certain number of fundamental rights to which he was entitled as a member of a universe where borders were of no importance. But citizens are no longer universal beings. Citizens inhabit territories and, when it comes to the status of Canadian citizens within such territories, they must be provided with citizenship legislation that provides them with the best guarantees.

It is in this perspective that the Bloc Quebecois intends to make a positive contribution to the study of this bill. I hope that I will be able to make a contribution that will be helpful to the minister and her officials.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

I am always very pleased to see the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve display his sense of humour and irony to the House, involving our colleagues on the other side of the floor and reminding us that they sometimes do listen to the opposition and its proposals.

I will be pleased to associate with my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, as I have in other circumstances, moreover, in offering some views, some enlightenment arising out of my training as a professor of international and constitutional law, as someone who has spent a number of years in a university teaching about legislation such as this Citizenship Act. Someone who wants to take a constructive look at improving this legislation, clarifying some of its provisions, making that contribution for the most part within a parliamentary committee, which will examine it clause by clause.

It might be worthwhile raising a few questions here in the House, in order to provide the minister and her staff with the opportunity to reflect upon some of the clauses which strike me as needing more reflection and perhaps upon the changes which we can examine together within the parliamentary committee.

It seems to be that the general nature of the act has not been changed, overall. Of course it has retained the two major concepts for assigning nationality, the concepts of the law of the blood and the law of the soil, jus sanguinis and jus soli, adding to them naturalization and attribution of citizenship under a certain number of other criteria, such as the exceptional criteria by which the minister may, on occasion, on recommendation of the governor in council, award citizenship. These items are in many ways a repeat of the old act.

There is no doubt one thing the minister should look at, and that is the notion in part I of the right to citizenship. It seems to me that clauses 3 to 12 of the bill do not really concern the right to citizenship, a right that could have been acknowledged and guaranteed in the Canadian charter of rights and which was not. We could have, had we wanted, for example, incorporated in Canadian law the prescriptions of international instruments such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I submit the following thought to the minister for her consideration: does part I not indeed concern the granting of citizenship and should we not use that expression rather than the right to citizenship. Although the quality of citizen is involved, clauses 3 and following are not drafted in a way as to concern a right really, but the government's ability to grant citizenship, especially when it is granted through the process of naturalization.

Compared with the part following, which concerns the loss of citizenship, part I should be entitled: “Granting citizenship”, with the corollary of the various reasons and grounds for granting citizenship provided in the various provisions in this part.

I would point out to the minister that in this part there is some doubt about the relevance of clause 11(e), which could pose a problem in the case of dual citizenship, as the government does not seem to want to grant or agree to grant Canadian citizenship when an individual is a citizen of another country or is entitled to citizenship in another country.

There seems to be a restriction to dual citizenship in paragraph 11(e). I therefore submit to the minister that this may be an exception to the rule, which calls for further investigation.

There is also a need to ensure—this has not been done and, in any case, it deserves careful consideration—that the legislation will not allow the two conventions signed by Canada, that is the Convention on the nationality of married women and the Convention on the reduction of statelessness, to be violated. By signing the latter, Canada and the other signatories agreed to pass legislation that does not cause statelessness.

I look forward to finding out at committee whether the act has been examined in terms of compliance with this international convention of which Canada is a signatory. This is one of the issues I think a parliamentary committee should look into.

There is another thing in this act that struck me; it is in part 4 on prohibitions. The concept of public interest may be too vague. In the context of paragraph 21(1), this concept is the basis for making an order prohibiting the granting of citizenship. This may be too vague a concept and the vagueness of the criteria set out in paragraph 21(1) of this citizenship bill could cause problems in terms of constitutional validity.

I also submit to the minister that it might be a good idea to consider adding, at section 23, which deals with national security, a provision to ensure that, in paragraph 2, reference is made not only to crimes provided for in federal legislation, but also international crimes now codified in several international conventions as well as in the statute of Rome establishing the international criminal tribunal.

It might be appropriate to add a reference to the criminal acts under international law referred to in section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This might be one way of ensuring that international criminal acts, being increasingly codified, could be used to justify refusal of citizenship, since it would represent a threat to national security to award it to people who have committed criminal acts not only under federal law but under international law as well.

I have always found this act to contain a curious concept—and I found it so in my university teaching days as well—that of Commonwealth citizenship. In this act, as in the one it is intended to replace, there is the concept of Commonwealth citizenship, that any Canadian citizen or any citizen of another Commonwealth country holds the status of citizen of the Commonwealth in Canada.

This is therefore a nationality or citizenship which is superimposed on nationalities attributed by other countries, but it is one about which we know nothing. What point is there to Commonwealth citizenship? Does it confer any real rights, or is a highly symbolic assignment to citizens of other Commonwealth countries of a status in Canada?

I would like to be properly enlightened on the real significance of this concept of Commonwealth citizenship and its corollaries in Canadian law.

Perhaps there is one point here which ought to be of concern to the minister, which is that other concepts of citizenship or nationality appear to be being created here in Canada itself. It might be worthwhile checking whether the Nisga'a treaty, just signed between the authorities of British Columbia and the Nisga'a band, contains a concept of citizenship which is compatible with Canadian citizenship, or is complementary to it.

Then there would have to be an examination of, not only the concept of Commonwealth citizenship, but also other domestic citizenships which seem to have been created, or will be created in future, by treaties with aboriginal nations. So I suggest the minister examine this new idea of a domestic citizen and look at how it would work with the notion of Canadian citizenship.

Finally, on a more technical level, on the content of the bill, I sometimes have a hard time understanding why, in a bill on citizenship, there are provisions that have nothing to do with citizenship. All of part VI concerns what non-Canadians cannot or can do. There are provisions on their right to acquire property, for example, in this bill, and a number of provisions on the power of the lieutenant governor in council, by regulation, to alter bans on property ownership by non-Canadians. This whole part should not be included in a bill on citizenship.

The general organization of this bill, therefore, does not lend itself to the idea of including provisions that do not concern Canadian citizens and the rights they enjoy.

Therefore, in my opinion, we could readily contemplate the inclusion of clauses 49 and 54 in legislation other than on citizenship, because it seems to me they have no place in this legislation, except a place history has reserved for them, but that history does not justify now as it used to, especially since the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other instruments enshrining property rights.

So, these in my opinion are the things that warrant debate and verification in certain cases. I was also interested in the matter of citizenship from the standpoint, as my colleague mentioned, of what would happen in the case of a sovereign Quebec, in the matter of dual citizenship, the opportunity for dual citizenship. I am one of those who consider the minister very wise to—

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of several of my constituents, including the mayor of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and municipal councillors, and in the presence of two petitioners, Gordon Davis and Gilles Bourbonnais, I have the pleasure to present a petition asking Parliament to lift the suspensions preventing Via Rail trains Nos. 32 and 33 from stopping at the Les Côteaux station. These suspensions deprive the public of an important rail service and discriminate against them in relation to residents of Ontario cities served by the same trains.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on behalf of my party to the Reform Party motion so that our party's position is again made clear, as it was this morning by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic.

The Bloc Quebecois intends to vote against the amendment moved by the Reform Party because it does not think it appropriate to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although this clause can, on occasion and in the proper circumstances, provide Parliament with a means of giving the views of lawmakers precedence over those of judges. But, in the present circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to invoke this clause right away, because the matter is before the courts and it is up to them to pursue the process set in motion by the complainant in this affair.

I have examined the decision handed down on January 13 by Mr. Justice Shaw. It is clear from this decision that the judge thinks the Criminal Code, specifically subsection 163.1(4) is contrary to the Constitution of Canada and that it violates certain of the Constitution's provisions and certain fundamental freedoms. Having considered the arguments, the judge goes on to say that this provision is justified in a free and democratic society.

This is where the Bloc Quebecois parts company with the judge and, through the voice of its members who will support the motion after voting against the amendment, wishes to make known to this judge and to other judges who will be asked to rule on this matter, because this case will be appealed, probably to the Supreme Court, that elected officials consider this provision unreasonable and feel that, in a free and democratic society, the government must oppose child pornography. It must adopt measures to discourage this practice and to prohibit the wholesale distribution of child pornography, which is harmful to children and violates their most fundamental rights.

It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour. It wants to send a message to the public and to the judges who will have to again decide this matter, so that they may consider that, in a free and democratic society, a government and a Parliament are justified in wishing to restrict basic freedoms where pornography is concerned, particularly child pornography.

Other alternative measures have been presented, in particular the one suggested by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and his colleagues, that a reference to the supreme court be made by the federal government under the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code. Such a procedure would make it possible to speed up the debate and would allow the courts to reach a decision more quickly, and ought not, moreover, to be excluded from the hypotheses considered by the Minister of Justice.

For the moment, however, having spoken to certain people, certain criminal law specialists who are of the opinion that the integrity of the Canadian criminal justice system might be put in jeopardy if there were immediate recourse to the notwithstanding clause, and having considered these opinions, it is certainly worthwhile for the judges and the public to understand that, in the present circumstances, the Bloc Quebecois considers it inappropriate to make use of the notwithstanding clause, as the Reform members wish to do. Instead, a certain degree of patience is required, allowing the legal process to take its course.

In conclusion, to repeat the position taken this morning by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, our justice critic, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion, because it represents a means of sending a clear message that this judgment and the position taken by Mr. Justice Shaw do not appear to be in line with our party's views of what is reasonable in a free and democratic society. Also, as for the amendment, we will be voting against it.

[Louise Arbour, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate the chief prosecutor for the international criminal tribunals, Madame Justice Louise Arbour, for her courage and determination in the present crisis in Kosovo.

By trying to get to the bottom of the events that led to the deaths of 45 Kosovars, among them women and children, in Racka, Madame Justice Arbour has shown once again that she takes her job seriously and that she has no intention of caving in to those seeking to escape international criminal justice.

With a new round of fighting under way and the parties summoned to Rambouillet with a view to a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations, it is to be hoped that the agreement to be signed at the international peace conference will give Madame Justice Arbour the tools to bring to justice those who have committed the massacres and atrocities that have so appalled humanity.

[Spexel, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The minister had the opportunity to review the letter dated November 6 in which Spexel, a company based in Beauharnois, demonstrated it was unfairly excluded from bidding on the contract for the supply of security paper for Canadian passports.

Will the minister now give Spexel the assurance it will be allowed to submit a bid and will no longer be subjected to this uncalled for exclusion from government contracting?