Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Armenian People, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for his question. It is clear that this is an extremely sensitive matter, as much for the Armenian people as for the Turkish community. I clearly understand this.

Whether they see this as the humiliation of the Turkish community or whether they use a very powerful lobby to try to influence the parliamentarians here, I can understand that too. Nevertheless, we have not necessarily all been impressed by comments by our American friends. The recent conflict in Iraq is clear proof.

Consequently, I sincerely hope that such pressure, which is fair game, will not have the intended influence.

[Armenian People, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, which I greatly appreciate.

Obviously, economic threats sometimes are sometimes effective. They are used because people think they work well. All we know, particularly in the case of France, is that neither France nor Turkey has withdrawn from any of the various contracts connecting them. I am convinced that it will be the same here.

In business, people say money is money and that we pick one country over another based on whether it is in our economic interest to do so.

Just as we think that Canada will continue to negotiate with Quebec, because Canada wants to do business with Quebec, I think that, regarding the Armenian genocide and the possibility that the Turkish government may reconsider its investments in Quebec or the rest of Canada, this is another form of pressure. But as a parliamentarian and a member of the public, I know that this kind of thing has no influence on our collective decision.

[Armenian People, February 25th, 2004]

, seconded by the members for Brampton Centre, Calgary Southeast and Halifax, moved:

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to thank the members of the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party, particularly the hon. members for Calgary Southeast and Halifax, who also wanted to second my motion.

We are debating today a matter that has, with time, become routine in the House of Commons. However, today's debate on acknowledging the Armenian genocide of 1915 has particular force this time, since it is a votable motion, unless a premature election call puts an end to our work in Parliament.

Everyone who knows me knows that I have long been interested in this matter. They know, as I do, that it is essential to acknowledge history to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Acknowledging the past also changes how we see and therefore analyze current and future socio-political conflicts that risk turning into genocide.

I want to review the Parliament's acknowledgement in the past of the Armenian genocide, the strategies used by the lobby denying its existence, the situation in Quebec and abroad and, in conclusion, discuss the facts and the importance of voting in favour of Motion M-380.

First, the motion reads as follows:

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

Since the beginning of the 37th Parliament, in other words, since the last federal election in 2000, this is the fourth time we are debating a motion to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. Of the three motions previously debated, I had the pleasure to introduce two of them and the member for Brampton Centre put forward the other.

Although most of the speeches were in favour of acknowledging the genocide, we have not had the opportunity to put this motion to a vote because of the old rules of procedure for private members' business. This is the first time in a long time that we will have the opportunity to truly take a position in this debate.

We have to go back to 1996 for the last vote in the House of Commons on this topic. At that time, parliamentarians, including myself, unanimously supported the following motion:

That the House recognize, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives on April 24, 1915, and in recognition of other crimes against humanity, the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another.

This motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and amended by the governing party, was certainly a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, note that it did not talk about genocide, but rather a tragedy. This was not the wording originally proposed. We initially talked about an act of genocide, but it seemed to be difficult for some parliamentarians to use this term, which is how we ended up with the amendment we did.

However, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since and that is why it is all the more important to update the debate. Moreover, as surprising as it may seem in the Parliament of Canada, the Senate was the precursor to all of this.

On June 13, 2002, the Senate of Canada adopted a motion that had essentially three objectives: to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide; to condemn any attempt to deny or distort this historical truth as being anything less than genocide; and, to designate April 24 of every year as a day of remembrance of the Armenian genocide.

The Senate adopted this motion and the Earth continues to turn. This did not result in acts of violence or terrorist attacks, as certain opponents of Motion M-380 would unfortunately have us believe.

It would be useful at this point to rectify certain facts as to the pressure coming from those who agree with the denial theory. That they do not agree with my actions, I can imagine. That they do not share my viewpoint on history, no one would be surprised. By the way, we all know that history should be read with care, because it has the weakness of having been written by the victors. Still I do not approve of using a fear of terrorism to discredit the recognition of the Armenian genocide and I refuse to agree to the statement that motion M-380 is tainted with racism.

Demagoguery is certainly not the best way to enhance one's arguments. In that spirit, the various threats about peace and the deterioration of relations between Canada and Turkey do not consider the precedents for recognition of the Armenian genocide.

We must be clear that the House of Commons will not be creating a precedent by voting in favour of this motion. Just across the Ottawa River—and it was done in Ontario, too—the Quebec National Assembly officially recognized the genocide in 1980. More recently, on September 10, 2003, Quebec passed a law proclaiming April 24 Armenian genocide commemoration day.

Internationally, a number of states and parliaments have recognized the Armenian genocide. To name just a few: there was Argentina, Belgium, France, Russia, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and more recently, Switzerland. Many states in the U.S.—nearly 30—have also recognized this genocide.

The case of the European states and parliaments is particularly interesting. While Turkey threatened the countries that had recognized the genocide with economic and diplomatic retaliation, it was hoping, at the same time, to get support for its entry into the European union. These threats never became reality and the Turkish ambassador in Paris, having been called home for a short time after the genocide was recognized by the French National Assembly, returned to his duties.

This recognition did not stir up any particular tension in Franco-Turkish relations, nor did it provoke acts of violence or terrorism between French people of Armenian origin and those of Turkish origin.

Those who are against the motion will argue that history is for historians and that it is not up to politicians to determine what the truth is. Where facts are concerned, many experts, scholars, historians and researchers have examined them and came to the conclusion that a genocide did indeed occur. Among those experts were professor William Schabas, a specialist in international law, Léo Kuper, a genocide expert, and Raphaël Lemkin, an eminent contributor to the development of the United Nations Convention on Genocide. They have always recognized the 1915 genocide.

Among the politicians who have acknowledged the genocide are Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, two former British Prime Ministers, as well as Adolf Hitler, who said, and I quote:

Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

To those who are still wondering if it is up to us to reflect on history, this should be food for thought.

At the beginning of the 20th century, 1.5 million Armenians were killed. They did not die while fighting during the first world war, but rather in the context of that war, which is quite different. Following on this argument, could we say today that the six million Jews who were killed during the second world war died on the battlefield? No, they were killed in the context of the second world war, but not because of the war, that goes without saying.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge today the very compassionate action taken during the 1939-45 war by the Turkish ambassador to France who saved a significant number of Jews from the Lyon area from the concentration camps and probable, if not certain, death.

Before World War I, 20% of the Turkish people were not Muslim, compared to 2.5% after the war. These figures are facts that have been recognized by a great number of historians and experts.

Why should hon. members support my initiative? Let me give an example. If a person wilfully commits a murder in front of you, if everyone knows about it, including lawyers, judges and police officers, but no one acknowledges that it is a murder, what criteria will people use in the future to distinguish what is a murder and what is not? Closing our eyes to a historic reality creates the risk of making this non-acknowledgement a form of precedent for events that are occurring now and that will occur in the future.

Planning a genocide requires well defined strategies and dynamics, and we must recognize them for what they are to understand the conditions that lead to such crimes against humanity. By acknowledging that the events of 1915 are a genocide, we will allow researchers, historians and academics to study what happened, while keeping in mind that this was indeed a genocide. These people can then compare various genocides and try to identify the similarities and the circumstances that are conducive to such acts.

Once we have all the tools needed to best understand how a genocide is organized, perhaps then the international community will be able to identify the signs in time to take immediate action instead of intervening too late, as happened in the Rwandan genocide, that this House just acknowledged.

The purpose of this acknowledgement is not to condemn the current Turkish government. Nor does Motion M-380 ask that it provide any reparations in terms of money or land to the Armenians. By acknowledging the Armenian genocide, Canada is not pointing a finger at the Turkish government. It is merely acknowledging history.

In closing, I want to reassure the Turkish community and tell them that this motion in no way attempts to hold them responsible for what happened in the early 20th century. What happened belongs in the past, and we must acknowledge it as such, since we are opposed to all forms of violence and the misfortunes that violence begets.

Obviously, we will not bring the victims back, but we will, at the very least, ensure that historical justice is rendered and give ourselves the tools we need to build a better world. During their lives, individuals and peoples are often wounded. The deeper the wounds, the longer it takes to heal. I truly believe that, by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated on the Armenian people, we will be helping to heal their scars and give them and the international community the desire to view the future in solidarity and with respect for our differences.

[World Cup of Diving, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, Quebec athletes performed brilliantly at the 49-nation FINA World Cup of Diving.

Two young men from Laval, Alexandre Despatie and Philippe Comtois, won the bronze medal for the synchronized 10-metre platform dive, thus qualifying for the Olympic Games in Athens this summer. It is especially exciting since synchronized diving will be included as an Olympic sport for the first time.

Alexandre Despatie also won a gold medal in the 3-metre springboard and a bronze medal in the 10-metre platform competition. He had already qualified for the Athens Games in these two events.

Along with the people of Laval and all of Quebec, I am very proud of the achievements of these two young men; personally, and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish them the best of luck in Athens.

[Refugees, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force on June 28, 2002, and the refugee appeal division is still not in place.

What is the reason behind the minister's delay in setting up this appeal division, which is essential to the implementation of an equitable process for all individuals claiming refugee status?

[Refugees, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a number of days ago, three Palestinians who were denied refugee status sought sanctuary in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce church in Montreal to avoid being deported. Although Thérèse, Khabil and Nabih Ayoub lived in refugee camps for 50 years, Canada has no qualms about giving them a one-way ticket to a refugee camp in Lebanon.

Can the minister explain the logic behind Canada's decision to refuse to grant refugee status to applicants, although these same authorities confirm that status by sending them to refugee camps in Lebanon?

[Black History Month, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the Parliament of Canada designated the month of February as Black History Month. Can there be a better opportunity to highlight the important contribution of Blacks to Quebec and Canadian society?

More than a simple commemoration, this is an occasion to celebrate the uniqueness of the history and culture of these men and women who have chosen to live in Quebec or in Canada, whether several generations ago or only just recently.

This celebration also recognizes the cultural diversity that enriches us all. Building a just and equitable society for everyone, regardless of our differences, demands that we try to understand the history, the passions and the values of each individual in our midst. As we celebrate Black History Month, we must keep in mind our collective responsibility to respect differences.

[Palestinian Refugees, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Ahmad Abdel-Majeed, a Palestinian refugee who was held in Laval for several days, was deported yesterday and is now imprisoned in the United States. It is high time something was done.

It is urgent that this government suspend the many deportation orders and put into place a fair and equitable procedure for the Palestinian refugees. When will something be done?

[Palestinian Refugees, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, some 100 Palestinians whose requests for asylum have been turned down will soon be deported to refugee camps in Lebanon.

The fact that Canada does not recognize the validity of the claims made by these people who have lived for many years in refugee camps is an insult to logic.

Since there is no country they can consider their own and since their return to refugee camps may well, it appears, put their lives in danger, can the minister tell the House if he intends to intervene in this matter by immediately suspending the deportation process that has already begun?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are certain debates in this House that require making decisions in the light of a particular context and realities that cannot be ignored. Today, I have the opportunity to speak on a question that demands serious thought in order to arrive at our position. Here we see reason clashing with passion.

Bill C-436, sponsored by the hon. member for Vancouver East, seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The proposed amendment reads as follows:

Subject to the regulations, a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may, once in their lifetime, sponsor one foreign national who is a relative but is not a member of the family class.

We are well acquainted with the hon. member for Vancouver East. This proposal reflects her humanitarianism and her great generosity. We commend her on the spirit behind this bill.

Unfortunately, we cannot support her bill as it is currently formulated. Three major reasons underlie our position: the lack of clarity of Bill C-436; immigration priorities, particularly Canada's role in refugee protection; and finally, budgetary constraints and the resulting choices for the allocation of resources.

What do we mean when we say that the hon. NDP member's proposal lacks clarity? What does she mean by a “foreign national who is a relative but is not a member of the family class”? What are the acceptable limits of the definition of “a relative”? For example, is a third cousin counted as a relative? Is there a requirement that they share a genetic ancestor and, if so, to what percentage? What is the dividing line between an acceptable relative and one who is not, if the list of admissible persons has not been defined?

We easily see that there is a great deal of room for arbitrary decisions. If the hon. member wishes to broaden the family class to include other specific family members, she should state that in her bill, because without that, it is too vague and does not make it possible to determine which cases are admissible and which are not.

For example, we know that certain cultures consider family much more broadly than blood relations. For some people, a very close friend or neighbour is like a brother or at least like a member of the family.

The current list of persons admissible in the family class is already well defined. How could we justify an amendment this far-reaching without including some limits?

That way, the hon. member should be able to show how many people would be affected by this new measure. Has she any credible and relevant studies on this? For now, we can only presume that this kind of proposal would have allowed 229,091 additional sponsorship applications in 2002.

This piece of the pie, which is Canada's immigration plan, is split 60-40. In other words, immigrants are selected as follows: 60% are economic immigrants, meaning business people, and self-employed and skilled workers; the remaining 40% are family class immigrants, asylum seekers and so forth.

Of this 40%, approximately 30% are family class immigrants, 10% are refugees, and 1% other. If the number of individuals who qualify for family class is increased, who will pay? Since the total is split 60-40, asylum seekers will clearly pay the price of these new measures.

Those members interested in reducing the 60% should remember that, before family members of a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can be brought over, the primary applicant must qualify to enter Canada as part of the 60% in the economic class. So, this proposal, which would reduce that percentage, does little to improve the situation.

With respect to the 40%, headlines show deportation cases for asylum seekers being dismissed almost every week. Clearly, the numerous conflicts and civil wars in a growing number of countries—Colombia, Algeria, Palestine, Israel, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan—should make democratic countries pay closer attention to refugee claimants. Every year, small budgets cause Canada to turn away thousands of asylum seekers whose lives are in danger in their country of origin. With bigger budgets, Canada could further meet its obligations as a signatory of the Geneva convention with respect to protecting refugees.

By allowing more immigrants to sponsor relatives, we are using resources that could save lives by accepting more asylum seekers. Politics and public administration are no exception, as with daily life we have to make responsible choices while taking various constraints into account. Would it be better to bring a distant cousin to Canada or offer asylum to a Colombian family whose members might be tortured or killed if they were returned to Colombia? In an ideal world we could do both, but for now this is not possible.

Although the humanitarian intent of the NDP member is praiseworthy, her bill does not take into consideration the realities of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's budget.

Canada's immigration objective is to admit the equivalent of 1% of the Canadian population, or 310,000 immigrants annually. There are two key reasons for this: compensating for the recorded drop in population and filling the need for skilled workers, particularly with economic category immigrants.

In 2002, Canada admitted 229,091 immigrants, compared to the 2001 figure of 250,484. The drop was in part a result of the department's inability to process any more because of budget restraints and the costs related to settlement and integration. It is not enough just to admit people into the country; it is also important to ensure that they receive proper services for a smooth integration into the host society.

This past spring, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's trip across Canada gave us a good idea of the inadequate funds available for settlement of newcomers and the unfortunate consequences of this situation. The quality of services to new arrivals is as important as, if not more important than the quantity of newcomers. What is the point of bringing in distant cousins and neighbours, if we are not even in a position to properly service those already here in Quebec and in Canada?

It is important to clearly understand that the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the humanitarian aspect of Bill C-436, and if the hon. member agrees to take it back to the drawing board and fine tune her proposal, particularly by improving its focus and clarifying those who would be eligible, it is possible that we might support it when time comes to vote. For the moment, however, common sense and responsibility dictate that we instead favour providing proper settlement services for those who are admitted. As well, our humanitarian duty toward asylum seekers requires us to afford them priority when resources are being allocated. For them it is often a matter of life or death. As the old saying has it, “You should not bite off more than you can chew”. We are better to not bite off so much that we develop problems later.