Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Bank Act, April 23rd, 1996]

The members of the official opposition will vote no on this motion.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Agreed.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is a whole societal issue the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is raising. How do we choose between the economy, which is vital to our societies, and human rights, which every individual is entitled to enjoy.

The choice requires consideration. There is one basic point: when a human being is not respected he loses his humanity bit by bit. It is true that work is important. It is true that people have to eat. It is true that people should have whatever they need. It is true among our societies and it is true in developing countries where human rights must fight an uphill battle.

The question has to be asked: Which is more important? Is it more important to retain what sets human beings apart-their pride

and their role in society-or to destroy it little by little by giving them consumer goods and nothing more?

I know it is not easy. I know it is easier in opposition to criticize, but I also know that difficult problems require shared solutions. I therefore ask the Canadian government to lend an attentive ear, open to suggestions from this side of the House. Just because it comes from here does not mean it is useless or empty.

I think this is the discussion before us at the start of the third millennium and I sincerely believe Canada will have to be a leader in the area of human rights.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, April 24 of this year will mark the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide that took place in 1915 during the First World War. And what a sad anniversary it will be. This first genocide of the 20th century, which would unfortunately be followed by many others, is still today not recognized by the Canadian government. I rise, therefore, in support of this motion to recognize the week of April 20 to 27 as the week to commemorate man's inhumanity to man.

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay homage to and to offer my profound sympathy to the Armenian people, especially the 1,540 families of the Armenian community in Laval, who found a welcome in Quebec, where they take part in and contribute to the development of Quebec society.

The genocide of the Armenian people by the Turkish government began on April 24, 1915. That fateful day marked the beginning of this episode in history that ended with over a million people dead and thousands of others deported. It was the first of a series of genocides against peoples, for a people claiming the right to exist runs the risk of being massacred. As proof, we have the Holocaust during World War II, the recent massacres in Rwanda and Burundi, and obviously the situation in Bosnia, all examples showing the risk that those daring to claim status as a people still run in the 20th century.

All these events are a reminder to us that governments all too often use force and violence to repress causes that they do not agree with.

As I mentioned earlier, the genocide of the Armenian people culminated in the death of 1.5 million people and the deportation of over 500,000 others. Not only did the Turkish government almost totally take over Armenia's territory, but it also did not hesitate to destroy a number of religious and educational establishments. The very structures of the Armenian community were therefore destroyed. The rights of Armenians were completely denied, with the goal of eliminating a people that were considered hostile to Turkey.

Memory is often dulled with the passage of time, but democracy must never allow the truth to be denied. This first genocide of the 20th century was and still is a crime against humanity and civilization. Furthermore, in resolution No. 2391 adopted on November 26, 1968, the United Nations declared that genocide was a crime against humanity, and that there is no term of limitation for this crime, regardless of the time or place it was committed.

At that time, of course, there was no UN, and so no country dared clearly denounce the Armenian genocide, no state demanded that Turkey own up to these odious actions.

Today, within a Parliament that is internationally known for its respect of democracy and is quick to proclaim itself a defender of human rights, we have the opportunity to adopt a motion acknowledging the Armenian genocide and to call to mind other genocides throughout history. It is the duty of the international community and of Parliament to clearly condemn such actions, so as to put an end to violence between peoples.

The international community unanimously denounced the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The Nuremberg international war crimes tribunal passed judgment on those responsible for crimes against humanity and civilization.

The Armenian genocide, however, remains unpunished, yet it is an undeniable historical fact. Some states, moreover, have acknowledged this genocide. For instance, on April 10 1980, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide. The legislative assembly of Ontario did the same, also in 1980.

In the 16 years since 1980, close to two thirds of the Canadian population have clearly come to recognize the genocide against the Armenian people. What we are asking of the Government of Canada is that the truth be acknowledged today, no matter how cruel a truth it is.

In its condemnation of the Armenian genocide in a resolution adopted in 1987, the European Parliament stated that "the present Turkish government's refusal to acknowledge the genocide, along with other more recent violations of international law by this country, constitute impassable obstacles to any examination of the future membership of Turkey in the European community".

How can something that seems so clear to the European community not be equally clear to the Canadian government? What is this government waiting for, before it acknowledges and condemns the historical fact of the Armenian genocide?

Today we are marking the 81st anniversary of that genocide. The passage of time is a poor excuse for refusing to take a stand and to condemn these actions. On the contrary; the acknowledgement of the genocide by the states of the international community offers proof that such actions are unacceptable and that no future genocides will occur without an outcry. Canada sees itself as a defender of democracy and human rights. It must condemn this genocide as it condemned the Holocaust.

Finally, I must point out that on November 2, 1948, Canada signed the International convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and this has been in effect since December 2, 1950. There is no statute of limitation for the crime of genocide, and it is not yet too late for the Canadian government to join with the other states that have denounced the Armenian genocide and to show consistency with its past positions, respecting this international convention of which it is a signatory.

The promotion and protection of universally recognized human rights must be our principal motivation in the debate on this motion. Economic interests must not be allowed to dictate our actions when the respect of basic human rights is concerned. By passing this motion, the House will be showing its unwavering support of the respect of individual and collective rights.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, April 19th, 1996]

I am pleased to participate in this debate today, Mr. Speaker, on the bill put forward by the hon. member for Ontario, a bill designating April 21 National Organ Donor Day.

I will start with a real life story. The story is set in Montreal's Sainte-Justine hospital. The year is 1959. It feels almost like yesterday. I was about to graduate from nursing school. Pierrette was a patient of mine. She was 14 years old and had been suffering from kidney failure for several years. Thirty years ago, haemodialysis and kidney transplants were still in the realm of science fiction. All this to say that Pierrette was dying. All she wanted was to sleep through the night but, one night, she went to sleep never to wake up again.

In those days, cases like Pierrette's were hopeless and therefore went untreated. The feeling of helplessness was extremely frustrating for all of us. Why her and not me? Science has made giant strides since. Over the course of almost 30 years of professional activity entirely dedicated to paediatric care, I finally saw hope rekindled in the hearts and minds of parents and caregivers.

Today, increasingly sophisticated technologies make heart, liver, lung and pancreas transplants possible. What was a virtually impossible feat in 1960 has become, today more than ever, a challenge to take on.

In 1995, in Quebec alone, 375 persons received the invaluable gift of life because 117 healthy people like you and me agreed to give the gift of life after their own life was over. There are nevertheless more than 500 Quebecers who are still waiting for a transplant and, across Canada, only 40 per cent of those who need a transplant actually undergo the operation. Scientific progress notwithstanding, the biggest problem remains the insufficient supply of organs to meet the demand.

According to Québec-Transplant, one of the factors contributing to this shortage is undoubtedly the fact that only an infinitely small number of possible donors meet the requirements for organ donation. In 1995, among the many donors referred, only 117 could be used to meet part of the transplant needs. So, if there are more donors, there will also be more people who will benefit from a long awaited organ transplant that will improve their quality of life.

This is why this bill is so important. One way to increase the number of donors is to run public awareness campaigns on the importance of organ donation. In that field, the most sophisticated

technologies are useless if people refuse or forget to give the gift of life.

Instituting a national organ donor day would help organizations such as Québec-Transplant and the Canadian association of organ donors to intensify their campaigns to recruit organ donors and to stress the importance of volunteer work in that sector.

This issue is very dear to me, partly because for four years now, Laval, which is the second largest city in Quebec and which is were my riding is located, has been running a campaign in April to recruit organ donors. I am proud to participate in that event as honourary copresident. I can see the positive impact of such a campaign in terms of encouraging people to pledge to donate organs, but also on the volunteers working in that sector. The organ donor month in Laval also provides an opportunity for various interested parties, including volunteers, medical teams and organizations, to consult each other to promote organ donation.

Police officers are a good example. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation to police officers in Laval, who are serving this cause by transporting organs and thus contribute to saving many lives. Since 1993, about 50 police officers have been called upon 325 times and have travelled over 39,000 kilometres to transport donor organs.

But the main goal is public awareness, so that people will sign they donor card and talk about it with their relatives and friends.

Organ donation is a sign of solidarity with people who need an organ transplant to stay alive or get a better quality of life. It can also give a meaning to death, because it is a gift of life.

Only through sharing and generosity can we solve the shortage of organs for transplants. Sooner or later, we all have to come to grips with the reality of death, our own or that of a loved one. The loss of our loved ones is always a cause for grief, but organ donation is a gift of life that can bring hope and peace.

However, some elements like the lack of knowledge about the organ shortage or the emotional drive to keep the body of the deceased intact all hinder an increase in transplants and make it crucial, at least for the people waiting for a transplant, that information and awareness campaigns be launched.

This is why I intend to submit to the health committee an amendment to Bill C-202, asking Parliament to recognize April as organ donor month, as is the tradition in Laval.

I think that, because of the extent of the organ shortage and the importance of this issue, we need to set aside a whole month to educate the public. Health is not only about science and technology. It is also a question of awareness and reflection and caring. Since life gives us all kinds of opportunities, I think we should also give life a chance.

[Krever Commission, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if the commission will in fact be entitled to issue notices of possible misconduct?

[Krever Commission, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the time the people across the way were calling for my question, I was putting it. What more do you want?

Again, here is my question: For everyone's benefit and because this is a federal inquiry and a public health issue, can the minister dispel the confusion surrounding the mandate of the commission by clearly stating his position on this matter?

[Krever Commission, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Commission of inquiry into our national blood supply is caught in a legal tangle, because of all the confusion surrounding the mandate of the commission. There is no agreement over the authority of the Krever commission to issue notices of possible misconduct, hence the court proceedings. The opposition reminds the government that its priority should go to the victims of tainted blood and not this legal battle.

For everyone's benefit and because this is a federal inquiry and a public health issue-

[Lebanon, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to express our profound indignation about and strong disapproval of the massacre at Qana, in southern Lebanon, in which some 100 civilians were killed and another 100 wounded.

This slaughter of civilians in a refugee camp under UN protection, which resulted from the Israeli army's actions, is more massive than the one that resulted from the February 1994 attack on the Sarajevo market.

Israel must immediately stop the bloodshed, which seriously sullies its honour and undermines the credibility of its cause.

There was another exchange of fire last night between Israel and Hezbollah. The toll of the Israeli operation is reported to have reached more than 151 dead, most of them civilians, and close to 300 wounded. This massacre must end. We urge both sides to respond to the international community's call for an immediate ceasefire.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote nay.