GOVERNMENT ORDERS

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-INHUMANITY OF PEOPLE TO ONE ANOTHER

That this House recognize, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide that took place on April 24, 1915, the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week to commemorate man's inhumanity to man.

I want to point out that the timing of this motion has a symbolic value. On April 15, Jewish communities throughout the world and people of all denominations gathered to commemorate the six million victims of the killing frenzy of the Nazi regime during World War II.

Tomorrow, the Armenian community will be commemorating the genocide that started on April 24, 1915 in the Ottoman Empire, a genocide that left more than 1.5 million victims. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Armenian community in Montreal and elsewhere in this country, and point out its contribution to our collective life.

The resolve with which the Armenian people is conserving its culture, its refusal to forget about the past, and its untiring efforts to gain international recognition for the Armenian genocide deserve everybody's admiration. The designation of a commemorative week would allow citizens of this country to show their respect for people who suffered extermination or fell victim to crimes against mankind, in particular the Armenian and the Jewish communities.

This is not the first time we speak in this House of crimes against mankind or that we deplore past genocides. On April 3 of last year, the hon. member for Don Valley North put forward a motion similar to the one I am moving today. At the time, the Bloc amended the motion, with its mover's assent, to specifically refer to the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Halifax, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, opposed the motion under the pretext that we should not designate any precise period to commemorate genocides because we think of them every day.

(1120)

The hon. member spoke fine words but failed to act upon them. She contradicted herself when she said first, and I quote: ``I believe genocide is so horrible that the memory of past genocides will always be with us'', but said to conclude and I quote again: ``I must say that I would be concerned if we were to designate a particular period of time for commemorating genocide''.

Faced with such opposition by an hon. member associated with the executive body, the mover withdrew his request for the unanimous consent of the House for a recorded division on the motion and thus allowed the government to avoid voting on the question.

The attitude of the parliamentary secretary may have been due to her ignorance of the terrible lessons of the past, or perhaps it reflected the lack of political fortitude of this government and its lack of determination to defend human rights internationally.

That is why my colleagues and I-and, I hope, the government and other opposition members will join us-will remind the people of the odious crimes of the past. In memory of that past, we will ask the government to adopt from now on a firm position on the respect of human rights in the world, starting with the recognition of the Armenian genocide.

[English]

I demand that the government stop selling out Canadian traditions in favour of human rights and to show its true determination by the formal recognition of the Armenian genocide that happened in 1915.

[Translation]

Most people have already heard about the holocaust, the genocide of Jewish people by the Nazis. Our parents lived through the second world war know and have told us about it. Recently, the younger generation had to opportunity to see the movie ``Schindler's List'', but how many people are aware of the genocide which took place during the first world war?

Actually, very few people know that a million and a half Armenians were killed and that hundreds of thousands of others were deported in 1915 and after, under order of the Ottoman Empire that ruled Turkey at the time.

The fact that the allied governments and the League of Nations neglected to publicly recognize this genocide and to take sanctions against those responsible for it mat well have had crucial consequences afterwards. Indeed, on the eve of the second world war,

Adolf Hitler said to his SS: ``Who remembers the Armenian genocide today?'' Personally, I refuse to prove Hitler right.

The official opposition recognizes the Armenian genocide and wants to help make it known in this House, to our viewers, to the population at large. But first, let us give a brief historical outline.

The Ottoman Empire was established in the 14th century, after Constantinople fell to the Turks. At one point, this empire covered most of the Middle East and of North Africa. Many Christians lived in this empire, in particular Greeks and Armenians.

The Armeninans lived in Anatolia, the eastern part of modern Turkey. These Christians came under Turkish authority, but they were tolerated because they acted as a link in the trade with the Western world. During the first world war, the government of the Ottoman Empire, fighting against Russia to the east and a Franco-British army to the west, came to consider its Christian subjects as traitors and suspected them of collaborating with the Allies because of their religion. Then came a series of humiliations, followed by arrests, torture and, finally, executions and massive deportations.

In addition to the massacres perpetrated by the soldiers or the civilian population, the massive deportations were secretly aimed at exterminating the Armenians. A large number of Armenians died of hunger, thirst and exhaustion caused by a forced exodus in atrocious conditions. Nowadays, this would be called ethnic cleansing.

A note from the allied forces dated July 17, 1920, and kept in the French national archives described the Armenian genocide in the following terms, and I quote: ``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''.

(1125)

Unfortunately, the Allies did not follow up on the massacres. They spent more time dividing up the former Ottoman possessions in the Middle East, Syria, Iraq and Palestine, than condemning what has come to be known as the first genocide of the 20th century.

It was not until 1948 that a definition and a formal prohibition of genocide were enshrined in international law. In the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted that year, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I remind this House that Canada signed that convention. That is why I do not understand our government's persistent refusal to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. I deplore and condemn that attitude because denying the genocide is playing into the hands of those who committed it and who want their acts to be forgotten, which is the same thing as condoning their actions.

Since the Armenian genocide, in 1915, the inertia and the passivity of the international community have caused other people to suffer large scale massacres. Beside the Jewish people, whom I mentioned earlier, we could mention the war in Biafra, Nigeria, from 1967 to 1970, where a whole civilian population was deliberately starved in front of helpless young French doctors who were later to create the organization Médecins sans frontières.

In 1978, in Cambodia, the Khmers Rouges deported all political opponents into the countryside and into the fields. One million and a half of these deportees never came back and, a few years later, giant mass graves were discovered. Since then, the Cambodian government has built a museum gathering together the evidence of this genocide so that the victims will never be forgotten.

This sort of slaughter is still going on, brought to us live on television for our passive consumption. We watched powerless as the tragedy unfolded in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing took place in Bosnia. I call upon each member sitting in this House to ask themselves how many other similar massacres we are going to allow. What is our responsibility as elected representatives to prevent other tragedies and suffering?

Since my arrival in this House, I have on many occasions criticized the government for its failure to do anything to recognize the Armenian genocide. But recently, I was shocked and outraged to learn that, in addition to doing nothing in this regard, the government has actually exerted pressure on the City of Montreal

to halt the construction of a monument to the memory of peoples martyred in modern times, particularly the Armenians.

According to representatives of the Armenian national committee, the mayor of Montreal admitted that the Minister for International Cooperation, and member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, had intervened to stop the plan to build a monument commemorating the Armenian genocide. Despite the minister's denials, the mayor of Montreal stood by what he said. The mayor of Montreal has always stood by what he says.

Already in 1990, the Turkish ambassador wrote to Mayor Doré requesting that another monument not refer to the Armenian genocide. These dubious actions make us wonder if the present Canadian government has an official policy of putting a price tag on its principles. They are a reminder of other events in which the Canadian government intervened in an equally deplorable manner.

In 1988, under another government, a senior official of the Department of External Affairs wrote to the Ottawa school board to object to the mention of the Armenian genocide in school textbooks. This official then explained to the media that the Canadian government had taken the action so as not to jeopardize millions of dollars in commercial contracts with Turkey.

When a Canadian monument to human rights was erected in 1991, undue pressure was apparently brought to bear by foreign governments, leading to the suppression of two plaques referring to the Armenian genocide and the massacre in Tiananmen Square.

In fact, since coming to power, this government, like the one before it, has adopted the despicable habit of subordinating the respect of human rights to political and economic interests. Over the years, Canada has acquired an excellent reputation the world over, not just for its respect of human rights within its own borders, but also for its involvement internationally in the promotion of human rights and the values of tolerance and peace, ideals held by all citizens of this country whatever their political stripe. Unfortunately, the recent events in Somalia have tarnished our reputation.

(1130)

Our government too has recently changed its foreign policy. In the future, in order to ensure the media success of the Prime Minister's tours abroad, any public challenge of these countries' human rights record must be avoided.

The episode of an embarrassed Prime Minister, as 13 year old Craig Kielburger travelled to India to denounce forced child labour in his presence, is most revealing. I remember also the red carpet and honour guard treatment for Rumanian dictator Ceausescu under the Conservative government, which wanted to sell him a nuclear reactor. A few months later, after Ceausescu's overthrow and execution, the Prime Minister of the day rejoiced at the fall of this blood-thirsty tyrant. In the case of Turkey, sales of both a nuclear reactor and weapons are involved. There is spinelessness, whether Conservatives or Liberals are in power.

This type of behaviour, in which injustices are denounced only when it is worthwhile for publicity or political gain, is contrary to traditional Canadian values. Canadians want this government to have principles and to stand up for them at all times. That does not mean that all trade with certain countries must be cut off if we do not approve of their human rights record, but we must make it very clear to them that trading with them does not indicate approval, that it will not stop us from criticizing them if they commit reprehensible acts.

Canadians do not expect complacency from their government; they expect it to denounce injustices throughout the world. I will offer a few examples of flagrant human rights violations which our government prefers to ignore.

After the Gulf War against Iraq, Canada took part in operation ``Provide Comfort'', aimed at protecting the Kurd populations in northern Iraq against bloody attacks by Sadam Hussein's government forces. On the other side of the border at the same time, only a few kilometres away, the Turkish government was arresting and executing hundreds of Kurds rebelling against its authority. But, because the government of Turkey is our ally, we closed our eyes. How could there be good Kurds who merited our protection, and bad Kurds whose fate we did not care about?

During Team Canada's trip to China, and when Chinese officials visited our country, the government remained totally silent in the face of the repression against pro-democracy Chinese since the Tiananmen square massacre. Nor has a word been said about the methodical process of assimilating the Tibetan people. Recently, the hon. members for Longueuil and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce have spoken out against the torture and summary executions in East Timor, which is under military occupation by Indonesia.

Finally, the hundreds of casualties in recent months in Burundi, victims of the clashes between Hutu and Tutsi, make us fear a repeat of the genocide that occurred in neighbouring Rwanda. Although the term ``genocide'' frightens the Canadian government so, it did use it in reference to Rwanda. Will it allow another tragedy to happen when there is still time for something to be done?

In order to show our respect for all the victims of the past and to reaffirm our determination to use all our energy to prevent new massacres, I ask the government to officially recognize the Armenian genocide as a historical fact.

Canada is far from being a leader on this issue. Actually, it is behind the times, because many foreign governments and parliaments have already recognized and condemned the Armenian genocide.

The Permanent People's Tribunal declared, on April 16, 1984: ``The Armenian genocide is an imprescriptible crime against humanity and an international crime for which the Turkish state must take responsibility''.

On August 20, 1985, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights recognized the Armenian massacre by the Ottoman Empire as one of the genocides of the 20th century.

The parliament of the Argentina and the national assembly of Uruguay also recognized it. On June 18, 1987, the European Parliament recognized the historical fact of the Armenian genocide and added that the refusal of the Turkish state to recognize the genocide was an obstacle to Turkey's joining the European Community.

On April 22, 1994, the Douma, or Russian parliament, recognized the Armenian genocide and severely condemned its authors. On April 27, 1994, the Israeli government officially condemned the Armenian genocide despite the fact that Turkey is Israel's ally in the region. The secretary of state for foreign affairs declared:

(1135)

[English]

``We will reject any attempt to erase its record even for some political advantage.''

[Translation]

This was an act of courage on the part of the Israeli government.

In May of last year, Bob Dole, the leader of the Republican majority in the Senate of the United States and a Republican candidate in the presidential elections condemned Turkey for persisting in its refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. He declared:

[English]

``I recently with many of my colleagues called on the president, Mr. Clinton, to reaffirm the Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity as he did many times in the 1992 presidential campaign.''

[Translation]

Finally, I want to point out that, as early as 1980, the Quebec national assembly and the Ontario legislature, which together represent 60 per cent of the Canadian population, both officially recognized the Armenian genocide and asked the Parliament of

Canada to also do so on behalf of all Canadians. I hope that this clear message will finally be heard by the federal government.

In 1994, when he was premier, the ally of the federal government and leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, stated: ``The anniversary of the Armenian genocide reminds us of one of the most tragic moments in the history of our century and moves us to express our deep sympathy for this people''. We are not going to water down the proposal by trying to replace the term genocide.

The German government, which long ago acknowledged its moral responsibility in the Jewish genocide by the Nazi regime and has offered reparation, must be given credit. The German Criminal Code even provides for sanctions against people who try to deny this historical fact. More recently, the Russian government courageously acknowledged its responsibility in the execution in 1940 of 4,500 Polish officers in the Katyn forest. Turkey has historical responsibilities and must bear them.

On several different occasions, a number of members of this House have spoken about the Armenian genocide. It is now time to act. I ask all members to convince their colleagues to vote in favour of this motion and to take advantage of the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide to take a courageous stand on behalf of our fellow men and women who face difficult circumstances in countries where democracy has not yet prevailed.

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: I would inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 72 minutes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have followed very carefully the comments made by the hon. member for Ahuntsic. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his presentation but also I want to remind him that the way he went about doing this was quite upsetting to me. However, that is said and done, it has passed and I want to go forward to the future.

The hon. member made a comment in his statement that the mayor of Montreal promised to erect a statue to commemorate the genocide of the Armenians in 1915. Then he went on to blame the federal government for intervening in this matter.

I want the record to show clearly that neither federal government in any way, shape or form nor the Department of Foreign Affairs were involved in the promise made by the mayor of Montreal. I want him to correct that statement please because that is not the case. The Government of Canada does not get involved in the erection or the removal of monuments.

I was previously involved with the Vietnamese monument here in the city of Ottawa. The Government of Canada took the same position when the Vietnam monument was erected. That is the same position the government has taken in the case of the monument in Montreal which was promised, reneged on and not delivered by the mayor of Montreal.

[Translation]

Mr. Daviault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I want to point out that The Gazette reported comments attributed to members of the national Armenian committee concerning the monument to be erected in Montreal to commemorate the genocide. The comments of the mayor of Montreal were also reported, and the mayor did not deny them. But these comments were denied-

Mrs. Bakopanos: The mayor's comments or the minister's comments?

Mr. Daviault: The mayor's comments were denied by the minister. No, the mayor did not confirm the minister's comments.

(1140)

The Minister of International Cooperation and of the mayor of Montreal disagree on what happened. When I asked a question in this House, the member for Saint-Léonard told me that the minister had only restated the way the Canadian government dealt was handling this issue. It is already quite something to repeat that the Government of Canada prefers not to use the word genocide, that it wants to use the words atrocities and tragedy, but not the word genocide. This word was used for the genocide in Rwanda, but the government still does not want to use it concerning Armenia.

Today, you will have a chance to vote on the motion, on the term genocide. If you want to take on the unenviable task of changing the motion by deleting the term genocide, you will be showing your true colours. Then, Armenians and Canadians will know where you stand on this issue.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the opposition member on introducing this motion in the House. I would point out, as did my colleague, that it was the member for Don Valley North who initially introduced this motion in the House of Commons.

Secondly, I would perhaps echo my colleague's question and comments. It is all very well to read the comments by the mayor of Montreal in the papers, but there is no evidence. I would like the hon. opposition member to provide written or verbal proof that the minister or a representative of the Canadian government said we were opposed to a monument being erected.

There is no proof, it was only the mayor's word. It is the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Bourque, who is responsible for this matter. He must assume his responsibilities and keep his word to the Armenian community and to others, because the monument is not just for the Armenian genocide, but for all crimes against humanity. We were 100 per cent in favour of the idea, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I would prefer people did not invent stories and did not attribute remarks to someone, if they are not what the person said in this House.

I would also like to ask the opposition member what led him to raise this motion in the House at this specific point in time.

Mr. Daviault: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part, with respect to the monument, is concerned, the Government of Canada has no business getting involved in this matter. I recalled the remarks attributed to the mayor of Montreal. I recalled the denials by the minister and I recalled the fact that the mayor of Montreal did not confirm the minister's denials. Enough has been said about this responsibility.

I agree with you that the monument must be erected and that it is the responsibility of the mayor of Montreal. However, when the example of inaction on the matter of the Armenian genocide comes from as high up as our government-either Conservative or Liberal-which refuses to recognize the genocide, we can hardly criticize others for lack of courage when we ourselves lack such courage.

Last year, the member for Don Valley North acted very positively in making his proposal. However, as I said in my speech, he had asked for unanimous consent for a vote and this was denied by a parliamentary secretary. As parliamentarians, we know what this means. It means that the motion is dead.

(1145)

This year, using an opposition day, one of our exceedingly rare opposition days where a vote may be taken, we are forcing a vote on this issue and on the method, because today or tomorrow there will be 3,000 or 4,000 Armenians on the Hill, who will judge our actions as parliamentarians today. Let us act courageously.

Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the member for Ahuntsic for tabling this motion in the House.

The points raised by the motion deal with universal rights, equality, and the fight for freedom the underprivileged peoples of the world have been waging since the dawn of civilization.

[English]

I support the principles in the hon. member's motion. In fact I applaud them. It is for this reason that I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended (1) by deleting the word ``genocide'' and substituting therefor the words ``tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives'', and (2) by inserting immediately after ``1915'' the words ``and in recognition of other crimes against humanity''; and (3) by deleting all of the words after the words ``as the week'' and by substituting the words ``of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another''.

I would like to see the scope of the motion broadened to cover all peoples who have suffered in their quest for justice and freedom.

Therefore I would like to see us acknowledge a tragic systemic massacre and degradation of the Armenian people which began in 1915 under the Ottoman empire and recognize the day April 24 as a day to mourn for those who suffered. Yet on April 15 we also mark the holocaust as a day to remember with sorrow the slaughter of millions of Jews and on April 27 we celebrate the death of apartheid, the triumph of freedom over the decades of legislated racism, bigotry and murder of black South Africans.

This amendment seeks to remember all of these peoples and more. It proposes to set a week to mourn man's inhumanity to man, all the women who for millennia have been raped in the name of power, all the children who have been orphaned in the struggle for freedom, all those who have been humiliated, degraded, imprisoned, killed because of their religion, the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.

To narrow this motion to recognize the plight of one people is laudable in its intent but it misses the opportunity to make a statement on behalf of those who do not have a special day of remembrance but who have suffered similar injustices over the history of humankind.

The shameful history of man's inhumanity has never been selective, nor has brutality ever been focused in one place, one community or one people. The tragedies such as we mourn on April 15, 24 and 27 may have been brought on by discrimination, bigotry and the misuse of power but it has not been limited to a particular race, religion or ethnic group. The brutal murder and incarceration of women, men and children simply because they wished to worship their own god or walk side by side in equality and justice with other members of the human race in kinship and respect is a tragedy the entire human family must bear with shame.

[Translation]

The motion moved by the honourable member for Ahuntsic reflects the fundamental values of the people of Canada. As a people we have opened our arms and our country to victims of pain, tyranny and injustice.

[English]

We are recognized the world over as a people who not only believe in peace, justice and respect but we practise it. We have legislated it. Our multiculturalism policy has ensured that all of the diverse people who make up our nation must live in respect of each other's culture, religion, race or ethnicity. We seek not to assimilate others but to allow for the ultimate freedom of the individual to pursue what makes him or her unique and special.

We believe that all Canadians can be one people united under one flag and one nation and yet celebrate and respect the diversity of our geography and our people. Multiculturalism is part of making sure we are sensitive to the pain of those Canadians who may at one time have been victimized by the inhumanity of war or by bigotry and oppression. Multiculturalism promotes healing and fosters a cohesion of people.

(1150)

By and large we are a country of immigrants and refugees within an aboriginal country. We have come together from each corner of the world to build a society, recognized not for a particular language or a specific skin colour but by the values that bind us together, values of justice, equality, respect and peaceful resolution to conflict.

We are a unique nation. We are the global nation and we wear the title with pride. We stand as a role model to the world of a nation where all people can find peace, order and good government, can co-exist in harmony with intercultural understanding and sharing, with respect for differences.

Here in Canada this motion will strengthen the way we hope to build a nation. It will send a message to other nations and people who struggle under the yoke of oppression that in Canada there is a policy of respect, that here they can be free to worship their god and walk down the street equal to other Canadians, equal under the eyes of the law, free from fear of discrimination as enshrined in our Constitution, free to dress in the manner of their choice, free to participate in the benefits of this society fully, and to accept and fulfil the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen in equality.

If we are to change our world, if we are to hope that one day humankind can live together in peace and respect, we must always be mindful of the cruelty of tyranny, of the massacres of peoples, of the incarceration, degradation and inhumanity that man has wrought on each other in the name of power, intolerance and religion.

This motion would enshrine the week of April 20 to April 27 as a week to remember, to mourn and to celebrate the martyrs who have gone before in history, like the Armenians we remember today, so that the pursuit of freedom and justice will remain clear in our hearts and in our legislation, so that we may remain on guard wherever human rights are in jeopardy, as we have done whenever we have traded. We have taken the opportunity to speak to leaders of regimes that do not hold the same human rights values which we hold dear. We have a reputation as peacekeepers around the world.

We will learn from the lessons of the past. It is fitting this motion is placed before the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament. As Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said to our Prime Minister at the United Nations 50th anniversary, the world has always looked to Canada with hope, as a people who have lived together in diversity with respect, as a people who have sought peaceful resolution to conflict.

Let us not disappoint them. Let us remain true to the mandate of our unique policy of multiculturalism which seeks to strengthen a cohesive, respectful, inclusive and democratic society and a shared sense of identity reflective of the diversity of Canadian people.

The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is being studied and it has not been ruled as being receivable. As soon as possible, the Chair will make a ruling on that matter.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for the sensitivity she has always displayed concerning the issues of racism and social justice. However, I want to make sure I understand the true meaning of the message she has delivered this morning.

She shares the concerns of members as a whole regarding the use of violence which has become too widespread throughout this century. I want to make sure that she believes, as I do, that violence, whatever its form, is unacceptable.

However, there is in Canadian policy a certain amount of inconsistency I have trouble understanding; my colleague will perhaps take the time to clarify this for me. The Canadian government has committed $500,000 to set up a human rights tribunal to investigate war crimes and wrongdoings in the former Yugoslavia. This international tribunal will be made up of nine judges, including one Canadian.

We followed very closely the statements made by the Canadian government on Rwanda. In both cases, the Canadian government had no qualms about talking of genocide. The reason being that, when it comes to words, there is a scale of sorts to describe things.

(1155)

My colleague will agree that genocide is violence at its worst. Why is it that the Canadian government does not hesitate to talk about genocide regarding events in Rwanda? Why is it that it has no qualms about freeing $500,000 in the case of the former Yugoslavia? Why is it reluctant to describe for what they were the events which occurred in Armenia in 1915 and had the hallmark of a genocide, and to call a spade a spade?

[English]

Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said very clearly that Canada has given aid and brought its own particular principles to areas like Rwanda, Bosnia and other parts of the world where there has been inhumanity to man.

We are supportive of the hon. member's motion. We are just changing the words to express the tragedy of the 1.5 million people who were killed. We are also widening the scope of the motion to make the week one of remembrance for all people, such as April 15 to commemorate the holocaust and April 27 for the death of apartheid. We are just trying to widen the scope of the motion so that it will be a commemorative week for all people who have suffered over the years.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why in her amendment to the main motion does the hon. member recommend the deletion of the word genocide?

Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, we are recommending substituting for the word ``genocide'' the words ``tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives''. Genocide is a specific term. We do not feel we can use that term at this time. We are mentioning the deaths of 1.5 million people. We are supporting the motion, but we are broadening the scope of it.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we have heard is part of the problem we have in the House where there is a play on words and we do not say what we mean. On a number of occasions I have had cause to lament that sort of thing and be upset by it. Obviously, we are all opposed to genocide and the planned killing of people by their own governments or by other governments. We must make a clear statement to all humanity.

It is with pleasure that I speak to the motion which condemns genocide as an instrument of national policy. While there are few problems with the wording of the proposed amendment, I am going to suggest at least one subamendment at the end of my presentation.

As the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party, I am pleased to say that I will be supporting the motion with the amendments. It is important that we clearly let the world know what we think of these acts.

When we received the motion yesterday, it was difficult to decide how to approach it. In many respects it is a motherhood issue. We are all opposed to genocide. This morning I intend to try and develop my and my party's approach to the subject and try to put a little more humanity and understanding into it.

Genocide strikes at the very root of humanity. It is the sort of thing that causes us to shudder no matter where in the world it takes place. When a government or a group attempts to obliterate a people through violent means to achieve their own selfish political goals, all humanity is diminished and suffers because of it.

(1200 )

Those who have committed genocide often attempt to blame the victims or deny reality, but the truth must be remembered. To honour the memory of the victims we must remind our children of

what happened. We must not let these memories die. Hopefully they will prevent future atrocities.

It is a cliche, but a true one when we say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This truth has haunted us in the House of Commons over the past couple of years as we have watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, have been slaughtered in places like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

The saddest thing about these recent genocides is that historians 100 years from now will probably see them as only two of a long series of genocides stretching throughout the century. The ultimate horror is that there have been so many mass slaughters this century it is tough to keep track of them. The future does not bode well for stopping them, even though we say this must be the last.

There is the Armenian genocide that this motion speaks to. We have the Jewish Holocaust. We have Stalin's purges. We have the Chinese situation in Nanking. We have mass murder in East Timor, the disappearance in Central and South America of many people, tribal slaughter in Burundi, government sponsored famine in Ethiopia, and the list goes on and on. As I said at the beginning, it touches all of us as human beings living on this planet.

Each one of these represents a human disaster of epic proportions, but all have been reduced to historical footnotes because there are so many. That is why I believe the House should vote in favour of the motion, which serves to remind us and helps us to keep a vigilance; a vigilance that we cannot forget history.

The motion does not cost anything, but it is a powerful show that the House is not indifferent to genocide. It shows that members in this place prefer to speak out rather than perpetually sit in an uncomfortable silence waiting for the next disaster.

A few members today have presentations which will deal specifically with the genocide of the Armenians during the early years of this century. I would like to support those members but I must tell them I do not know a lot about Armenian history and I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about it in their presentations. I will deal with several other issues that relate to genocide with which I am more familiar.

Obviously we could go back to World War II and the Jewish Holocaust. It is amazing that some people deny this happened. Obviously it did happen. It should have been a valuable lesson in history, but unfortunately it was not. The Jews in Europe had suffered for centuries from prejudices and intolerance, but the rise of Hitler brought the hatred of Jews to a whole new level.

Under the Nazis the Jews became the scapegoat for all the ills of society. Hatred became a unifying force and the Jews were systematically dehumanised by Nazi propaganda to such a degree that their mass murder went from being an outrageous idea to the final solution to Germany's problems.

The use of propaganda and the media to dehumanise and discredit people who were subsequently massacred is unfortunately a tradition that has stood the test of time. Therefore this is the first lesson we must learn. We might call it the CNN factor. The use of television, the use of communication today is an important part of ploys used by many terrorist groups. Last week we had an example of that. We must be conscious of it. We must remember the media can be used to promote hate and that it must be monitored in Canada and throughout the world.

(1205 )

We must have set standards in the international community so that we see both sides of the story, not simply the side the CNN reporter wants us to see. We must not let the media be manipulated by various powers. I am sure some terrorist groups have a training program which involves the use of the media. We must be conscious of that and vigilant that we get both sides.

Another lesson we learned from the Jewish Holocaust is the indifference of the international community. As Europe's Jews desperately tried to escape they found many countries would not accept them. Not only that, the international community appeased Germany and continually caved in to its increasingly outrageous policies. This gave the perception of silent approval of Germany's actions, a perception that proved fatal to over six million Jews.

Clearly the international community can never again sit by in stunned silence while such outrages occur. We must be vigilant, speak out and take firm action when the need arises.

I will now talk about a couple of recent examples of genocide. I will start with the former Yugoslavia and then I will talk a bit about Rwanda and conclude with an overall approach to genocide itself.

The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a very brief interruption. The member has indicated he wishes to make a subamendment. It would probably be of assistance if he knew what the Chair has ruled on the previous amendment. With his permission I would like to give that ruling now.

The amendment proposed by the secretary of state is an acceptable amendment. Accordingly, when the member for Red Deer wishes to make a subamendment he may wish to keep in mind the amendment was accepted by the Chair.

Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, that does clarify what I will be doing at the end of my presentation.

I will use a couple of examples. I will use recent ones familiar to the House. Those still speak to the motion of the Armenian question.

When we look at the former Yugoslavia, I know members do not need a history lesson on some of the problems. However, there are a few facts we need to outline as to exactly what happened.

It is fair to say, hopefully in an unbiased evaluation of the situation, that there is no side right or wrong. There are lots of wrongs but it is a matter of not being able to pick the good guy from the bad guy. That is a big problem in today's post-cold war situation in which we find ourselves.

It is often easier for people of the world community to sit idle while these wrongs are occurring. I have mentioned that the media plays a major role in promoting and sometimes in formulating ideas within our community which are incorrect.

We must also recognize in the former Yugoslavia that this is a civil war. It is not like the gulf war. Civil wars are different from where we have an aggressor attacking another country. In looking at the facts we must always recognize that. We must look at the external forces which come into play when such acts of genocide occur. We must also always understand history and look back however far we have to to understand the nature of the problem.

If we look at the former Yugoslavian problem we need to go back at least 1300 years and even back to Greek and Roman times.

(1210 )

We can go through the 6th century and the Slavic tribes as they worked through that area. We can look at the effect of Rome and Constantinople, the Catholic and Orthodox church in the 10th century. We can go through the Islamic expansion of the 14th century. Very clearly we start to see the effects of not only the people but of external forces coming into play.

We have to also recognize the way governments rule. The Muslim rule of the 15th century was pretty grim stuff. The Turkish empire and the way it handled things was a pretty rugged way of running a government by our standards.

As we move to more modern times we see the influence of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. We look at the alliances that occurred up to the end of the first world war. Then we look at what happened during the mid-war period and then on to the second world war and the alliances there. In Hitler's alliances with Croatia, 400,000 Serbians living in Croatia were massacred because of outside forces. They were massacred for all kinds of reasons.

Then we come to Tito's time. Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron hand from 1945 until 1980 when he died. There are six republics and we must understand the history of those republics and why they lived in so-called peace.

From there in 1991 when the Croats and Slovenians declared independence, I guess not unlike Quebec's declaring independence from Canada, we can see the terrific pull that would have on the people of that country.

The point is that no matter what history tells us and no matter what politics tells us, genocide is not acceptable under any conditions. Countries and the peoples of the world must find a way to deal with their problems, but not to those kinds of extremes. That has to come loud and clear from countries like ours. It has to come loud and clear from the UN. The UN desperately needs to be modernized and become efficient so it can respond to these issues.

If there is one thing we can blame ourselves and the world community for it is the inability, the lack of desire, or whatever the reason, to modernize a 50-year old organization that can today not deal with its problems because it is top heavy, bureaucratic, under funded, inefficient, and so on. We must deal with that problem. That is our problem. It will lead to future genocide in other countries if we do not have a UN that can respond effectively, efficiently and quickly. We are all concerned and desire that. We have to have a plan. We have to do something about it. We as parliamentarians must demand that we take that leadership role as Canadians.

I move on to Rwanda. I know members across have heard my speech on Rwanda before. I do not intend to repeat all of that but I do think it demonstrates something that was very graphic to everyone. The genocide that occurred in Rwanda was unbelievable. It is certainly in all of our minds. We saw it because of CNN.

In 1985 I was on an Air France 747 with 20 people. We landed in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. My wife and I got off the plane. The rest said ``good luck''. I did not really know what they were talking about, but it seemed like we had landed in the jungle, and the plane left. Then we had armed guards around us and we went through the immigration procedure and had all of our medical certificates and documents in order.

(1215 )

As we moved away from the airport we moved into gorgeous countryside that is very similar to what we might see in Belgium.

As I only have two minutes left I would like to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word ``tragedy'' the following: ``of genocide.''

As we went through that countryside we saw the markets. We spent close to a month in that country. We were out in the villages, we were travelling with a local Rwandan gentleman who

introduced us to his parents and his relatives. In the markets we saw the salt and the utensils. We saw the barter system. Some people walked 20 and 30 miles to get to the market.

We went to the tea plantations developed by China. We saw the hotels and some of the infrastructure that the Belgians and the French had built. As we got more and more involved in that country we saw some warnings. The NGOs told us there was unrest. The church said there was unrest. The French troops said there was unrest. The United Nations said there was unrest.

I cannot help now thinking, was that what it was like in the period from 1930 when the people knew that something was wrong in Germany?

Obviously genocide is something about which we must all speak. It must be done through the UN, through this Parliament. It is a motherhood topic for all of us.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair would like to advise that the subamendment submitted by the hon. member for Red Deer is receivable and accepted.

Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his subamendment and his vigilance.

As I expected, the government changed the word ``genocide'' to the word `tragedy''. It is not acceptable to us. It is not acceptable to the purpose of the motion.

I thank the hon. member but I noticed he was perhaps missing a couple of minutes. Maybe he could expand on his speech and talk to us a bit more about human rights.

Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I had planned to close with the questions that I believe we as part of the international community must ask, particularly as they relate to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I am sure many years ago they could have applied to Germany or Armenia.

How much intervention would it take to stop what happened? That question has to be asked. In the case of Rwanda, very little. In the former Yugoslavia, probably a lot more. We are probably seeing that now with IFOR.

(1220 )

Second, who should have been responsible? Who is responsible? Are we all responsible? I put forward that we are all responsible for this, that this issue goes far beyond partisan politics, and we are responsible as the world community.

Third, will this happen again? Unfortunately I think the answer is yes. We must deal with this problem. I have suggested the UN is certainly an avenue.

How much external pressure causes this sort of thing to happen? What if there had not been so much external pressure on these countries? I am most familiar with Rwanda. If there had not been the colonial influence of the Belgians and the French, then what? Maybe this is going back to something we cannot have any control over, but we must ask these questions and we must find answers to them for the future. We must look at our history, our past, to understand the future. That is so critical in this whole thing.

I thank the member for the opportunity to complete my remarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am glad I have the opportunity to participate in this debate on genocides, not only the Armenian one, but all those that took place in other countries and are still happening today.

I was listening when the previous member said we should all be concerned. I think he is perfectly right. This is a question of human rights and everybody should be concerned.

As critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I was particularly pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition chose to give the first speech on that motion. I feel it is important for a party leader to state his position and give his point of view on such an important issue.

Last week, I participated with colleagues of all parties in a conference on official development assistance. Some representatives of non-governmental organizations said they were still hoping, after two and a half years of Liberal presence in the House, after two and a half years of Liberal government, for the first speech of the Prime Minister of Canada on the human rights issue. But the Prime Minister will not deliver any speech on human rights. He indicated that very clearly during the first tour of Team Canada in Asia.

At that time, the Prime Minister said: ``I could give a headline-making speech on that issue, but I prefer to open markets and promote trade. The walls will eventually come down''. The problem is he did not say when. Will it take 50 years for the walls to come down?

These words show clearly that this government does not consider human rights to be an important issue. However, if we want to deal with poverty in the world, we must consider sustainable development. And the notion of sustainable development encompasses greater issues like democratic development, the participation of populations in their own development, and human rights. We will get nowhere if we think we can help developing countries without taking into consideration sustainable development, human rights, democratic development and the importance that should be given to these concepts.

(1225)

I am convinced that the tragedy suffered by Jews during the second world war has already been mentioned this morning. I am quite sure that Cambodia was also mentioned because hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Cambodians were killed by the Khmers Rouges.

Maybe we did not talk enough about the Sudan, this forgotten African country which, for the last ten years, has suffered a savage war pitting the north against the south. So far, more than one million people have been eliminated. Yet, nobody talked about the Sudan.

Of course we talked about the former Yugoslavia and the ethnic cleansing there. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about Rwanda and the massacres that took place in that country. Unfortunately, history repeats itself and we do not learn for past errors.

After the last war, the heads of states assembled in San Francisco to create the United Nations said: ``No more wars''. I am sure they were sincere. However, war continues to be a dreadful scourge.

There is a question related to genocides and human rights which, I think, is too easily ignored. It is the whole question of impunity. Why do we have genocides decade after decade? I think one of the reasons is that the international community has not found an effective way of dealing with people responsible for genocides.

During the last three or four years we have seen the same thing happen in Haiti. We know that 3,000 or 4,000 people were killed. Yet, what happened to General Cédras? He got a pocketful of money and was told to go. The same happened with Duvalier, the previous dictator. For years, dictators inflicted torture on the Haitian people. But when the dictator is finally forced out of power, he does not suffer any consequences.

In the former Yugoslavia, we see people responsible for ethnic cleansing parading in front of television cameras, and the international community seems unable to do anything.

The saddest part of all is that it never stops. There are other hot spots and, regrettably, Canada maintains relations with countries where torture is allowed and practised. We think of China where human rights are systematically violated and freedom of speech is denied: political dissidents are muzzled, human rights advocates are attacked, and so on.

We think of Nigeria where dissidents are eliminated. But we have to point something out here. Because Nigeria is not a very powerful nation, Canada might try to take economic sanctions against it. Will we do the same thing against China? Will we do the same thing against Indonesia? And against Vietnam? We practice double talk, and pay lip service to human rights.

I received recently from the international co-operation minister a paper about the way CIDA intends to promote human rights. It says: ``Strengthening the civilian population's role and capacities in order to increase its participation in decision making. Reinforcing democratic institutions. Increasing the qualifications of public officials. Enhancing the capacities of organizations whose functions are to defend and promote human rights. Encouraging leaders to respect human rights more, to govern democratically and to manage public affairs efficiently''.

While speeches are being made, while fine statements are issued, the Canadian government, in its foreign policy, is going after one thing only: trade relations. Trade is more important than anything else.

I want to bring up once again the sad case of Tran Trieu Quan, one of my constituents, who was actively involved in the main thrust of Canada's foreign policy. He tried to do business with Vietnam, and has been in prison for two years now. The Canadian government says it is unable to do anything. The Canadian government uses development assistance programs not to promote and defend human rights and to promote economic development, but to promote trade relations. So it is providing about $60 million over a few years in assistance to countries such as Vietnam, not to protect human rights, but in the hope that, in doing so, it will open doors to trade, while it could and should use development assistance budgets to promote and defend human rights all over the world.

(1230)

It is extremely disappointing that in its foreign policy Canada has so easily given up on what made its glory. What has made the glory of Canada? Development assistance programs, peace missions and human rights defence. The government has simply given up.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, earlier today the hon. member for Ahuntsic referred to a monument in Montreal as one the federal government intervened in and did not approve of.

Maybe the member now has a chance to correct the situation and tell us if the premier of Quebec, the former leader of his party, will erect the monument and make sure of the right way of doing it to his colleague, the mayor of Montreal. Would he make that undertaking to the House today?

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: Madam Speaker, it is funny to witness the consummate skills developed by the hon. members opposite. They have developed a kind of automatic reflex so that every time they are faced with a sensitive issue, on which their government refuses to take position, they ask why the Quebec government is not doing something.

Are we not here in the House of Commons? Why should Quebec always take the lead? Is this House, this government, not able to show the way once in a while? But no, the same old reflex always takes over and they turn their attention to the Quebec government.

In their eyes, the Quebec government's lack of involvement in a sensitive matter justifies their own government's inaction. This is a disgrace.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member a chance to correct the situation and put his money where his mouth is. I regret to say that on that side of the House talk is cheap.

A few years ago the province of Quebec passed a resolution about genocide, condemning it. The premier of Quebec a few months ago was to erect the monument in Quebec City or Montreal, wherever it may be in the province of Quebec. They can have more more than one, not just in Montreal.

Why does he not undertake to the House that he will be speaking to the premier of Quebec to make sure he erects the monument, on behalf of all Quebecers, in the province of Quebec so we can all take example from it? Maybe afterward we can put a monument in Ottawa for all Canadians.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Don Valley North, I assume he is about to move to Quebec so he can get elected and exert some influence on the Quebec government. That may be his only way to get involved.

The Quebec government has already passed a resolution like the one we are trying to have passed in this House. The Quebec government has no lesson to receive, especially from the Liberal Party. What we are trying to find out today is if the Liberal Party, the Liberal government will agree to recognize history and to make a commitment without always trying to dodge the issue and have someone else become involved in its place. The ball is now in their court and I hope they will vote in favor of the motion.

(1235)

I hope they will vote to recognize the Armenian tragedy.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it almost brings tears to my eyes when I see how members of the opposition now defend the rights of an ethnic community in Quebec. It almost brings tears to my eyes because, in the recent referendum campaign, some of the leaders whom they support said that the referendum was lost because of ethnic groups and rich people in the province of Quebec.

To this day, the former leader of the official opposition, Mr. Bouchard, has not disavowed that statement. I find it strange that opposition members have now become the great protectors of the Armenian community.

If there is living proof here of a member of the Armenian community who looks after his community, it is definitely the hon. member for Don Valley North, who also tabled a resolution in this House to continue to protect the interests of that people.

This government is the one protecting such interests. Moreover, it is strange that a party whose mandate it is to destroy our country would try to teach us lessons in human rights.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): 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.

(1240)

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.

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment further to the remarks made by my colleague, but, particularly, I would like to ask her a question. I am going to speak in a few minutes on the same subject and I will have an opportunity to explain my viewpoint.

I do in fact believe that the official opposition is playing its role properly in submitting to the House this type of motion, which, and I will explain this point further in a few minutes, affords us a look at the rather questionable side of government management in terms of its attitude toward international trade.

(1245)

It is on this remark that I would like my colleague to expound her viewpoint. Now that international trade and international agreements have come into their own, should we promote trade to the detriment of human rights? I know her point of view, but I would like her to elaborate a bit on it.

If this is not the case, how do we reconcile international trade and human rights?

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: 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.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to join in the debate on this very important subject. I would like to again thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic for bringing this issue forward and to thank my colleagues on this side of the House who participated in the discussions. They will be participating again this afternoon.

On March 20 I informed the House that I intended to present again the motion which I presented last year. The letter was dated March 20, 1996 but I have not received an official reply on the wording of the resolution.

However, last year when I presented my motion, I consulted many members of Parliament, including the hon. member who presented the motion today. I was hoping that I would receive the same courtesy, that he would consult me and the communities involved so that we could have a non-partisan motion which could be supported by all parties. I am very disappointed that the hon. member played a cheap trick at the last moment at nine o'clock on Sunday night when he announced his intention to put this motion.

Had I been informed a week earlier we would have participated and made a truly respectable motion of which everyone in Canada could be proud.

(1250 )

I hope the House will do it again next year. All three parties can come together because this is a non-partisan issue. This is not an issue for the Bloc Quebecois, Reform, NDP or the Liberals. This is an issue that affects each and every human being in this land. I would venture to say it involves every human being on this globe.

I wish to take a moment to read a letter from the Prime Minister addressed to the Canadian-Armenian community last weekend. It states:

I am honoured to extend my greetings and sincere best wishes to the members of Canada's Armenian community as they mark the 81st anniversary of the Armenian tragedy in 1915.

The government and the people of Canada deplore the death of a great number of Armenians as a result of the war which brought about an end to the Ottoman Empire, and we extend our sympathy to the Armenian community.

Canada has been immeasurably enriched by many displaced Armenians who came to our shores, and by the contribution their descendants have made since. It is my profound hope that the memories of the past will serve to remind us all of the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity, and the historic attachment of these principles that has made Canada a beacon of hope for people the world over.

Please accept my best wishes on this solemn occasion.

Though April 24 is the day singled out to mark this tragedy, during the Genocide of 1915 some 1.5 million Armenians were subjected to a systematic extermination through a policy of deportation, torture, starvation and massacre. I join with the Armenian-American community in mourning the dead and recalling the suffering and sacrifice of the victims.

Since then, as the expression goes, crime not condemned is crime encouraged. Since then many crimes took place starting with the holocaust, Cyprus, Burundi, Cambodia, South Africa, Rwanda. It is important that we designate a week to commemorate all these crimes against humanity.

I am sure that each and every member of this House shares this concern. The question is how to do it so that it best for everybody. That is where the opposition lacks. As I said earlier, that was not a very nice thing to do because they made it as a partisan issue rather than a humanitarian, human rights issue.

What should be done? Individual members of Parliament could write letters to the Turkish government's representative here in Ottawa or they could ask Turkey to recognize the genocide, over and above what other countries will be doing hopefully in the next few years, and saying that crimes of genocide do not pay. Turkey has to admit its mistakes, like Germany has done, and start negotiations with the republic of Armenia to solve this problem. If there is restitution to be paid, I am sure it will have to pay so it can address the issue that will help us to overcome the difficulties we are facing today.

Speaking of Nazi crimes at Nuremberg, American Judge Robert Jackson said: ``These crimes'', referring to the holocaust, ``are unacceptable''. One of the reasons why he said they were unacceptable was not because of the number of victims but rather people came together to plot the extermination of a nation.

That is exactly what happened in 1915. The cabinet made a decision to slaughter each and every Armenian living in that Ottoman Empire. The pretext was the first world war. What a fantastic excuse. Everybody had an excuse during the war to kill and eliminate any minority. Armenian subjects were drafted into

the army. They were sent forward to fight the allies and they were shot in the back.

(1255)

On the other hand Armenians joined the allied forces. They were called little allies. They hoped that when they did their job with the allies to defeat the central powers, which they had, Armenia would become an independent country. Fortunately Armenia became independent in 1918 but Armenian independence was short lived because of international politics.

At that time the western powers played politics with the fundamental issue of human rights. I come back again to my friends in opposition, do not play politics with these kinds of issues. It backfires on everybody and hurts everybody.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Denis. In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said last time when I presented motion 282. When speaking of my visit to Der-zor I said the following:

Even today when one who goes there and puts his hand in the sand, one has to go down only six inches to pick up bones and the remains of human beings. The river running through Der-zor is a very historical scene to Canadians of Armenian origin and many other Armenians throughout the world because we saw pictures of bodies in that river in the same way we saw pictures of bodies floating last year in Rwanda. I saw that river, I walked in that river and I remember the past, 1915.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will leave aside any partisan consideration and remind the House of the good work done in the past by the member on behalf of his community; I would like to ask him a very simple question.

I know that, irrespective of our own position, we have to toe the party line; however, he has always been a fervent advocate for his community.

He mentioned on several occasions in his speech that stakeholders in other countries and other members have used the word genocide. The motion brought forward this morning specifically mentioned the word genocide to describe the 1915 events. The government's amendment talks about tragedy, whereas the sub-amendment proposed by the Reform Party re-introduce the word genocide.

I humbly ask the member whether the word genocide should be used in connection with the tragic events which occurred in 1915?

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it would have been preferable if the hon. member had phoned me. I was not happy with the involvement on this issue especially.

If he have phoned me we could have formulated a policy or draft that is acceptable to everyone. I regret he did not do that. That is why we are in the situation we are in now, not because of government policy but because of the way the Bloc Quebecois played the game and presented this motion. It would have been fantastic if the Bloc Quebecois members, the Reform Party members and us got together. That is something that would have been acceptable to everybody. That is what we want to do. That is what I did last year. That is what I intend to do with my motion this year. But I regret to say that was not the case.

[Translation]

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the representatives of the Armenian community and all the Armenian Canadians with whom I have had the pleasure to work for years and whom I am pleased to represent today in the House of Commons, at least in part.

(1300)

I would also like to congratulate my colleague for Don Valley North, who is a member of this community and of the Liberal government, for his continuous and exceptional work on this issue. Like him, I deplore the fact that a Bloc member has played on the feelings of a community by announcing the tabling of this motion before it was brought forward in the House.

The 20th century has seen two world wars and numerous historical conflicts. In spite of this, crimes against humanity are not a thing of the past but continue to be daily occurrences in too many countries, countries which routinely practice torture, slavery, and the massive deportation of their civilian population. Everyday, we are witnessing the persecution of minorities on the basis of their opinion, race or religion.

[English]

To this day, these unacceptable acts of inhumanity continue despite the fact that the Geneva convention condemns such actions. Even though the international community has admitted that these acts should not be practised, we are still a long way from achieving this goal.

The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal for the first time tried those guilty of committing crimes against humanity. These crimes were

defined in article 6 of the London charter and included murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war, or persecution on political, racial and religious grounds.

While not all the criminals have been tried, the international community recognizes the holocaust and commemorates it every year so that everyone around the world will remember this tragedy to ensure that it will never occur again. Regardless of this, we still live in a world where ethnic cleansing is practised, the most recent example being the horrors that were committed in the former Yugoslavia.

Can we continue to be an active member of the international community and allow these atrocities to continue? I think not. However, we must first be able to internationally acknowledge that atrocities against humanity are unacceptable.

The Armenian genocide which took place during the first world war is perhaps the most vivid example of genocide as an instrument of national policy by the Ottoman Turks. What makes the Armenian genocide such a particular example is that unlike the genocide of the Jewish people which took place during the second world war, the international community did not try the war criminals or even formally acknowledge that this massacre took place.

Why, people may ask, is it so important to recognize an event that occurred over 80 years ago? We must always remember that those who disregard history are condemned to repeat it. Just think if the international community had reacted to this as it should have at the time. Would the atrocities of the second world war ever have taken place? Perhaps not.

There is nothing we can do to bring back these victims or to change the past, but there is a need to designate a week of the year, as my colleague from Don Valley proposed last April, as a week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one another to ensure that future generations do not forget these tragic events and more important, do not repeat them.

While the European community and several other countries such as Italy, France, Israel and most recently Russia have passed parliamentary decrees formally recognizing this event, the international community as a whole has not taken the steps necessary to condemn these horrible acts of inhumanity.

I repeat, our government has recognized this tragic incident that saw 1.5 million people brutally executed by the Ottoman Turks who sought to ethnically cleanse their land of foreigners. We understand the suffering that this brought and the need for the Armenian community to have this tragedy recognized by all members of the international community. That is why we are supporting a week to commemorate crimes against humanity.

[Translation]

As representatives of a country recognized for its support of human rights, we know that Canadians condemn the practice of genocide and the use of violence as an instrument of power. Failure to acknowledge that such actions took place would amount to supporting their use as an instrument of national policy.

The sad reality is that news reports are still dominated by the horrors resulting from a lack of respect for human rights.

[English]

While these atrocities are some examples of crimes committed against humanity, there are unfortunately many others, both past and present. Some are well known; others, such as the Asia Minor catastrophe of 1922, are not so well known.

(1305)

[Translation]

At the end of the first world war, close to two million Greeks were living in a region of Asia Minor on the west coast of modern Turkey. Greeks had been living in that region for over 3,000 years. In 1922, these people, like the Armenians and other Turkish minorities, were the victims of the first ethnic cleansing operation of the 20th century.

During that tragic summer, 600,000 Greeks from Asia Minor were killed by the forces of Mustafa Kemal, the father of modern Turkey. One and a half million people were also forced to leave their ancestral homes and ended up in Greece as refugees. These operations were neither sporadic nor spontaneous, but rather in line with the new Turkish state's cold and calculated ethnic cleansing policy. During this series of well-organized massacres, the government also burned down churches, schools, even cities and towns with Greek ties.

Although foreign diplomats and correspondents, as well as thousands of people from all kinds of backgrounds, witnessed these atrocities, the international community did nothing to condemn them.

[English]

Although the United States, Britain, France and Italy had ships and troops stationed on the coast of Asia Minor, they refused to intervene. The failure of these countries to condemn the actions of the Turkish government at that time encouraged other states to practise genocide as a government policy.

Unchecked aggression only leads to further acts of barbarism and genocide. In the last four years alone we have witnessed the

cataclysm that has befallen the former Yugoslavia. All the warring factions are guilty of mass killings, ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide in varying degrees. The war crimes tribunal of which Canada is a representative as one of the judges is presently examining the evidence before it. It will no doubt bring out the sad and tragic reality of what took place in the former Yugoslavia.

The cycle of violence has not stopped. We only need to look to the mass murders that have taken place in Somalia, Rwanda and Cambodia to confirm that fact. In all these examples the killing, destruction and forcible movement of populations have been acts of deliberate policy and not random excesses of rebels or uncontrolled government forces. Many governments have shut their eyes and not acknowledged that these atrocities took place.

[Translation]

By recognizing these historic events as crimes against humanity, we affirm that such crimes, both past and present, cannot be tolerated. As members of Parliament, we must urge the international community to redouble its efforts to prevent crimes against humanity.

[English]

Canada will continue to take a leadership role on the world stage to promote peace among the members of the international community. We have no lessons to be learned from the official opposition. As we all know, its mandate is to break up this country which is so respected on an international level. Our reputation for the respect and promotion of human rights precedes us and can no doubt help us to achieve this goal.

What I am about to say may be taken as partisan but we have no lessons to be learned from the opposition. As my colleague from Don Valley said, talk is cheap. The opposition can present a motion, it can say anything it wants, but its words do not have the same consequences.

A government like ours which has shown it is a responsible government at all levels acts responsibly. There are legal and international consequences for words as well as for actions. We have no lessons to learn from the hon. members on the other side of the House. During the recent referendum in Quebec we know what high regard they had for the ethnic communities there. I have lived in Quebec, I was raised in Quebec, I have spent many years fighting many of the words of discrimination and racism that exist in that society. We have no lessons to be learned.

Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the votes which had previously been deferred to 5.30 p.m. today be further deferred until the end of Government Orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(1310)

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I must tell her that the Government of Quebec fully respect the rights of minorities. Quebec is a very open society. I can testify to that, as a non-francophone member who was elected by a majority of French speaking constituents and by members of ethnic communities.

The hon. member calls the Armenian genocide a tragic incident. It is much more than a tragic incident. It is the extermination of one and a half million Armenians. It is the deportation of half a million people. It is the destruction of numerous churches and monasteries. It is the dispersal of Armenians all over the world.

I am surprised that the Government of Canada stubbornly refuses to recognize this genocide which has been recognized by other nations, including Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Argentina. Monuments were erected in Columbia, etc. It is unacceptable on the part of a government promoting democracy and human rights throughout the world to hold such contradictory views. Indeed, when trade comes into play, it takes precedence over human rights.

How can the hon. member justify the Canadian government's stubborn refusal to recognize this genocide for what it is?

Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, let me read again, for the benefit of the opposition member, the amendment that we tabled in this House regarding the motion before us. It says: ``the Armenian tragedy which claimed some 1.5 million lives''. There was never any question of not recognizing this massacre. This government never said that it did not recognize this tragedy.

As to whether the province of Quebec lives in democracy, I remind the opposition member that Canada is known as the most democratic, tolerant and open country in the world.

If we currently have in the House of Commons the opposition that we know, it is because we recognize and accept our differences. We are known as a government that fights for human rights everywhere in the world. Our government has always tried to protect those in the world who could not protect themselves. Again, we always recognized that 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was very pleased with the speech by the hon. member for Saint-Denis. Many Canadians of Armenian origin live in the Saint-Denis riding.

In 1939 when Adolf Hitler was invading Europe and slaughtering the Jews country by country, someone asked him how future generations would react to the holocaust, the massacre and genocide that he had committed. His reply was: ``After all, who remembers the Armenian atrocities, the Armenian genocide?''

If the world were to condemn the Armenian genocide would the hon. member agree with me that it would have prevented the invasion by Turkish forces in northern Cyprus some 67 years afterward?

Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, we must never forget history. If we forget history and we do not acknowledge the atrocities of the past, we are condemned to repeat them. Yes, I do believe that what happened in Cyprus may not have happened if there had been acknowledgement of this tragedy that occurred.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Ahuntsic.

(1315)

Today's motion is exactly the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North moved in 1994. I was somewhat surprised to hear our colleague from Don Valley North and the hon. member for Saint-Denis accuse the opposition of narrow partisanship because we put this motion before the House today.

As I said earlier, the text of the resolution moved by the Bloc member for Ahuntsic is, for the most part, the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North put forward last year. Following pressure exerted by his own party, the motion was not voted on in the House. It was announced that the motion could not be voted on in 1994.

The official opposition wanted to revisit this issue in the House because of its significance, and also because of the lack of attention the government pays to human rights when it deals with international trade. As the official opposition critic on human rights, I wanted to take part in this debate precisely to address this issue.

Of course, we have to go beyond narrow partisanship-and I mention it mostly for our Liberal colleagues-and decry these actions which are still occurring too often nowadays, actions aimed at completely wiping out a people. That is why I am a bit surprised by the reaction of the hon. member for Don Valley North. It seems to me that no one can deny the serious harm done to certain peoples, among others the Armenian people. Therefore, we have to denounce such actions without any reservation and with no hesitation whatsoever so that, hopefully, they do not reoccur.

As an example of partisanship, let me remind the House of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, to replace the word ``genocide'' by ``tragedy''. As we have noticed in the speeches made by the Liberal members and as we will see, I guess, throughout the day, where Armenia is concerned, Liberal members prefer to talk about a tragedy instead of a genocide.

I do not think these two words are interchangeable. The newspaper I was reading this morning, and almost all the daily papers in Quebec, reported many car accidents, as they do unfortunately every day or at least every week. I read this morning in the paper about an automobile accident that happened in the region next to mine, the Montérégie, where three young people died. The report spoke of a tragedy for the families, relatives and friends.

Last week, on April 18, we were reminded the world over of the Oklahoma City tragedy where almost 200 persons died last year in an explosion due to a truly insane action. This was called a tragedy.

(1320)

In spite of their seriousness or their enormity, can events like automobile accidents and the terrible Oklahoma City bombing really be compared with not only the intent but also the actions taken to eliminate a people, a whole community? Is it really possible?

According to the Larousse Dictionary, a tragedy can mean two things. I think words must have a meaning. It is said that the legislator never talks for the sake of talking. Thus, since the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women moved in this House on behalf of the government an amendment to replace the term ``genocide'' by the term ``tragedy'', there must be a reason. This was not done merely to stretch out the opposition's motion. There was an intention.

What exactly does ``tragedy'' mean? What is the meaning of ``tragedy'' in the Larousse dictionary? The meaning given in the Petit Robert is almost the same. In the literary sense it means a play, the subject of which is generally drawn from legend or history, which takes well known figures and has them act out events designed to evoke fear or pity-

Is that the intention of the government, which is accusing the official opposition of partisan politics, of wanting to raise this question without giving the government sufficient warning, according to the member for Don Valley North?

I think that by using the word ``tragedy'', they are specifically seeking to mask the real situation, whereas ``genocide'' refers to the extermination of a people. It is not the same thing. I repeat, the words must have a meaning.

In his motion, which he repeated this morning, the member for Don Valley North used the term or expression ``crime against humanity''. A crime against humanity is always a tragedy, but it is different. It is different when that term, which is similar to genocide, is used, it is different than the use of the term ``tragedy'', which, in its literary sense, refers to theatre intended to move audiences, but which also refers to an unfortunate event or events.

We have to know why. All we can do is interpret-I do not know if I can speak about interpretation-conclude that the intention of the government is to qualify, to reduce the scope of what happened to the Armenians early in this century.

Can one compare-I return to my example-the extermination of a million and a half people, the deportation of 500,000 others, the fact that in Armenia over 2,000 churches and 200 convents were destroyed, that people were targeted specifically because of their race or religious beliefs, is this House, the Parliament of Canada, which is a world leader in respecting human rights and democracy, being asked simply to consider these events a tragedy? This makes no sense.

We have a duty, and I must conclude that the government's intention in introducing this amendment is to water down the interpretation of history as it relates to the Armenian genocide, and also to other similar situations.

(1325)

My colleagues raised the problem, and we will have to come back to it during the day, of how the Canadian government had no problem talking about the genocide in Rwanda and how it is so difficult to recognize the genocide of the Armenians.

The member's motion also raises the matter of the government's attitude, which will be the focus of my remarks: the government's attitude toward human rights, which are a bargaining point, if I can put it that way, in trade matters between Canada and other countries.

As my colleague for Ahuntsic pointed out, the fact that the Government of Canada has been negotiating various levels of trade with the Government of Turkey for a number of years already, including the potential sale of a Candu reactor, there may in fact be a certain amount of interest in pushing the Armenian issue under the carpet. I hope I am wrong in making this suggestion.

After this government's election, we concluded from a number of decisions made that trade was more important than human rights. I would remind this House about the trip by Team Canada, in fact the two trips by Team Canada, especially to Asia where the Prime Minister stressed the enormous advantages offered by Canada and worked to improve trade with Asian countries.

Everyone in Canada-the official opposition along with the rest of the parties-is agreed on the importance of improving our record in terms of developing the economy. Everyone agrees that Canada should be competitive, that our products should be promoted-but at any price? Should we do so at the expense of our most basic principles, particularly in the area of human rights? The answer, obviously, is no, and this is the answer the official opposition wants to hear from the government. We want a categoric and strong no, not only in this House, but outside it as well.

When government officials, with the Prime Minister at the helm, travel the world, they should carry a clear message. Yes, Canada is open to international trade, yes, Canada wants to reduce, indeed eliminate as much as possible barriers to international trade. However, at the same time, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all government members have the responsibility and the duty to make it clear that human rights are not negotiable.

In conclusion, I want to remind my colleagues in this House, in particular government members, that a 13-year old boy, the young Kielburger, from the Toronto area, had to confront the Prime Minister on this issue for it to be given attention all of a sudden.

(1330)

This young boy had to denounce child labour, especially in Asian countries, in order for the government to, all of a sudden, pay attention to the issue of human rights.

I know my time is up. However, I want to say in conclusion that as parliamentarians, we do not have the right to use terms such as tragedy to minimize the importance of events that occurred throughout the world, especially in Armenia. When we talk about genocide, genocide it is. When we talk about child labour, that is what me must call it. Words must have a meaning. This is what I want and this is what the official opposition wants by having this motion passed.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, for the third time in the last two hours I am asking an hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois to put his money where his mouth is. Would he undertake to the House to go to his caucus, pass a resolution and ask the premier of Quebec, the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, to erect a monument in Montreal or in Quebec City to commemorate the genocide of the Armenians in 1915, yes or no?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam Speaker, to start with, I will remind the member for Don Valley North that Quebec recognized the Armenian genocide in 1980, that my colleague for Ahuntsic met, I believe, the expectations of the member for Don Valley North since the municipal government in Montreal, headed by its mayor, had planned to erect a monument to commemorate the Armenian genocide, but that, during the election campaign, yielding to pressures from the Minister of

International Trade, the City of Montreal changed its mind. The mayor of Montreal has yet to deny that his project was put on the back burner following pressures from a member of the government.

If I understand what the member for Don Valley North said, and if he is talking on behalf of his caucus and his government, I am convinced that the City of Montreal-and I do not see why the Quebec government would object to being associated with this initiative-would be quite willing to commemorate the Armenian genocide, and to remind our fellow citizens and the world at large of it by erecting a monument. I cannot see any inconsistency in what we are saying, since we are in favour of recognizing it. Not only are we in favour of doing it, but we do recognize the Armenian genocide. For our part, we do not want to reduce these unfortunate events to one human tragedy among many others, rather we want to stress that it is unacceptable for any government to intentionally and systematically try to eliminate a whole people.

In his speech, not in his questions, the member for Don Valley North mentioned the holocaust on several occasions. The word holocaust is associated with the extermination of Jews during the second world war. We are talking about the extermination of a people. The official opposition is not being inconsistent, we recognize the Armenian genocide, this is the subject of the motion. We condemn this kind of crime against humanity and, of course, I believe the official opposition, and the Quebec government, would not object in any way to this being commemorated in a special way by erecting a monument.

(1335)

[English]

Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaking, I asked a simple question. I did not want to be lectured. Would the member agree to put a monument in Quebec City, yes or no? All he has to say is yes, he agrees or no, he does not agree. That is all I want. I do not want to be lectured.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member for Don Valley North is looking for financing but, if he is, we would like to join him in asking the government to proceed.

I just mentioned that if there were inconsistencies among parliamentarians, they were on the other side, which tries to reduce the importance of these events by referring to them as a tragedy, when we are talking about the extermination of a people.

This is my answer, and if that does not suit the hon. member he could repeat his question.

Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and compare what the president of Amnesty International said to what the Prime Minister said. I will then ask my colleague for some comments.

During a recent visit to Ottawa, Pierre Sané, president of Amnesty International, said: ``The battle for human rights has to be global, otherwise it will be lost even before it starts''.

During his first trip to Asia, the Prime Minister said: ``I could give a headline-making speech on that issue, but I prefer to open markets and promote trade. The walls will eventually come down''.

Given what the Prime Minister said, could my colleague tell us when these walls will come down? Is it in two years or two hundred years?

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Madam Speaker, the question of my colleague from Louis-Hébert is very relevant. As a matter of fact, I pointed out at the beginning of my speech the kind of political jockeying the government is doing by putting on the table-and the reference to the Prime Minister's words is totally eloquent-human rights and international trade. That is not only unacceptable, and the term is not too strong, but totally repugnant.

Like my colleague from Louis-Hébert just did, I would remind the House that despite all the things we can blame on the previous government, the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney, parliamentarians of this House and observers of the political scene in general will recognize that Mr. Mulroney did not miss an opportunity to denounce the way various communities throughout the world were treated and to promote human rights. I remind the House that it was a Conservative government, therefore theoretically more right wing, if you will.

We now see a government calling itself liberal in terms of its political allegiance, but in reality, its decisions are even more typical of the extreme right. When my colleague from Louis-Hébert reminded us of the Prime Minister's words, as I was saying earlier, that is the message people throughout the world remember in terms of Canada's political stand as regards human rights.

If that message is heard around the world, it will surely be heard and understood by many people and groups here in Canada, a situation that threatens the future of our rights and freedoms if we are not careful.

Not only it is justified, but the official opposition would be derelict in its duty if it failed to raise this kind of debate in the House. That is why we have tabled this motion today. We want all members of this House who speak up in support of human rights to have the opportunity to ask the government, by voting on this motion, to be consistent and to promote these rights at the international level.

(1340)

Mr. Lincoln: May I ask a question?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is over.

[English]

Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to give a couple of minutes of my time to the hon. member to ask questions if he wishes, if it is possible with the consent of the House.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We must now resume debate. After your speech, the House will have ten minutes for questions and comments. Resuming debate. The hon. member has the floor.

[English]

Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion and I commend the Bloc member for Ahuntsic who brought forward the motion to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915.

I put on record that our party supports the 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.

On Sunday I had the honour to participate in a ceremony at the Armenian community centre in Toronto. For two and a half hours we remembered the genocide of 1915. What impressed me most about the ceremony was that so many young people, through song, attendance, speeches and leadership, remembered what took place 81 years ago. It had become part of their lives and part of their culture that the genocide must never be forgotten.

This is not the first time I have participated in this type of ceremony. I have been privileged for a number of years as a member of Parliament to have met with my friends at the Armenian community centre.

When I was first introduced to the issue by the member for Don Valley North it was unknown to me. At that time he was the executive director of the community centre. He and other members of the community, including Aris Barbikian who has come from Toronto to be with us in the House today, talked to me about that incredible tragedy in which 1.5 million Armenians were indiscriminately wiped out simply because they were Armenians. This tragedy has been part the psyche of Armenians everywhere in the world.

After 81 years, we ask, why could people not forget? The answer is very simple. The Turkish government has never recognized its responsibility in this act of genocide. How can the survivors of that tragedy or the families or friends of survivors accept this historical canard where it has never been recognized by the perpetrators? Even the holocaust of the second world war has been recognized for what it was.

(1345 )

When we as individuals can accept and deal head on with the truth as opposed to putting our heads in the sand, then we can cope with whatever the world has thrown or may throw at us in the future. However it is denial which is an insult to those who were wiped out 81 years ago.

I am not particularly proud of the rest of the world. We have been slow in coming to grips with recognizing what actually took place. The historical record is clear. There is no room for ambiguity or ambivalence. That tragedy did take place. That genocide is a fact of history. Whatever we say about it cannot change that incontrovertible fact.

Why are we so reluctant to join with our brothers and sisters in the Armenian community in recognizing what is a plain and simple truth? Perhaps it is part of that world of realpolitik or doublespeak. Maybe we have other reasons which we do not want to talk about. I find it offensive.

As a member of Parliament I have spoken publicly calling for recognition of the Armenian genocide. It may not be in the cards today or in the exact words that we would like to see. However, I will be supporting the motion as amended by our party which puts in stark outline the fact that so many people were murdered and that it was a tragedy of enormous proportion. There is still suffering by those who remember. Perhaps one day we will find a way in the House to recognize, as a few other nations already have, the fact that the 1915 murder of 1.5 million Armenians was in fact the first genocide of the 20th century.

Why is it important that we dwell on an event which took place 81 years ago? I recall the words of Hitler who, when he was embarking on his crusade to wipe out Jewry in the world, said: ``Who is to stop me? Who remembers the Armenian genocide?'' That is one reason we must remember. If we cannot look history straight in the eye, if we cannot learn from the tragedies which took place, how apt are we to stand idly by and ignore other acts of genocide which are taking place?

We have seen the tragedy in Bosnia where people were wiped out simply because they belonged to a particular race or religion. We have seen the killing fields. We have seen wars throughout the entire world based on the fact that people because they were of a particular nationality, religion or race were considered to be inferior and our enemy. That is so against what every member in the House from every party stands for.

(1350 )

Not only in Canada do we have a human rights code but we also have a charter of rights that deals with discrimination based on race, colour, religion, creed, sex and age and is totally beyond the purview of any legislature and cannot be countered. We have spoken about the types of human rights we seek to respect within our own nation. We are the signatories to numerous documents and treaties which impose this obligation to recognize rights internationally.

Looking at the situation in Turkey today, we see a war led by the PKK, the Kurdish workers party, to try to create a separate state. What we have seen in terms of repression by the Turkish government has been extreme. It is also a matter of record that there have been many violations of human rights in Turkey.

Canada has condemned these violations quite properly, as it is our obligation to do as a member of the world community. We have called for a political solution rather than a military solution to the separatist issue. We hope that by working with our allies and the Turkish officials we are going to be able to achieve some progress in this regard.

My mind goes back to a couple of days ago at the wonderful ceremony of remembrance, the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I was joined at the commemorative service by the member for Don Valley North, the member for Scarborough and Senator Haidasz. All of us were impressed by the intensity of feeling we experienced during that ceremony.

I mentioned earlier the fact that so many young people had made the non-recognition of the genocide a part of their ethos, a part of their mission. These young people are not going to be content until the record is set straight. These people are not seeking reparations or international trials. All they want is a recognition of what their people went through, a recognition that this tragedy took place and that the rest of the world is prepared to join with them in solidarity in recognizing those who died, those who survived and their families.

The motion we see before us as amended by our party is a step in the right direction. It may not be all that we seek but it does not mean that we will give up our efforts to seek more. I commend the member for Don Valley North for the efforts he has made and all members of the House who support this motion.

(1355 )

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take the comments of the member for Willowdale at face value and acknowledge the fact that his comments were heartfelt and genuine as all of the comments in the House have been.

However, there does seem to be some inconsistency here. The Bloc, and prior to that, the Parti Quebecois, has been diligent in facing this issue and trying to bring some recognition to the Armenian genocide since at least 1980. The Government of Quebec and the Government of Ontario both in the early eighties unanimously presented resolutions to that effect. Yet, when the issue comes to the federal government it seems to be watered down. Such is the case again today with the removal of the word genocide by the Liberal amendment. I understand that is to make it palatable today particularly to Turkey with whom we have good and mutually beneficial relations.

Could the member for Willowdale expand on the fact that we have to rob Peter to pay Paul?

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond in a way that is satisfactory to the member or perhaps to any member in this House including myself.

I believe we should take the steps, hopefully in time, to call a spade a spade and a genocide a genocide. Unfortunately governments often move more slowly than we would like, more slowly than reason or feelings would dictate. We cannot always achieve everything we want exactly when we want. I suppose this has been one of the great revelations to me having spent several years in this House. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it was not repaired in a day.

We will measure our progress in this area in terms of steps rather than quantum leaps. It may not be as satisfactory. There may not be explanations which are totally acceptable and square with what we know to be the historic reality. Nevertheless, considering our international obligations, considering our allies, considering international pressures that are brought to bear-

The Speaker: Colleagues, it being 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members.

_____________________________________________