CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1803
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1803
Bill C-31. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 1813
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1820
Amendment to the amendment 1822
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 1825
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1826
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1831
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1836
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 1837
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1837
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1838
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1839
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1839
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1839
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1840
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1840
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1840
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1841
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1841
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1841
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1842
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1843
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1843
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1844
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1844
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1844
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 1846
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1846
Consideration resumed of motion, amendment andamendment to
the amendment 1847
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1849
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1852
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1855
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1857
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1860
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1864
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1867
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 93;
Nays, 118 1873
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 129;Nays, 93 1874
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.) 1875
Bill C-15. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 1875
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas; 131; Nays; 93 1875
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 1876
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed at third reading 1876
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 93;Nays, 131 1877
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 172; Nays, 52 1878
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 1879
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 1879
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 132; Nays, 92 1879
(Bill read the third time and passed). 1880
1803
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's responses to nine petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am tabling a notice of ways and means motion and I ask that an
order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion. I
believe the document has been tabled.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are putting forward today a set of measures that marks
significant progress toward the replacement of the GST. We are
announcing the signing of a memoranda of understanding between
the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the first step
toward an integrated federal-provincial sales tax.
[Translation]
The province of Quebec is concluding the harmonization process
this year. We are committed to working with the remaining
provinces to the same end and are confident that, over time, Canada
will indeed develop a single sales tax system. In addition, we are
tabling a notice of ways and means motion proposing over 100
measures to streamline and simplify the operation of Canada's
sales tax system. These measures are an essential part of the new
architecture of a much improved sales tax system.
[English]
Taken together, we believe the component of this package
constitutes a major advance in responsible sales tax reform. We
believe that consumers, taxpayers and business, particularly small
business, will benefit. True, this is not perfection, but perfection is
not possible in the real world where tax policy has to apply. It is,
however, real improvement.
(1005)
Let me address at the outset the question not of responsible tax
policy but a broader question, that of responsible government. In
the red book we wrote: ``A Liberal government will replace the
GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to
consumers and to small business, minimizes disruptions to small
business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and
harmonization''. We believe that today's plan begins that process.
We know that many Canadians believed we would be able to do
more than we are announcing today. Indeed, we had hoped we
would be able to do more. However, there is something Canadians
deserve above all else and that is government that is responsible in
its management of the economy and honest in what it does. Let me
be direct with the House and with Canadians.
During the election campaign we were right to criticize the GST.
It created overlap and duplication among governments. It was
costing small business time, energy and money; the price paid for
having to keep two sets of books, to track two sets of transactions
and to deal with two tax collectors. We were right to say that all
that was wrong. It still is. However, we were mistaken to have
believed that once it was anchored in place a completely different
alternative would be within reach, responsibly. It has not been.
The honest truth is that for two and a half years we looked at
virtually every conceivable alternative. Some were not possible or
desirable because of their economic impact, others because of the
nature of our federation. What we have arrived at is not the best
alternative conceivable; it is the best alternative possible and it is in
keeping with our red book commitment.
We could have dressed up our announcement today. We could
have pretended it is more than it is. Today's announcement begins
the process of replacing the GST, it does not complete it. We could
have cynically claimed this announcement was the panacea, that as
of today the GST was dead, buried and scrapped. We know not
being able to say this today means many Canadians will be
disappointed. We understand that disappointment. We share it. We
1804
want Canadians to understand fully the efforts we have made going
back more than two years in order to avoid that disappointment.
[Translation]
The finance committee of the House looked at this issue,
beginning immediately after the election. It heard nearly 500
witnesses and received more than 700 briefs-from consumers,
from experts, from business. The committee looked at 20
alternatives and it found all of them wanting.
It concluded, as have we, that the best route to replace the GST
was a simplified, integrated federal-provincial value-added tax.
Concurrent with the work of that committee and thereafter, the
government has worked without rest on this file.
[English]
As a government we evaluated every proposal brought to our
attention, every option open to us. We considered other types of
taxes. We looked at different combinations of taxes. We looked at
options apart from taxation. We looked at everything. Some
options might have made cynical, short term political sense, but
none made good policy sense.
Let me explain by beginning with some basics. An inescapable
fact is the GST brings in almost $18 billion a year, 13 per cent of
the federal government's revenue. In the red book we made it very
clear we could not give up $18 billion in revenue, nor could we cut
spending by that amount to compensate for the loss that would be
entailed, for the purpose of spending cuts must first be to bring the
deficit down.
Therefore from the beginning our focus was on finding
alternatives to the GST, either alternative sources of revenue or
building on taxes that already existed. We looked at 20 options.
Among them were a payroll tax, a wealth transfer tax, a national
retail sales tax and a wholesale tax. None of them worked.
(1010)
[Translation]
Let us look at three examples: we considered the business
transfer tax or BTT. The BTT has been proposed before but is has
never been tried anywhere in the world. The uncertainty for
business and the cost of implementing a totally new system is not a
risk that can be taken lightly.
We looked at a personal expenditure tax, where tax is paid on the
difference between an individual's total income and his or her total
savings for the year. However, there are serious disadvantages with
this option. It would be very intrusive. It would be much more
complex for taxpayers-in terms of record-keeping and
compliance.
[English]
We looked at what is called a turnover or a transaction tax, in
which tax is charged at each and every stage in the production and
distribution process through a lower levy on a firm's sales. Unlike
the GST, their are no rebates. The problem is the same as with a
retail sales tax. Large manufacturing companies can get around the
tax by making products in house, and small companies cannot.
In the export sector Canadian business would be dealt a blow.
Why? At each stage of the production and the distribution process
Canadian components would be taxed and the tax would be
embedded in the price of our exports. Who would benefit from
that? Foreign competitors, not Canadian producers.
These are but a few of the alternatives we looked at and
concluded that none was satisfactory. Either they came nowhere
near raising the revenue we need or they failed to meet one or more
of the tests of responsible taxation of fairness, simplicity and
economic efficiency.
Finally, we looked at making up the revenue that would be lost
by replacing the GST through increasing other taxes that already
exist. We looked at an across the board approach. We looked at
more targeted approaches. We looked at increasing corporate
income taxes and excise taxes. It was clear that no matter what we
did under any conceivable scenario, unduly large increases in
personal income taxes would be required, and that was simply
unacceptable.
That briefly summarizes what was a very lengthy search for a
system and a solution completely different from the GST. The
results of our search were not what we had hoped but they did make
very clear the direction we should take.
While we concluded there was no alternative today to a value
added tax, we also concluded there is an alternative to the GST
such as it now is, and that is a much better value added tax that is
harmonized.
Governments need the revenue the current tax system brings in,
but Canadians do not need the headaches the current tax system
causes. The goal we have arrived at is a simplified integrated
federal-provincial value added tax. The process we have embarked
on is to put the framework in place now so that provinces can join
in when their own individual priorities make that possible; that is,
when they are ready.
With today's announcement we are now on the way to having a
single federal-provincial sales tax in four provinces. Other prov-
1805
inces are waiting to see how the new system works before they join
in. In the end we are confident Canada will eventually have a
single sales tax system.
We will continue to work with individual provinces as their
circumstances permit. In the meantime unanimity need not and
should not stand in the way. Let me describe the improvements we
believe will flow from the approach being put forward today.
First, an integrated federal-provincial value added tax reduces
the burden on business, particularly on small business, created by
the current system. It means there would be no longer separate
federal or provincial sales taxes of different types operating on
different bases with all the complexity and the inefficiency that
entails.
(1015 )
Canada is the only developed economy in the world that tolerates
two completely different sales taxes operating at the same cash
register. No one else puts up with it and it is very clear why.
Patchwork sales tax systems are second rate systems particularly in
an economy that is increasingly integrated globally and
domestically.
Under an integrated approach this will change. There will be one
sales tax, not two. There will be one tax base, not two. There will
be one tax rate in a province, not two. There will be one sales tax
administration, not two. What does this mean? It means life will be
simpler.
Take for example the case of a store that sells washing machines.
Today the retailer has the burden of dealing with two entirely
different sales tax systems. The store must first total up any sales
that are made to exempt purchases. It has to keep a separate record
system to prove that such sales are legitimately exempt from
provincial sales tax.
Then at the end of each month that store must calculate the
amount of provincial sales tax collected and remit it to the
provincial government. At the end of each quarter along with the
provincial sales tax calculation the retailer must also calculate the
amount of federal sales tax collected, deduct the amount of tax paid
on all of those purchases and remit the difference to the federal
government. Not only that, but throughout the year the retailer
must deal with two separate bureaucracies if he or she has any sales
tax questions and faces the possibility at any time of having to deal
with two separate sales tax auditors.
No wonder that small businesses in particular are demanding
that governments do something to address their sales tax
compliance burden. The fact is we are now doing something. All
this will change under the new system. It will be better for
consumers. It will mean a reduced paper burden for small business,
less time and money tied up unproductively, one tax form, one
process, one system.
[Translation]
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has estimated
that a harmonized national sales tax system could save Canadian
businesses as much as $700 million per year. And because there
will only be one tax collector, that same analysis suggests that the
provinces could save an additional $100 million annually on their
administration once such a system is fully in place.
Canadians want an end to overlap and duplication between
governments. On sales tax, this integrated system would end it
once and for all.
[English]
Furthermore a harmonized value added tax will be economically
more efficient. Not only will businesses save money and time but
their products should become more competitive.
At present businesses throughout Canada pay provincial sales
tax on a broad range of things they themselves buy to make
products or to keep their businesses running. This increases their
costs and in turn leads to higher prices for their goods. As a result
Canadian goods competing with imports at home or exports abroad
have provincial sales tax embedded in their price. In fact because
the tax becomes embedded in the production and distribution
chain, the prices of our goods are often inflated not by one but by
many layers of provincial retail sales tax.
Under this proposal that competitive disadvantage would end.
For instance exports are the engine of our economy. As a result of
this reform Canadian business will be even more successful in
markets abroad. This in turn means jobs for Canadians at home.
Consumers should also see benefits under the new system.
Let me address directly the contention that a harmonized value
added tax shifts the tax burden from business to consumers. Let me
also address the contention that consumers will lose because a
broader range of goods and particular services is taxed under this
approach. These arguments are simply wrong.
The fact is that today as mentioned businesses are taxed by the
provinces on all the items they must buy in order to make their
products, deliver their services and keep their businesses going.
Anyone who believes that business does not pass on these
provincial sales taxes to the consumer is simply naive. If business
pays a tax up front, it is consumers who pay for it in the end. The
tax is embedded in the price. This is true for all products and
services produced in Canada, whether or not they are taxed at the
final point of sale.
(1020)
For example, some may believe that they do not pay tax on a
haircut when there is none directly charged to them by the barber or
the hairdresser. That is not the case. The price does include tax: the
1806
tax the barber or the hairdresser pays on their supplies fromtheir scissors to their salon equipment to the shampoo. Whenthey decide what price to charge, they pass these costs on totheir clients.
Under an integrated value added tax system, this changes
completely. Provincial retail sales taxes will no longer be paid by
businesses during the production and distribution process.
Therefore, for goods and services not previously taxed, prices will
go up by less than the full extent of the provincial tax because the
embedded taxes will be removed. For those products and services
that are presently taxed, their prices should fall. This would be the
case even if the overall tax rate did not come down. Why? Again, it
is because the embedded tax will disappear, lowering prices.
Furthermore, there is another advantage to broadening the base.
When we do not tax services, we distort the economy. We are
imposing a burden on some businesses but not on others. A broader
tax base spreads the burden fairly to all sectors and to all
consumers. For instance, of significance in the light of today's
announcement, for the harmonizing provinces in Atlantic Canada
the broader base is one of the factors that allows for a sharp decline
in the overall sales tax rate.
Finally, one of the most frustrating aspects of the GST is the fact
that without carrying around a calculator, consumers often do not
know what things are going to cost until they get to the checkout
counter. Every time a Canadian buys a candy bar or a pair of socks,
GST is not on the sticker or the tag but is added as a rude
awakening at the cash register.
Therefore, the agreements that will be arrived at pursuant to the
memorandums of understanding we are announcing today will put
an end to that practice. In the three Atlantic provinces that are
harmonizing, beginning April 1, 1997 the price will include the tax.
The price people see will be the price people pay. However, the new
tax will also be transparent. Vendors will be able to show the tax on
their bills and we will be consulting with businesses on how best to
do this.
[Translation]
Today's announcement entails major structural change. It
represents an important overhaul of the sales tax system. This
government has consistently acted on the principle that people and
governments need to be able to plan and adjust to structural change,
and where required, we have been prepared to provide help to those
who face adjustment costs up front.
For example, payments were made to provinces to address
revenue losses they incurred under the major tax reform in 1972.
And adjustment assistance was provided in each and every one of
our budgets. For example, last year we provided resources to
facilitate the adjustment flowing from elimination of subsidies
under the Western Grain Transportation Act to the western
provinces, as we did with the Atlantic freight subsidies to Quebec
and the Atlantic provinces.
[English]
Today we are following the same precedents. An adjustment
framework will be put in place to share the costs with those
provinces which would experience revenue losses from
harmonization in excess of 5 per cent of their current sales tax
revenue.
In addition to the three provinces previously mentioned, this
would include Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
On the other hand, the revenues of British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario would not be reduced sufficiently to trigger compensation
under the formula, nor Quebec's for the same reason, either today
or in 1990, the time it signed the MOU on harmonization with the
federal government.
(1025 )
Under the set formula the federal government will provide 100
per cent of the balance of revenue losses in years one and two, 50
per cent in year three and 25 per cent in year four. The formula has
been applied consistently to each province that has decided to
harmonize and it will remain open to the other provinces for the
foreseeable future.
Given the benefits that will flow from harmonization, we believe
the total cost to the federal government, about $960 million for the
three participating provinces spread over four years, is a
responsible and reasonable investment. The federal and provincial
governments will be sharing about equally in the adjustment costs
over this period. The assistance will end after year four by which
time the provinces will have had adequate time to adjust. I must
emphasize this adjustment assistance will not jeopardize our deficit
targets. They are secure.
The measures being announced today include a package of over
100 changes designed to streamline and simplify the operation of
Canada's value added tax system. These improvements result from
extensive consultations over the past two years with businesses,
particularly small businesses, consumer associations and other
groups.
[Translation]
Some of these are technical and sector-specific. Many will have
a positive impact on those they affect.
For example, as part of our commitment to assist charities and
non-profit organizations, new rules will be put in place. As a result,
about 10,000 charities will no longer be required to register for and
administer the GST.
The provision that remove the tax from medical devices used by
persons with disabilities will be broadened, and clarified. More
equipment and supplies for Canada's farmers will be made
tax-free. The rules for employee benefits are being simplified-an
area
1807
of the sales tax that has been the focus of small business anger
from day one.
In addition, we will be streamlining accounting, interest,
penalty, administration and enforcement provisions across all
federal tax laws, something that will go a long way to simplify the
system for small business.
[English]
These are significant changes that will be of immediate
importance to those concerned. However, there is one thing that is
not being changed. The credit provided to low income Canadians
and the rebates provided to municipalities, universities, schools,
hospitals, qualifying charities and non-profit organizations remain
intact.
The provinces joining us today clearly recognize the gains that
flow from this reform. The fact is that in a region where the need to
secure economic growth is as acute as anywhere, tax
rationalization and simplification is probably one of the most
beneficial job creation initiatives that could be undertaken.
The benefit of acting in concert so that reform in each province
is reinforced by parallel change in the other maximizes the
improvement for Atlantic enterprise and consumers. The benefit of
a more efficient Atlantic economy means companies and workers
will be able to compete more successfully in world markets.
The benefits of less overlap and duplication mean reduced
administrative costs for governments and small business. For
example, small business with less than $30,000 of taxable sales
will no longer have to register for either federal or provincial sales
tax.
There are benefits that will result from a lower sales tax rate.
When this reform is fully implemented, the official tax rate will be
3 per cent lower in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and 4 per cent
lower in Newfoundland and Labrador.
(1030)
Indeed, the real tax reduction will be even greater because the
new system will eliminate tax on tax. The effective rate reduction
will then, in fact, be almost 4 per cent in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick and almost 5 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The announcements today are not the end of the process. They
are a stage. As part of moving towards an integrated
federal-provincial value-added tax, discussions with the three
provinces will now take place to turn the memoranda of
understanding announced today into final detailed agreements to
take effect on April 1 of next year.
At the same time, with Quebec's harmonization process
proceeding, we are very much open to continued discussions with
the remaining governements to move foward towards integration
on the basis that has now been established.
[English]
In summary, while the strategy we are proposing is not the best
solution in an ideal world, we believe it is the best solution in the
real world. The alternative would have been to have embraced
some option that would have been superficially attractive, but in
the end would have been more complex for Canadians, would have
reduced the capacity of government to provide needed services and
would have thrown the clean-up of the nation's finances severely
off track. This we were not prepared to do.
We are not pretending that our proposals are more than they are.
They will have to stand on their own merits. We are not making
changes for change's sake. We are making changes that make
sense. That is what we were elected to do. We were elected to
govern, to make responsible choices and that is what we are doing
today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must first of all deplore the way the Minister of Finance
tabled documents this morning, an hour and a half before his
presentation in the House, without our hearing from him in the past
three days about his intentions regarding the GST. If this is not a
way to circumvent democratic principles, I wonder what it is,
especially when such an important issue is at stake.
What strikes me about the finance minister's speech is that we
could have taken his old speeches from 1990, for example-the old
speeches made by members of the Liberal Party of Canada-and
turned them completely around to arrive at this morning's speech.
A few years ago, the Minister of Finance was saying the exact
opposite of what he said in his speech this morning.
All those who expected the GST to disappear, to be scrapped-as
many in Canada and Quebec did and as many Liberal members had
been promising for three or four years-will be sorely
disappointed. The GST is staying; it is not being scrapped but
replaced by another kind of GST. This is in total contradiction with
the many oral and written promises made by members of the
Liberal Party of Canada.
Allow me to quote just a few of them. On March 11, 1996-not
so long ago-the Globe and Mail reprinted this quote by the
Deputy Prime Minister:
(1035)
[English]
``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST
is not abolished I will resign''.
[Translation]
That is what the Deputy Prime Minister herself said on October 18,
1993.
My second quote, which dates back to the 1993 election
campaign, comes from the Prime Minister:
1808
[English]
``We will scrap the GST''.
[Translation]
To scrap means to eliminate; therefore the GST was to be
eliminated, not replaced by another kind of GST to give the
appearance of keeping an election promise.
I could give you any number of quotes but I will make do with a
last one. On May 2, 1994-not so long ago-the Prime Minister
said this: ``We hate this tax and we will make it disappear''. The
GST is staying; the only disappearance is in the price of the
product.
The finance minister's new measure is hiding two important
things. First of all, some of the figures in the finance minister's
speech this morning are hidden; one figure is real, however: the
cost of harmonization with the maritime provinces. It is the cost of
buying an election promise that was not kept.
The Minister of Finance has paid off the maritimes so that they
would help him keep an election promise through shameless
window dressing, as we saw this morning. A total cost of $1 billion
has not been denied so far. One billion dollars is what Quebecers
and Canadians from the other provinces will have to pay for an
election promise that was not kept by the Minister of Finance and
the Prime Minister. One billion dollars is what this measure is
really costing us.
But there is more. It will cost more than the $1 billion they said it
will cost us in the next four years. I do not know if the Minister of
Finance and his Liberal colleagues have realized this-there are
many things they fail to realize-but reducing consumption taxes
from 19 to 15 per cent will force all Quebecers and all Canadians
from the other provinces to pay more in equalization to the
maritime provinces in the future. Did he realize this? No, or if he
did, he is hiding this additional cost from the people.
Are these increased equalization costs, which all taxpayers in
Quebec and Canada must pay in addition to the $1 billion the
Minister of Finance promised the governments of the maritime
provinces in the short term, acceptable? Are they acceptable, when
we compare this harmonization process, this buy-off of the
maritime provinces, to Quebec's treatment in recent years?
Everyone here knows that Quebec's sales tax has been
harmonized with the federal sales tax. Quebec is administering this
federal tax. Quebec has been a good boy, a good corporate citizen
in not demanding any compensation for this harmonization.
Why is Quebec's effort in that area not recognized now? Why is
the federal government now dipping in the pockets of Quebecers
and Canadians to give $1 billion in compensation to the
governments of the maritime provinces, but not to the Quebec
government? We were good boys and good girls in harmonizing
our tax with the federal sales tax and not asking for any
compensation so far. Is that what they call managing the Canadian
federation? There is something wrong here.
The new GST is a sneaky tax. It is sneaky because it is hidden in
the price of goods and services. I listened to the Minister of
Finance who said earlier that, in 1994 and even in 1995 and after,
representations had been made to the finance committee by many
people who told committee members that they were irritated and
upset as consumers to see the GST added to their purchases.
Others warned them against changing four quarters for a buck
and hiding taxes.
Let me read what the Liberal majority wrote in 1994 in its report.
They said: ``It would just not be appropriate to hide from
Canadians how much they pay in taxes to their government, and
creating a hidden tax would affect their ability to force the
government to account for how these taxes are collected and, to a
lesser extent, for the use made of public funds''.
(1040)
That is the kind of representations that were made to the finance
committee. Most witnesses told us: ``First, abolish the GST, and if
it absolutely has to be replaced by something else, make sure it not
hidden from the public. Let it also be obvious that the federal
government is unable to manage public finance properly, which
explains why it has to keep dipping deeper and deeper in the
pockets of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada''. That is what people
were telling us. ``Show us the true face of public finance''.
Instead, the Minister of Finance is proposing a hidden tax. Worse
yet, in 1989, in its minority report on the GST, the Liberal minority,
which was the official opposition then, wrote that, if the GST were
hidden in the sales price, it would make it that much easier for the
government to raise it later.
This is what the Liberals held as true in 1989, but now that they
are in power, the tax is not supposed to go up? We will have a
hidden tax and it will not go up, contrary to what the Liberals held
as true in 1989. It is a disgrace to change one's mind so radically
and suddenly, at the expense of Canadians.
Even back when they were in better frame of mind and did not
have an election promise made by he Prime Minister to keep,
Liberals were not the only ones to say that the GST should not be
hidden. In 1994, a survey conducted among its members by the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce showed that 70 per cent of
Canadian businesses were opposed to a hidden tax. That is 70 per
cent. If that is not a majority, I wonder what is.
Recently, in February 1996, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce conducted the same survey again, just to realize not
only that its members' opposition was holding strong, but also that
the percentage of those opposed to hiding the tax in the sales price
had
1809
risen from 70 per cent to 76 per cent. Could the message be any
clearer? I do not think so. This is hypocrisy on the part of a
government that is not able to call things by their rightful name and
to show the Canadian reality as it is.
There is a lot of hope in that document. It refers to an agreement
reached between the federal government and the three maritime
provinces, which account for roughly 15 per cent of the Canadian
population, and points out that the idea is to apply these precepts to
all provinces. I have some news for the Minister of Finance. A vast
majority of Canadians are opposed to the minister's project to
establish a single 15 per cent tax to be managed by the Canada
revenue commission, which would bump the provinces. This would
mean that, in Ontario for example, the tax burden would increase,
while in Alberta the commodity tax would go up from 7 per cent to
15 per cent. Canadians unanimously believe that the Minister of
Finance is mistaken if he thinks that other provinces will go along
with his project.
This unanimity exists particularly in Quebec where, for several
years now, Quebecers have been working hard to harmonize the
two tax bases and to manage them. Indeed, Quebec looks after the
collection and the administration of the GST on behalf of the
federal government. So, we worked very hard to achieve
harmonization at no additional costs.
The minister was too quick to dismiss the case of Quebec by
saying, in his document Towards Replacing the Goods and Services
Tax, that: ``Since the harmonization process with the province of
Quebec will be completed this year, the government will now work
with the other provinces to extend the system to the whole
country''. The minister was too quick to dismiss the case of
Quebec, because it is one thing to harmonize tax bases, as Quebec
is doing, with the project being about 95 per cent completed, but it
is quite another to endorse the minister's project to impose a single
15 per cent tax, while the GST and the TVQ together amount to 14
per cent. This project would result in a one per cent tax increase
and would push Quebec aside by giving the Canada revenue
commission the mandate to administer the new 15 per cent GST.
Indeed, there is a difference between the current harmonization
process and the finance minister's project.
(1045)
Given Quebec's history of struggles to achieve autonomy in the
field of taxation, particularly since the sixties with Jean Lesage, I
can assure you that it will never agree to such a taxation system.
Far from promoting tax harmonization, this project could well
undermine efforts made in Quebec over a period of several years to
achieve that result. Let us not forget that this harmonization project
was implemented with the agreement of both parties and with a lot
of goodwill. Today, the Minister of Finance is trying to fulfil an
election commitment-but fails to do so because he does not
abolish the GST. He comes barging in and says: ``We will replace
all that; we will ensure that, from now on, the federal government
will be the one to manage this tax''.
As a Quebecer, I would tell myself that it is not really worth
co-operating with the federal government, since we are not paid to
do that, nor are we compensated like the maritime provinces, who
were paid off. Next time, we will say no and there will be no
harmonization process. Quebec will say no. We will not get into a
system whereby Quebec will lose its authority to set its own tax
rate. Worse still, the federal government will raise the tax rate by
one percentage point while the premier of Quebec has been doing
everything he can, since he came into office, to avoid increasing
Quebec's sales tax by one point, and even by half a point.
We cut where we can. We put a lot into streamlining and
consultation, and we should let the federal government interfere
and increase the sales tax by one percentage point? No way.
Quebec will say no. We should lose the capability to fix our own
rate? Quebec will say no. We should allow a federal agency to
come in and make decisions on behalf of the Government of
Quebec? There is no way Quebec will agree to that. You can expect
tension between the federal government and Quebec to build up,
when things were going so well as regards the consumption tax.
Why are they acting this way? Merely to get votes and to look as
if they are fulfilling their promise, an election commitment the
Prime Minister himself-and we have it on tape, as I said
yesterday-is unable to keep.
With an election coming up, it is sad to see how the government
is describing this election measure, because that is what it truly is,
and the whole situation. The government is trying to deceive the
population by saying that the GST has been eliminated-poof, as
my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata would put
it-when in fact it is making a big deal out of a minor agreement
reached with three maritime provinces and takes this opportunity to
say: ``As you can see, we can keep our promises''. The fact is that
they have done nothing to keep their promise. The GST is still here,
there is still some friction between the federal government, Ontario
and Alberta, and the expected friction with the Quebec government
bodes no good.
We find this measure unfortunate. We also disapprove of the way
the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government have dealt with
this issue.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
completely unwilling to concede that paying $1 billion to
harmonize the GST in Atlantic Canada is what was promised
during the last election campaign. Even the finance minister's
weak mea culpa, his tacit admission that although the Liberals
were not fulfilling their promise, they were taking a step toward it,
is
1810
inadequate. What they promised was that they would scrap the
GST, they would kill it, they would abolish it. That is whatthey said.
(1050 )
The finance minister went to some lengths to read from the red
book. I am going to do some reading of my own right now.
Although what he read from the red book was accurate, I point out
that 80,000 copies came out one month before the election. What
was said on national television, what was said for five years leading
up to the election and what was said on doorsteps across the
country by Liberal members was completely different.
I remind my hon. friends across the way what was said. Here is a
quote from the Edmonton Journal dated March 1990: ``The Liberal
Party would scrap the GST, the current human resources
development minister pledged in a nationally televised debate on
Monday with finance minister Michael Wilson. The goods and
services tax is a regressive tax, he said. It has to be scrapped and we
will scrap it''.
Listen to this statement from the Montreal Gazette in 1990: ``I
would abolish the GST''. That is what the current finance minister
said, as quoted in the newspaper.
Listen to this statement by the Prime Minister. He said: ``I want
the tax dead''. That is a quote in the Montreal Gazette in 1990.
I have another one from 1990. ``The Liberals will scrap the
goods and services tax if they win the next general election,'' the
current Prime Minister says. ``I am opposed to the GST. I have
always been opposed to it and I will be opposed to it always''.
The finance minister can quote from the red book, which was
hidden during the election campaign, but the fact of the matter is
that he, the Prime Minister and certainly the Deputy Prime
Minister made all kinds of commitments that the GST would be
gone.
I have a couple more quotes from the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister. In 1991 the Prime Minister said: ``I say we
will replace the tax. That is a commitment you will judge me by''.
It is still not replaced.
I now point to the big promise of October 18, 1993: ``If the GST
is not abolished under a Liberal government I will resign''. That
was stated by the Deputy Prime Minister appearing on a CBC TV
electronic town hall meeting one week before the election
campaign.
The Deputy Prime Minister is still with us. Unbelievably she sits
glued to her chair in question period day after day when the
government is questioned about why it is that she has not fulfilled
her promise to resign. She can turn around and throw darts at
members like the member for York South-Weston or the member
for Broadview-Greenwood who had the nerve to stand up and
support their constituents. However, she sits glued to her chair
hoping against hope that somehow her constituents will forget that
solemn promise. I can guarantee this House that they will not.
Members across the way do not have to accept my word for this.
They can accept the words of their own members. I am not talking
just about the members who were thrown out of their caucus or the
member who quit on the basis of his own principles. I am talking
about other members as well. The member from Mississauga has
talked repeatedly about how the government has failed to fulfil its
commitment on the GST. The member for Ontario has also been
quoted in the media about the government's failure to fulfil its
commitment to scrap, abolish and kill the GST. I am not the one
who making these arguments. Members across the way have made
these arguments very well.
It speaks volumes when members believe so strongly that a
commitment was made to scrap the GST that they are willing to put
their jobs on the line. That is exactly what happened when the
member for York South-Weston very courageously stood and
voted against the budget. He saw that the commitment to scrap the
GST which had been promised the previous summer was not in the
budget. He stood up for his constituents and what happened? He
was thrown out of caucus. He was mocked by the Deputy Prime
Minister and by the people who used to be his friends. I cannot
believe that. He stood up for his constituents. He stood up for
Canadians around the country who believe that the government
promised to scrap the GST. We applaud him for that. That says
something about how widely that promise was made and how many
members made it.
(1055)
Those promises were made all across the country. I am happy to
see that the member for York South-Weston stood up for his
constituents even if he was ultimately punished by a meanspirited
government that simply will not tolerate any semblance of
democracy in this place.
Yesterday in question period the Prime Minister talked about the
British parliamentary model. He said that according to British
parliamentary tradition the Liberals had to throw the member out.
That is ridiculous and the Prime Minister knows it. Over the past 20
years members, the British Parliament has defeated 65 money bills
and other specific pieces of legislation. In the Canadian system
such actions would have brought down the government.
If government members in our system vote against the
government, they will be out on their ears. They will be kicked off
their committees. They will be punished, which is ridiculous.
If we cannot have democracy in the House of Commons we
cannot have democracy anywhere in the country. If we are not
allowed to express ourselves freely here, where can we express
1811
ourselves freely? Where is the mouthpiece of the people? Can the
people not be represented in this place?
Why does the Prime Minister bring down the iron fist of
discipline time after time when he has a chance to let people speak
freely and express the wishes of their constituents? He is the most
dictatorial Prime Minister we have seen in this country, bar none. I
believe that to be a fact and I challenge hon. members across the
way to stand and debate that point because it is a fact.
Canadians will not soon forget what the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister by her silence did to the members across
the way. I expect other hon. members to stand and defend those
members who allowed them to benefit from the promises they
made during the campaign. The government was elected on the
promise to scrap the GST. Now only two members are paying the
price for the government's failure to fulfil that commitment. That
is simply wrong. They are the scapegoats.
Let us set aside the fact that harmonization, or this very tepid
step toward harmonization, was a breaking of a Liberal promise.
Let us speak of the agreement itself. The provinces did not ask for
harmonization. That is a fact. The federal government in an effort
to save face approached the provinces. It was rejected by the
provinces because it could not make harmonization work in a way
that made sense to the provinces.
What did the government do? It decided to sweeten the pot. It
decided it would kick in $1 billion so three provinces, possibly
four, would sign on. Is that fair? What does it mean? It means that
people in my riding, the farmer in Bow Island, Alberta, the
fisherman in Campbell River, British Columbia, and the line
worker in Windsor, Ontario will have to dig into their pockets,
come up with some more tax money for the government so it can
give it to people in Atlantic Canada.
What ever happened to equal treatment? I see the hon. member
from Toronto talking. People in Toronto will have to come up with
more money to support people in Atlantic Canada, $1 billion more.
How fair is that?
One of the problems we have in this country is that this
government has gone to such great lengths to treat people
differently. Our party believes in equal treatment. We believe all
Canadians should be treated equally. We believe all provinces
should be treated equally. This government has bent over
backwards to ensure it hands out privileges to certain groups,
certain areas of the country and certain people. It has done it time
and time again.
(1100 )
I talked in the House last week about the fact that the
government handed over $105,000 to the Canadian Bankers
Association. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is another example of
how the government treats certain groups differently and specially.
Mr. Peters: That is not true.
Mr. Solberg: The Secretary of State for Financial Institutions is
pointing at me, saying that it is not true. I invite him to ask the
human resources development minister because it was through his
department that the bankers association, after the banks made
profits of $5.1 billion dollars, received $105,000 for training. How
does the hon. member respond to that? I invite him to check his
facts and he will find out it is true.
What happened in the Constitution? The government said we
should treat certain areas differently. It said it believes in distinct
society. It is in favour of granting special status to certain people.
We see over and over again how it treats people through its
multiculturalism policy; again, special treatment. We simply
cannot accept that.
With regard to matters of taxation the same principle must apply.
People must be treated equally. We cannot have seven provinces
supporting three, or six provinces supporting four, whatever it
comes down to. It is absolutely ridiculous.
We have no problem with equalization payments. If provinces
want to get on board and support other provinces because they got
the short end of the stick over a period of time because of
mismanagement by the government, let us support them through
equalization.
Do we always have to come up with ever new programs for a few
provinces to support the many and at the expense of some people to
support other people? That is fundamentally wrong. Not to mention
we already have a debt of $580 billion. The Liberals may argue
they will not tax people more, they will just borrow it. We already
have a debt of $580 billion, so I suggest it is not a very good option.
We have to get this mess under control.
I will talk for a moment about some of the particulars of this
agreement. The government is to kick over a billion dollars.
However, it is not said how it will come up with the money for the
other provinces if it does propose to treat all provinces equally.
The province of Ontario would require between $2 billion and $3
billion in order to get the same sort of deal as the Atlantic
provinces. Where is the money to come from? Will we ask people
in Atlantic Canada to come up with that money? What about the
money for Saskatchewan and Manitoba? What about the money for
British Columbia? I suggest that will not be an issue because all of
those provinces have said it is a non-starter, it will not even happen
because the federal government will not come up with the money.
Besides, they do not like the overall deal.
1812
The premier of Saskatchewan has pointed out that federal
government typically invites you in with a carrot. It gives money
at the beginning and then it abandons you and leaves you high
and dry. If people deny that, I invite them to look at the mess our
health care system is in today. The federal government started out
by funding it at 50 per cent and it is now down to 22 per cent.
There is a long legacy from successive Conservative and Liberal
governments where they get us on board with taxpayer money and
then leave us high and dry.
It was the finance minister who, when running for the leadership
of the Liberal Party, said harmonization means forever. He said that
once taxes were harmonized it would be very difficult to get rid of
the GST again. What is he saying to people? Is he saying we should
give up on the idea of having lower taxes? Should we give up on
getting rid of the most hated tax in Canadian history? Is he saying
we must permanently weld into place the most hated tax in
Canadian history? By signing these agreements, that is exactly
what has happened.
There is another way we can lower taxes. In Ontario, Manitoba
and Alberta today there are debates about lower taxes.
(1105)
We can have lower taxes but the only way of doing it is to
balance the budget, and the government cannot get that through its
thick head. It goes on and on about how we should streamline and
change the administration of the GST.
I say get rid of the GST. The best way and the only way to do that
is to balance the budget, eliminate it over a period of time, give
Canadians the tax break they so richly deserve instead of going
back to them over and over again to gouge more money from them.
The hon. member across the way looks perplexed. Gouge? What
can that mean? What does he mean by gouge? Since the hon.
members across the way came to power they have taken $8.8
billion from Canadians. That is unbelievable. That is $650 per
taxpayer.
The hon. members across the way are wondering how could that
happen. All those tax measures, all those revenue measures, all
those tax increases were hidden. That is precisely what the
government is proposing to do with the GST in Atlantic Canada. It
is proposing to hid it so it can push through even more tax
increases.
Look at all the revenue measures that have gone through the last
couple of years, all hidden. All the excise tax increases, all hidden.
It is simply trying to come up with creative new ways to tax people
more, and if they doubt that I invite people to simply look at the
record of the government. It is despicable. It is simply following
along the same lines as the Conservatives.
Between 1993 and 1998 revenues for this government will go up
$25 billion, the same amount as the deficit will decrease. In other
words, it is exacting all of the decrease in the deficit out of the
pockets of taxpayers, and that is unbelievable.
To the member across the way, check your figures. It is a fact and
the hon. member knows it. He sits on the finance committee and he
knows that to be a fact. We do not want different taxes, we want
lower taxes, and Canadians deserve lower taxes.
The provinces have lead the way. It is possible with a bit of
resolve and a bit of will. If they set their priorities they can balance
the budget. Setting priorities is something this government has not
done. So far it has managed to preserve spending for special
interest. It has preserved spending for its friends in big business. As
I pointed out to the hon. member, it does not mind giving $105,000
to the Canadian Bankers Association.
The hon. member knows we had representations from big
business across the country, saying not to subsidize businesses
anymore. What does the government do? It continues to subsidize
businesses year after year while cutting health care by $3.2 billion,
by cutting higher education by $1.2 billion. It is going after the
wrong things. We could have a balanced budget if it got its
priorities straight and did not bury its head in the sand and deny
there is a problem. There is a very serious problem.
I am not the only one concerned about this harmonization deal,
nor is it only members of my party. I want to talk about what some
of the interest groups are saying, those the minister invited to come
forward so he could lobby them to come on side. So far they have
not come on side.
Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, said Ontario has to be brought on board to
make harmonization worthwhile. The province, with 40 per cent of
the national economy, says Ottawa's plan would cost residents $2
billion annually and has refused to co-operate in harmonization.
Catherine Swift said: ``If Ontario does not go and we end up with a
half-hearted harmonization for the next 10 years that is pretty
problematic''.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is a big booster of
harmonization, but even it has reservations. Sharon Glover, the
group's senior vice-president of government relations, said she is
concerned the finance minister will require the GST to be folded
into the price tag on goods: ``Hidden taxes are too easy to raise and
they promote distrust among consumers''. Frankly, I think
consumers have a right to be a little distrustful of the government.
There have been reports that the GST and the new national sales
tax would be included in prices but broken down separately on cash
register receipts. Of course that was confirmed by the minister this
1813
morning. The point is even the groups the hon. members from
across the way say are supportive of this harmonization agreement
are not, and there are the facts to prove it.
(1110 )
Canadians want a country in which MPs are free to come to the
House of Commons to represent their constituents. That is basic. It
is not being unreasonable. Canadians deserve to be represented by
their members of Parliament. What the government did in throwing
out the member for York South-Weston and in essentially forcing
out the member for Broadview-Greenwood because he was too
principled to sit among the rabble across the way was
reprehensible. The government has trampled on democracy.
I cannot believe the Prime Minister invoked the name of the
British Parliament the other day. Edmund Burke and John Locke
would be spinning in their graves if they heard those comments
coming from the Prime Minister in trying to defend his heavy
handedness.
Canadians across the country want a government which keeps its
promises. Canadians want a government which, when it says it will
scrap the GST, will do it. They expect the Liberal members of
Parliament to actually follow through and do that. They must be
sorrily disappointed. They must be very cynical about what has
happened across the way.
The finance minister's implied apology at the beginning of his
speech today suggests they are feeling the pressure. Perhaps there
is a little tweak of conscience across the way. That is good. It is
nice to see that finally their conscience is catching up with them.
What Canadians want are not different taxes; they want lower
taxes. Canadians from coast to coast have suffered under
successive Liberal and Conservative regimes which have raised
taxes and failed to deal with the debt problem. Every time they
raise money, they immediately spend it. That is absolutely
unacceptable. Canadians deserve a tax break. The only way that
can happen is if the budget is balanced, but the government refuses
to announce a date by which it will balance the budget.
The government is hiding the GST in the new deal. It will
continue to tax Canadians to death by stealth, as it has done so
often since coming to power. There have been 22 tax measures and
revenue measures since it has come to power, taking $8.8 billion
out of the economy. That represents $650 per taxpayer. That is
ridiculous. No wonder we have not had an improvement in our
lifestyle, our disposable income since 1980.
Canadians want to save enough for their future. Canadians want
to save enough so they can send their children off to university.
They want to have money they can retire on. They want to have
money they can start businesses with. However, when the
government talks only about changing taxes instead of lowering
taxes, none of that can happen.
I urge the government to forget this bogus harmonization idea
and fulfill its promise by eliminating the deficit and moving
immediately to start the process of eliminating the GST.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize the
official parties have been recognized in their response to the
minister. I wonder, as a spokesperson for a group of independents,
if I might have a few minutes to make a few comments on this
important issue. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to do
so.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow the
member to speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the question again and I ask
members saying no to say it clearly and not whisper it into their
benches, hoping I will not hear it.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the member to speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Riis: This may not be a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but on a
daily basis unanimous consent is sought to move the agenda of the
House of Commons, and without exception the New Democratic
Party gives its consent to facilitate the business of the House.
I simply wanted to make that point, having been denied the right
to speak.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, in view of the
importance of this issue, which has been under discussion for
years, could you once more ask the House for unanimous consent
so that the hon. member can speak to this?
(1115)
The Deputy Speaker: Since another member has made the same
request on his own behalf, I will ask the question once again. Is
there unanimous consent to give the hon. member for Kamloops
the right to speak?
[English]
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Again, there has been a no indicated. All
of the members have heard from where the no came. We will
proceed.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 6, 1996.
1814
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1814
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ) moved:
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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I move a
motion requesting that the Canadian government finally recognize
the Armenian genocide by designating a week to commemorate the
crimes against humanity committed in the past, a commemoration
that will help us prevent the same thing from happening again in
the future.
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,
1815
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
1816
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.
1817
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.
1818
[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''.
1819
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.
1820
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
1821
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.
1822
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.''
It would then read the ``tragedy 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
1823
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.
1824
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.
1825
[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.
1826
(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
1827
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.
I would also like to share with the House part of the message sent
by Senator Dole, the U.S. presidential candidate in the upcoming
November election. The message is dated April 22 and reads as
follows:
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.
This issue is extremely important, especially to Canadians of
Armenian origin. After all, they were one of the minorities that
suffered in 1915 along with Kurds, Arabs, Greeks, Cypriots and
many nationalities that were subjects of the Ottoman Empire at the
time.
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
1828
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.
I conclude my comments with the these words. Unless we learn
from the past we are condemned to repeat it. I hope we are united in
this House to condemn the past so we do not repeat the slaughter,
discrimination and genocide.
[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
1829
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
1830
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.
1831
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.
1832
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
1833
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.
1834
(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.
1835
(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.
_____________________________________________
1835
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during current times Canadians from all over
Canada must never lose sight of the fact that in the years leading up
to 1867 the Fathers of Confederation laid the foundation for our
Canada with the full intent that the country was to be indivisible
and indissoluble. There has never been any change in that intent
nor in that purpose. Neither in the Constitution of Canada nor in
law is there any provision for the separation or splitting away of a
province or territory.
1836
We as Canadians have a moral and civic obligation to maintain
the territorial integrity of our country. Let us never sway from our
firm conviction toward Canadian nationhood. Let us resolve as a
Canadian family to continue to protect each other's culture,
language and religion so that Canada will forever be a national
dream in the eyes of an envious world.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a legal
requirement that the sewage treatment facility being constructed by
the Tswwassen Indian Band be subject to an environmental
assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
The government has refused to confirm such an assessment. This
plant is being built on vitally sensitive intertidal salt water marsh.
The marsh has been internationally recognized as an extremely
sensitive habitat for juvenile salmon, migratory wildlife and the
great blue heron, a species unique to this ecosystem.
In spite of enormous pressure from the public, the province of
British Columbia and the municipality of Delta, these ministers of
the government are apparently denying the people of the country
access to their own environmental laws.
I beg the House to join in my demand that the Government of
Canada immediately confirm that it has commenced and
environmental assessment of this sewage project pursuant to the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There must be one law
in this land and it must apply to each of us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I gives
me great pleasure to draw the attention of the House to the third
Salon de l'invention et de l'innovation, to be held shortly in Black
Lake. This is a fair where inventors display for the general public
the new products they have invented.
This fair, which is very interesting for business people and the
general public, is a good opportunity to develop new businesses
and create jobs.
I want to emphasize the excellent work of those who have
organized this event: Benoît Côté, Éric Labonté, Mario Bergeron,
Sonia Delisle et Marcel St-Laurent. I also want to congratulate all
the volunteers involved in this event.
As honourary president, I personally extend a general invitation
to come to the Black Lake fair this weekend, April 26, 27, and 28.
[English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
proposed plans to privatize training under changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Act and to implement a voucher system
have devastating consequences not only for recipients but for
educational institutions and for long term educational planning.
This proposal is based on two very dubious assumptions: that
every region has a mix of private and public training facilities, and
that all applicants can on their own easily access training options.
In many rural and northern areas this is simply not the case. For
example, the Yukon College under this scheme would lose $2
million to $3 million a year in stable and assured funding, funding
which allows the college to plan ahead for both UI recipients and
the general public. Under the government proposal both groups
will be the losers.
I urge the minister to review this ill advised change, which
clearly undermines training in the north and in rural areas.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, run-off
from record winter snow levels and ice jams on the Red and
surrounding rivers are causing severe flooding in many Manitoba
communities.
St. Andrews, Montaclam, Tache, Morris, St. Clements and North
Norfolk have declared themselves to be in a state of emergency,
and many more communities are on flood alert as the water
continues to rise. The flooding has caused a great deal of damage
already and is expected to continue for several more days until the
rivers crest.
The good news is that thanks to the foresight of a number of
public officials and the hard work of thousands of volunteers the
damage has been kept to a minimum. Whole communities began
preparing sandbags early prompted by the advice of the Emergency
Preparedness Organization.
In my riding city councillor John Angus ran sandbagging
workshops and trained volunteers so that when the high water
arrived we were able to respond immediately. City and provincial
officials made sure the necessary supplies were available.
Volunteers from St. Norbert, Dakota and Fort Richmond
Collegiates and the St. Norbert Foundation spent countless hours
filling sandbags and building dykes. Local restaurants, churches
and service clubs donated food for the volunteers, drivers and
helped with child care.
1837
I thank all of the volunteers who have worked-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we
celebrate International Book Day. There could be no better time to
pay tribute to all the Canadian writers who, over the years, have put
Canadian literature in the enviable place it occupies internationally.
This is also the time to become aware of the importance of books
and written materials in our everyday lives and to recognize the
exceptional contribution of written communication to the history of
humanity.
On the eve of the 21st century and the dawning of the high tech
era, we must work even harder to preserve the incredible wealth
that is written communication.
(1405)
The generations after us, who will soon replace us, must know
and appreciate the merits of reading. This is the reason why our
government is so committed to literacy, education and training
programs for our children and for Canadians in general.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I have had several complaints from my constituents in
London-Middlesex about gasoline prices.
Many Canadians are very upset at what they perceive to be an
orchestrated effort by gasoline companies to charge exorbitant
amounts for gasoline at the pumps.
Canadian consumers feel they are being unfairly gouged by
gasoline companies which routinely raise prices as weekends
begin, especially long weekends. They feel these companies are
displaying incredible arrogance and that they are both taking
advantage of consumers and ignoring any attempt by governments
in Canada to help resolve this concern. It is time for the gasoline
companies of Canada to become better corporate citizens and to
treat Canadian consumers more fairly.
I call on this government and governments at all levels to deliver
this message on behalf of Canadians as forcefully as possible.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a
Rotarian I am pleased to rise today and pay tribute to the largest
and fastest growing service club in the world, Rotary.
As of this month membership totalled 1,187,509 Rotarians from
27,995 clubs in 154 countries around the globe. In Canada we have
29,183 members in 650 clubs. This year's Rotary international
president, Herb Brown, has chosen as his theme: ``act with
integrity, serve with love and work for peace''. In serving with
love, Rotary has raised over $400 million toward the polio plus
project, a project dedicated to the elimination of polio from the
face of the earth.
Visiting today are 18 Rotarians from my home club in Barrie
who are here on an exchange with the Ottawa West club. Many
members of the House are Rotarians and I ask that they join with
me in recognizing Rotarians for their work in communities right
across Canada and indeed the world.
* * *
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a major
problem in the country today is the concentration of economic
power in the boardrooms of major corporations whose sole
business is to maximize profits.
We are lobbied today by banks, an industry that has made
billions in profits while using automation to lay off thousands of
employees to now enter the field of auto leasing.
It is important for our local car dealers that major banks not be
permitted to enter the leasing markets. They believe it would be a
conflict of interest, as banks are their major source of financing.
They are concerned that they will jeopardize their chances of
obtaining financing from the banks if they are forced to compete
with the banks in the same market.
We cannot afford to have the banks take more jobs away from
hardworking Canadians. I ask all members to support car dealers in
their opposition to banks' entering the field of leasing.
* * *
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the people of the Selkirk-Red River riding
and to commend the valiant efforts of the volunteers of the
community of St. Andrews, St. Clements and Selkirk.
These people worked through the weekend to hold back the
worst flood in Manitoba history caused by the overflowing waters
of the Assiniboine River and the Red River.
The surging water forced some 250 residents to flee their homes.
The damage could have been far worse had the ice jam not broken,
allowing the water to flow toward Lake Winnipeg. Unfortunately
the Selkirk Marine Museum suffered extensive damage during the
flood. In addition to damage to the boats, documents such as
1838
original captains logs and 13,000 photos were destroyed in the
museum building.
This is a sad loss for the people of Selkirk-Red River riding and
for Canadian tourists across this great land of ours.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, most papers announced this morning that the members of
the Parti Quebecois will soon be asked to vote on a change to their
party's political agenda to formally include the notion of
partnership.
Picking up again the highlights of the May 12 agreement, the
Parti Quebecois would come back with its myth of partnership after
separation. Perhaps the new leader of the PQ does not remember
that, on October 30, a majority of Quebecers voted against this
project.
When will separatists in Quebec accept to respect the
democratically expressed will of their fellow citizens and give up
this separation idea which is leading nowhere?
(1410)
What Quebec needs is not a premier who perpetuates political
and economical instability, but someone who would work to
eliminate it.
* * *
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 81st anniversary of the Armenian
genocide. This sad occasion commemorates the tragic end of more
than one and a half million Armenians. The massacres of the
Armenian people by the Ottoman government of Turkey, which
lasted from 1915 to 1923, were the first genocide of the 20th
century. It is important to condemn these atrocities and to increase
public awareness of genocides committed throughout the world.
Any country that uses genocide and violence as an instrument of
policy is guilty of a crime against humanity, a crime that will
remain forever etched in the memory of those who suffered and
that history can never forget.
The purpose of this day to remember the victims of the
Armenian genocide is not only to remind us of the pain and
suffering endured by the Armenian people, but also to assure us
that such atrocities will not be repeated.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Well, folks, it is
springtime in Ottawa. Recently the solicitor general sprang into
action by apologizing and offering compensation to rioting
prisoners.
The justice minister is helping Clifford Olson spring out of
prison after August by allowing section 745 to stay as law.
The Prime Minister is springing from country to country because
his absence keeps him out of trouble in Canada.
The finance minister is springing yet another fiscal trap by
disguising the GST instead of scrapping it. Veteran Liberal MPs
spring-no, they are bounced-out of the party for voting their
conscience.
Yes, it is springtime in Ottawa all right, but fall is coming in the
next federal election for the federal government.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 14, Mrs. Clara Isabelle Smallwood, wife of the late Hon.
Joseph R. Smallwood, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
from 1949 to 1972, passed away at the age of 94 at the Interfaith
senior citizens home near Carbonear, Newfoundland.
Mrs. Smallwood witnessed some of the most crucial turning
points in the history of Newfoundland. She saw the transition of
politics from the commission of government in the early 1930s, ran
from the Houses of the British Parliament in London, England, to
the birth of the 10th province in Canada at midnight on March 31,
1949, an event that truly united our country from sea to sea.
She stood by her husband through six successful provincial
elections and watched as the province made its mark in Canadian
society as it brought with it unique heritage, culture and lifestyle
which have not altered over generations.
Mrs. Smallwood will be missed by not only her large circle of
family and friends but by all Newfoundlanders who remember the
day we joined Canada and by future generations which, through
history books, will learn of the indelible contribution made to this
nation by the Smallwoods.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the late Joey Smallwood in his autobiography
I Chose
Canada
1839
wrote: ``My marriage to Clara was one of the most fortunate events
of my life. I do not know what I would have done without her''.
Clara Smallwood passed away last week. It had been my
privilege over many years to observe the special chemistry between
Clara and Joey Smallwood. Clara Smallwood avoided the limelight
but still distinguished herself in many dignified ways. She was a
marvellous human being, kind hearted to the core. She was a very
talented musician, intelligent and well read. She was a great family
woman who showered her three children, Ramsey, William and
Clara, and her many grandchildren and great grandchildren as well
as countless others with much affection.
Her support for her husband was unwavering, indeed legendary.
I salute her today for her wonderful contribution, behind the
scenes but significant nevertheless, to Newfoundland and Labrador
and to Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
UNESCO has designated today as International Copyright Day.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to take this opportunity to remind
the Minister of Canadian Heritage that authors are eagerly awaiting
phase II of the copyright legislation review.
(1415)
Like them, we are ready to roll up our sleeves and work to better
protect their rights, to obtain not just symbolic but real recognition
of neighbouring rights, as well as royalties on data storage and
recording devices.
We would be dismayed to see the minister use the legislative
review process as an excuse to undermine copyrights by
introducing a series of exemptions.
Copyrights allow originators to retain ownership of their work
and to authorize its use. They must not be restricted but adapted to
the technological realities.
_____________________________________________
1839
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance this morning announced that he
had reached an agreement on the harmonization of the GST with
the provincial sales tax.
Some hon. members: Hear, Hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that the Liberal
members and ministers applauded the fact that the GST remains,
but will be hidden in the future.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, in his admission
to journalists this morning of having been wrong in thinking he
could replace the GST with another tax, he was confirming that the
GST will stay, but will be hidden in the future?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what we announced this morning was a major reform in the
Atlantic provinces. Now we really do have a tax that will eliminate
overlap and duplication, and I am sure the member opposite will
agree. The tax will be harmonized, as it is in Quebec.
As most consumers, small and medium businesses and retailers
have asked, the tax will be visible in the purchase of a dress, for
example, but it will be transparent at the same time, because the tax
itself will appear on the bill.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, everyone, including his Liberal colleagues, will have seen
that the minister is in no rush to comment on his own remarks to
the effect that the GST will indeed remain in place.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the $1 billion or nearly
that in compensation paid to the Maritime provinces to encourage
them to go along with his system will mean that the rest of Canada
will be paying about $1 billion of their taxes in compensation to the
Maritimes for a sales tax they will no longer be paying because the
provinces agreed to the minister's deal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Not at all, Mr.
Speaker. What we did was arrange a formula to compensate
provinces wishing to harmonize their sales tax but facing a loss in
revenues, that is, the four Atlantic provinces. The offer was made
to Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well. Other provinces, like
Quebec in 1990, suffered no loss. This is true as well for Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia.
It is in fact a well established practice in Canada, when a region
undergoes a major restructuring or faces some hardship, as in the
case of the payments to western farmers in the 1990s, for the
federal government to provide assistance, because Canada is built
on the principle of regions helping each other. This is in fact what
we have done here.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is not economic compensation for a problem created
by the federal government; it is political compensation.
It is very easy to understand. If consumers in the Maritimes are
asked to pay less sales tax in order to participate in the minister's
proposal, and the federal government pays out $1 billion in
compensation for this tax Maritimers will no longer have to pay,
this is tantamount to saying to the people in the other provinces:
1840
``Pay up $1 billion now, so the people in the Maritimes can pay less
sales tax''. This is what everybody understood.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the government's
propensity to centralize everything including the collection and
management of the GST and sales tax will cost Quebecers some
$250 million?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Not at all, Mr.
Speaker. First, costs are being shared between the federal
government and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and Newfoundland. In other words, the costs are shared more or
less equally for four years. The adjustment payments will stop at
the end of the four years.
Clearly there is a structural change. We are sharing the costs of
these changes, because all of Canada will benefit when we create
more jobs in the Maritimes, which will certainly be the outcome.
Second, the idea of centralization is perfectly ridiculous. The
federal and provincial governments are joining together to reduce
the burden on the taxpayers in these provinces and to reduce
administrative costs.
Representatives of Canada's accountants' association have said
this streamlining will save taxpayers $100 million. They have said
that Canadian firms could save as much as $700 million, if we
could do the same thing. This is a lot of money, and I think it is
worth it.
Now, with the basic point the member is making is that taxpayers
in the other provinces should not help in the case of structural
change, for example, he is in fact denying the principle of
equalization payments, which benefit Quebec enormously.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the Minister of Finance has any reason to excuse
himself to the people of Canada, on behalf of his party, it will be for
having made political hay by promising abolition of the GST and
then not making good on the promise. That is what he ought to do.
This morning, the government decided to disguise the sales tax
by hiding it in the price of goods and services. Yet, while in
opposition, the Liberals stated in the dissenting report of 1989 that
``if the GST is camouflaged in the price, it will be far easier for the
government to raise it later on''.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister
acknowledge that, through his operation this morning, all that he
has done to make people think that he was eliminating the GST was
to hide it in the price of goods and services.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious that the hon. member does not understand the plan. It is
perfectly visible. The tax will be on the bill when the purchaser's
bill is rung up. It is visible. There is no intention whatsoever of
hiding anything at all. I trust that the hon. member now
understands.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on the bill or not, the Prime Minister's commitment, the
Minister of Finance's commitment, their party's commitment, was
to abolish the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister even laid her seat
on the line, as did some other Liberals at election time or shortly
thereafter.
Will the minister admit that what he is proposing at last to the
people of Quebec and of Canada is what he condemned loudly not
so very long ago, disguising the GST in the price, where it will be
far easier for the government to raise it from time to time without
the public's noticing?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, the tax will not be disguised, it will show on the bill.
Second, in the negotiations with the Atlantic provinces, agreement
was reached on a mechanism for changing the tax, if a change in
the tax was wanted. This means that it will be even harder to raise
it. It will require a consensus among the provinces.
I have one other point to make. The hon. member believes that,
instead of an integrated federal-provincial tax, instead of
implementing in the Maritimes a tax system similar to what there is
in Quebec, he is saying there should be a totally different tax, that
Quebec should be pushed aside.
I can tell you that, at the meeting of finance ministers, Quebec
asked us to really respect their desire to have a tax that can be
harmonized with the Quebec sales tax in order to have a uniform
tax, for that will be to Quebec's benefit. The hon. member ought to
ask his head office if that is what is wanted.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on page 92 of the Liberal red book the Liberals promised
``more free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons''.
This promise is made in a paragraph which also promises MPs a
greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons'
committees. It is obviously talking about a free vote on government
legislation, not private members' bills.
1841
There have been some free votes on private members' bills in
this Parliament and previous Parliaments, but this Prime Minister
has steadfastly refused to allow even one free vote on any
government legislation.
When will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promise
and allow free votes on government legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know how many free votes the members of
the Reform Party have had lately.
When some members of the Reform Party expressed
disagreement about some of that party's policies which were
completely unacceptable, they were humiliated in their caucus by
the rest of the caucus because they were more moderate and made
more sense.
We have had more free votes in this House than ever before.
However, when it is a question of confidence in the government,
when one has no confidence in the government, then just like the
Reform Party, one is in the opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a disgusting pattern emerging in this type of
answer.
First we have campaign promises: scrap the GST, free votes in
the House of Commons. Then we have the red book interpretation,
modification, qualification. Then we have the government's action
which is something else again. We end up having a simple, clear
promise broken and public trust in the government broken. There is
no integrity here.
Is it now the government's position not to allow free votes on
government legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk about the member keeping his word.
The leader of the third party said in 1990 that he called for the
election of Reform Party candidates who would rip out the GST.
That was in 1990.
In 1991, the leader said that the GST could not be repealed
immediately because it would increase the deficit. I am only in
1991. Now I have to move to 1992.
The Reform changed its position yet again, saying that it would
reduce the GST in stages after, only after, the budget was balanced.
(1430)
I compliment him for his great statement: ``We commend the
government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the
provinces''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is on free votes. No amount of going around
the mulberry bush, no amount of false bravado from the members,
will avoid the fact that the question is on free votes in this
Parliament.
The Prime Minister is showing the same contempt for question
period that he has shown for democratic representation in
disciplining the member for York South-Weston.
Liberal spin doctors said that the member for York
South-Weston had to be disciplined because he voted against the
government, not because he voted against the GST. They implied
that if the member had simply voted against the new GST
legislation the punishment would not have been necessary.
Let me put this theory to a little test. Will the Prime Minister
allow his MPs a free vote on the GST legislation that the finance
minister introduced this morning?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have many bills in this House-
Some hon. members: Yes or no, yes or no, yes or no.
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the
Reform day care program.
We had many votes in this House where sometimes members did
not vote with the government. There were many votes. I did not ask
them to move to the other side.
I had some discipline. It happened to the former Reform whip
who is sitting there, or he was yesterday, who has been changed
because he disagreed. We have discipline in the party.
When there is a vote in the House of Commons and the question
is: ``Do you have confidence in this government?'' and if you have
no confidence in the government, that means that you are no longer
a member of that party.
It has been a British tradition for 400 years. I have to tell the
member of the third party that a vote of non-confidence in the
government leads to what happened.
I have no lessons in democracy to learn from the Reform Party.
Yesterday the leader of a party was recognized by the Speaker to
ask one question and the Reform Party wanted him to shut up. That
is the type of democracy they are preaching.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On Saturday, more than 5,000 people from Quebec and New
Brunswick, including Acadia, rallied in Rivière-du-Loup as 117
churches in eastern Quebec rang their bells to protest the proposed
unemployment insurance reform. The archbishop of the Rimouski
diocese himself recently took a stand against the plans concerning
1842
seasonal workers, which he described as a serious threat to the very
survival of the regions.
In light of the massive opposition to the unemployment
insurance reform and, particularly in the regions, to those rules that
severely penalize seasonal workers, does the minister not agree that
the best thing to do would be to withdraw this bill and draft a new
one in partnership with those concerned, providing for a true
reform of the unemployment insurance system?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for two years now, we have
been trying to overhaul the unemployment insurance program, or
employment insurance program, as it is now called. During these
two years, hundreds of groups, organizations, companies and
individual citizens were consulted and, since December, when the
bill was introduced in this House, presentations have been made
and briefs submitted by all kinds of people from every region.
(1435)
Some people were worried and they expressed their concerns to
us. Over the course of a few weeks, the committee to which this bill
had been referred heard a number of witnesses, who, again,
expressed their views, concerns and worries.
Meanwhile, government members were diligently looking at
ways to resolve grievances and claims that were recognized as
legitimate. Out of this committee study came amendments that will
cost the employment insurance program some $365 million.
These amendments will address the issue of benefits paid on the
basis of the number of weeks worked and, in part at least, the
problem with the intensity rule, by excluding households making
less than $26,000 a year, as well as, to some extent, the issue of the
dividing factor used in calculating the benefits to be paid to
recipients.
That said, I must admit that we did not achieve perfection. And
whatever was achieved, we achieved without any help from the
opposition.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition was consistently shoved aside, and this point will be
made over the next few days. What is important to remember is
that, regarding the number of hours worked, the researchers who
advised the minister-if only he had followed their advice-said:
It is a leap in the dark. There are huge problems and, in what he just
said, the minister only addressed a reduction in cuts.
My question to the minister is the following: Does he not realize
that because he has not heard what all sides had to say and
consolidated all the information, hundreds of thousands of
families, in fact millions of people, will be hit very hard by his
reform in years to come? Does he realize that this reform could
even have serious social impacts?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done our very best to
listen to everyone who had anything substantial to say. The
problem in this whole process, as those who attended committee
meetings and followed our hearings soon realized, is how widely
divergent the views held by the various witnesses were.
As far as those responsible for creating jobs in this country are
concerned, namely small and medium size businesses, the original
act, let alone the amendments, went much too far and was way too
flexible. For the Canadian Labour Congress on the other hand, we
were much too strict and demanding.
In a situation like this one, the role of government is to try to
strike the happy medium and find solutions which, as far as
possible, meet the chief requirement, which is, in this case, to help
those in need.
I would like to stress the fact that, if there were problems in
committee, if some suggestions were overlooked, it is because we
did not manage to address every representation that was made. But
for the most part-
[English]
The Speaker: Time is slipping away. I would ask both the
person asking the question and the person answering to please
condense their remarks.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's harmonization agreement is a half-baked national
embarrassment. It is no wonder that the member for
Broadview-Greenwood decided to take the high dive from the
Liberal caucus.
Not only does this agreement take $1 billion from the many to
give to a few Liberal politicians-and I notice that Brian Tobin is
here to get his hands on the spoils today-it obviously breaks the
Liberal promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST.
Why is the government laughing in the face of voters by failing
to fulfil its promise to scrap the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
dealt with that part of the member's question in my remarks this
morning. I said that we were right to criticize the GST. The timing
was wrong, it caused duplication and tremendous costs were
imposed on business.
(1440)
I also said in my speech this morning that we were mistaken in
believing we could bring in a new tax immediately that would not
cause a distortion to the economy. In fact we went through two and
one-half years of very hard work. The House of Commons finance
committee heard over 500 witnesses and considered 700 briefs. We
1843
looked at a series of over 20 alternatives before coming down with
this which is by far the best public policy.
The hon. member can continue along this vein as long as he
wants but what is painfully evident is the lack of substance in the
Reform Party's questions. The issue is that the Reform Party has
stated that it supports harmonization. Does the Reform Party want
to deal with the substance of the issue or in fact deal with what
Canadians want?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member knows that the Liberals ran on the promise to scrap the
GST. That is the only reason many of them are here today. Not only
that, they fought the Mulroney-Wilson plan to hide the GST. They
called it a job killer. Now the revenue minister is saying it is a job
creator. They laughed at the Tory attempt to harmonize the GST.
The member for York South-Weston was right: power does
change people.
If the GST was bad then, why is it not bad now? Are the Liberals
saying that Brian Mulroney was right?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Reform Party said that it supported harmonization in its
response to the finance minister, were Reformers saying that Brian
Mulroney was right?
The fact is that at the time the Tories did it we talked about it. We
were in the middle of a depression. They brought in a tax that was
not harmonized and no sufficient attempt was made to do so.
We have brought in fundamental tax reform in Atlantic Canada,
something that is going to give Atlantic Canadians a far greater
chance to export and to create jobs. We have set in place a process
that is going to allow other provinces to come in. We are in the
process of changing the nature of fiscal federalism for the benefit
of this country. The Reform Party ought to deal with the substance
of it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a clear consensus
emerged, during parliamentary consultations, against the fee
structure proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for
coast guard services. All those concerned find it irresponsible on
the minister's part to impose these fees without conducting
complete and serious studies on their impact on the marine
industry.
Can the minister tell us if he intends to go along with the
consensus of those who are asking for a moratorium on the marine
service fees until complete and independent economic impact
studies have been carried out?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the imposition of the
marine services fee stems from the 1995 budget approved by
Parliament based on the principle of user pay.
The idea of how the fee could be implemented was put forward
by the Marine Advisory Board. There were 800 people or
thereabouts involved in the consultations which involved ports
officials and every major industry in the seagoing industry.
The hon. member joined his colleagues from Parliament on the
fisheries committee to hear the views of many witnesses. The hon.
member is right; the committee made recommendations but the
consensus was not that there be a moratorium. The committee did
express some reservations with respect to the impact studies. I have
to tell the House that I will respect its opinions. The impact studies
will be carried out after the services fee is implemented at the
lowest possible level of collection of $20 million a year before we
get to the higher levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try again.
Does the minister agree that, far from helping the economy, his
draft regulations will result in marine traffic going to American
ports, which means jobs moving to the United States and an
increase in the number of the unemployed in eastern Canadian
ports, particularly those along the St. Lawrence River?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is coming up with some far-fetched
unsubstantiated ideas.
The hon. member knows because he has heard it often in
committee and this House that the cost overall at the $20 million
level is going to represent one-sixtieth of one per cent of the value
of the goods itself. It is going to represent less than 10 per cent of
what it costs the coast guard to maintain these services. It is going
to cost less than three per cent of the overall value of the business
of doing shipments in the ports of Canada. I think that is fair and
equitable.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the irony in this
House is unbelievable. On the one hand we have the Prime Minister
who gives the boot to a member who has integrity, keeps his word
and who does the right thing. On the other hand we have a defence
1844
minister who is responsible for the collapse of morale in the armed
forces, whose department hid documents from the Somalia inquiry
and the information commissioner and there he sits on the front
bench.
How much longer will the Prime Minister allow the defence
minister to put his own career over the good functioning and
morale of our troops? When will the Prime Minister ask for the
minister's resignation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the first time that a Minister of National Defence has
asked for, authorized and recommended an inquiry into the
operation and he has done it.
The time has now come to let the commission do its work. If the
Reform Party has any respect for the armed forces, it will let the
commission do its work rather than cause the problem with the
morale of the troops in asking impertinent questions in the House
of Commons.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the defence
minister took swift action in the past when it was in his own
interests. He disbanded the airborne without an inquiry but what is
he doing now? Now he wants to wash his hands of the authority and
responsibility for what is happening. If the minister is so confident
that his hands are clean, then will he volunteer to appear before the
inquiry to be questioned on his role in the defence department
scandals?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has shown once again that he has not read the terms of
reference for the inquiry. He asks about cover up; he asks about
destruction of documents. That is all contained in the inquiry.
If he were to read the terms of reference he would find out who
can be summoned to the inquiry. That is up to the inquiry and if it
wants to summon whomever it wants, whether they are members of
this House or members of the armed forces, the commission has the
power to do it.
Before the member raised these kinds of questions, he could get
the answers by reading the terms of reference.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we questioned the Prime Minister about the $176,000
contract awarded to Jennifer Lynch, chairperson of the RCMP
external review committee, to examine the current grievance
system. We think Mrs. Lynch is in conflict of interest since she is
also the one who hears the grievances filed by police officers.
Now that the government has had 24 hours to check things out, I
would like to repeat the question I put to the Prime Minister. Can
the Prime Minister explain why the RCMP granted Mrs. Lynch a
one year contract worth $176,000 to review the current grievance
system, when her duties require her to remain absolutely neutral
toward both parties?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the
grievance settlement process is one of Mrs. Lynch's initiatives. It is
part of the consultations between senior management and
employees of the RCMP.
I can tell the House that the RCMP agrees that these
consultations and this new approach are better suited to the needs
of the RCMP.
On the conflict of interest issue, I am also told that the ethics
counsellor was consulted and stated that there was no conflict of
interest.
(1450)
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the parliamentary secretary for his answer, but I have a
supplementary question.
Besides an ethics problem, we are faced here with a process
problem, since the call for tender contained specific requirements
tailor made for Mrs. Lynch. Would the parliamentary secretary not
agree that the contract was awarded following a rigged advanced
contract award notice, as the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and chief government whip feared
in a letter, dated July of 1995, to the solicitor general?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we
sought the advice of our ethics counsellor, who reviewed the whole
situation and clearly stated that there was no conflict of interest.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Minister of Finance announced the
harmonization of the sales tax system in Atlantic Canada with the
federal sales tax.
We hear that business will benefit by improved competitiveness
from further export opportunities and a reduced tax burden. How
will the average consumer in Atlantic Canada benefit from the
reform of the sales tax system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the calculation is made province by province depending on the
particular circumstances. As an example, New Brunswick Minister
of Finance Mr. Blanchard estimated that an average family of four
in New Brunswick would save between $225 and $250 per year.
1845
Similar numbers could be given for the provinces of Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland.
In addition, consumers will benefit enormously because they
will no longer have the cascading effect of embedded taxes built in
which are the real hidden taxes consumers will no longer have to
pay because business will be getting the input credits. In fact,
consumers will be the great beneficiaries of all of this.
Another thing which is very important to note is that this is going
to increase jobs in Atlantic Canada. The fact is that consumers buy
because they have jobs. This is the best structural thing we could
have brought to the maritimes.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the minister of fisheries.
The government cost of fisheries management in Iceland is $24
per tonne of fish landed. In Norway it is $85 per tonne of fish
landed. In Canada it is $455 per tonne of fish landed. In spite of this
massive expenditure, DFO has been unable either to predict or
prevent the fisheries crises on both coasts.
As the fisheries minister is demanding a 50 per cent reduction in
the B.C. salmon fleet, is he going to cut his bureaucracy by 50 per
cent as well?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that in view of
Reform's position on the GST and what is taking place with that, I
am delighted that Reform is interested in having the government
cut down its operations.,
In the last year the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has
undergone quite a cut through program review. While we have not
reached 50 per cent, the department I represent is cutting by over
40 per cent. That is not a bad perspective from where I sit.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks
about cuts. The government has cut the salmon hatcheries in
British Columbia in the face of a crisis.
The minister's new licensing policy has nothing whatsoever to
do with conservation. It does not put the fish first and it certainly
does not put B.C.'s coastal communities first. Over all, fish
harvesting capacity will remain the same, just concentrated in
fewer hands.
Will the minister guarantee when his new licensing policy fails
to reduce the total fish harvest in B.C. and after he has sacrificed
the futures of fishermen in B.C. coastal communities, that he and
his government will accept responsibility for that?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about coastal communities
and economic viability and capacity reduction, he knows very well
he is talking about an industry that is in very poor shape. There are
fishermen over the last few years who have lost much money. This
year over 50 per cent are expected to lose money. The industry
itself is expected to lose around $10 million. He is talking about an
industry that is in trouble.
(1455)
I have to tell the member that the plan which is represented by
the Pacific salmon revitalization program stemmed from a
committee report of stakeholders of the commercial fisheries, the
aboriginal fisheries, the recreational fisheries, the coastal
communities and the province of British Columbia. They made 27
recommendations and we moved on them.
The member asked me if I was going to be responsible for the
plan. I will take responsibility for this plan. Will Reformers take
responsibility for the fact that they have no plan?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Industry admitted in this House that with respect to
direct to home satellite services, and I quote: ``There might be a
potential problem for consumers-consumers must examine their
options very carefully before they buy''. But under the legislation,
the Minister of Industry has responsibility for technological
development, as well as protecting the consumer public.
Since the minister does not intend to follow up on the
recommendation made to him by my colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata that there be an information campaign on
the real risks of buying a satellite dish and a decoder, does the
minister intend to follow up on the suggestion from Quebec's
culture minister, Mrs. Beaudoin, that direct to home satellite
businesses be encouraged to rent their equipment rather than sell it,
in order to protect the consumer?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member very well knows, technology is
changing rapidly in the broadcasting sector. It is always possible
that technological changes will mean that equipment bought by
consumers is rendered unusable.
The most important thing for the consumer is to take the time to
do a bit of research before buying. But they know very well, and I
believe Mrs. Beaudoin knows it too, that regulating retail sales to
consumers comes under provincial jurisdiction.
1846
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my dad had open
heart surgery on Sunday and I am glad to say that everything went
fine.
One of his biggest worries was whether he would need a blood
transfusion. His concerns are shared by many Canadians. In fact, a
new survey indicates that only 7 per cent of Canadians would
accept a transfusion if they had a choice. The confidence in our
blood system is slipping away from us.
I call upon the Minister of Justice to get rid of the lawyers that
are holding up the Krever inquiry. Let Krever tell his story, all of it.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing the hope that
the hon. member's father recovers quickly from surgery. I know I
speak for all of my colleagues in saying that.
Let us focus on confidence in Canada's blood system. The very
reason the Minister of Health appointed the Krever inquiry, the
very reason this government extended its term and increased its
budget and the reason this government brought evidence before the
inquiry was to ensure that a thorough and complete evaluation of
the blood system would be carried out so that we would have the
benefit of Mr. Justice Krever's recommendations to get the system
right.
It is true to say that justice lawyers are in federal court for a
hearing on May 22 in relation to procedural matters. We are there
not to interfere with Mr. Justice Krever's work, not to delay it or to
complicate it, we are there on specific questions of procedural
fairness that are important points of principle.
We have asked the court to expedite the hearing. We hope it will
be over quickly. We want the report completed. We look forward to
the findings, whether they be findings of fault or otherwise. We
want to get the blood system back where it should be and the
confidence of Canadians restored.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Cooperation.
Canadians have followed with great concern and emotion the
tragic events that have occurred in the Middle East these last few
days.
(1500)
Given the marked interest Canada has always shown for the
quick settlement of this conflict, can the minister describe to the
House the latest developments aimed at restoring peace for all the
families and children of the Middle East?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International
Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, as this
will be the first answer I give in the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pettigrew: Canada has asked for a ceasefire in the Middle
East and we will continue to closely monitor the situation and to
support all the negotiations currently going on at the diplomatic
level.
We hope that the parties will reach an agreement soon. In fact,
the Government of Canada is ready to support these efforts. We
also made our views known to the Security Council, on April 18.
We supported the resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in
the Middle East. We have asked other states to support this
resolution and the ongoing diplomatic negotiations and to respect
the territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic.
Canada considers all these attacks on the civilian population and
United Nations personnel totally unacceptable. Canada is
particularly-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon.
member, although he did give a good answer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister
and the Minister of Finance said in their most recent budget they
had done what they could do and that it was now up to the private
sector to create jobs.
The private sector seems to be giving the Salmon Arm salute to
the budget in respect of the challenge issued to the private sector.
We see a Kenworth plant using NAFTA to take jobs out of Quebec
and go to Mexico, GM outsourcing, and putting pressure on wages.
When will the Prime Minister get tough with Canada's corporate
sector and make it act like the responsible corporate citizen he
wants it to be? When will do something about this kind of
behaviour?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last three months the economy has created 135,000
jobs.
1847
Since we formed the government, two and a half years ago this
week, the economy has created 596,000 jobs.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the presence
in the gallery of one of our peacekeepers. Permit me to bask a little
in his personal glory for what he did for Canada in that he is a
former student of mine.
I refer you to Chief Superintendent Gaetan Neil Pouliot, the
former commissioner of civilian police for the U.N. mission in
Haiti.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
1847
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed of the motion, the amendment, and the
amendment to the amendment.
(1505 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the benefit of those at home who have not been
following this debate, once in a while there is a debate that speaks
to the very heart of what Parliament is all about and what the world
parliament should all be about and how we relate one to another.
The Bloc put forward a motion today that would call on the
Government of Canada to use the word genocide in condemnation
of what transpired primarily in the years around 1915 by the Turks,
addressed primarily to the Armenians.
The motion was amended by the Liberals to take the word
genocide out. Liberals opposite would concur with the notion that
genocide did take place but for political reasons cannot use the
word genocide. Our position was to insert the word genocide in a
subamendment so as to be true to the meaning the Bloc originally
put forward.
This is a particularly important debate. While the events took
place many years ago and half way around the world, they affect
each and every one of us every day.
A couple of years ago I was at a dinner party. A person there,
now in his sixties, a great raconteur, was regaling us with stories of
his youth. He name is Jack Cohen. He was telling us of the time
when he was in an orphanage in Montreal. When he was four years
old he and his twin brother saw this great man come into the
orphanage to pick out a child. They knew, just like a bunch of
puppies I guess, they had to get up and catch the attention of the
person coming into the orphanage if they were to get a home.
He and his brother were a little older than some of the other
children in the orphanage. When this man came in each of them
grabbed Jack Cohen's father by the leg and would not let go.
We were laughing about the word picture of these two little boys
holding on to this man who had been sent to Montreal from
Edmonton get a little girl, as it turns out. They would not let go.
When he came home he was telling how his mother found she had
twin boys rather than a little girl.
It was one of those stories that we laugh at but inside in our
hearts we are kind of crying at the tragedy that caused this to take
place. It is funny because of the ability of Jack as a storyteller to
make what is really a tragic story palatable and something that we
could understand.
Jack and his brother were not alone. There were thousands and
thousands of children just like him who were survivors of the death
camps. Every relative Jack and his twin brother had was
exterminated. Because they were twins they were put into a special
compound and for one reason or another they managed to survive.
What does this have to do with the debate at hand? How do we get
to that?
(1510)
We get to it because of the notion of denial. This is the elemental
concern behind the government's position and why the government
is in great difficulty voting for this motion when it incorporates the
word genocide. Even though the Governments of Quebec and
Ontario in 1980 passed unanimous motions stating the Turkish
government should be made to recognize what had gone on, when
we as a government aid and abet a denial we are participating in the
cover-up.
I know Canadians do not want to be part of it. I am sure the vast
majority of Turks today would not want to be part of a cover-up.
The only way we can possibly learn from history is to recognize it
and go on from there.
For people watching not all that familiar about the events that
took place, let me go back through a bit of history. This really did
not start in 1915. It started even before the late 1800s. The Chinese
built a great wall to protect themselves from the Ottoman hordes,
as they are described. The Armenians had been occupying that part
of the world for 3000 years. The Turks came into that part of the
world and began moving them out. It really started to take
definition in the late 1800s.
In 1915 all men between 16 and 60 were drafted into the army.
There being two sides to every story, and there always is a shade of
grey, it is important to understand that the Turks' position is that
the Armenians joined the Russians and were fighting with the
Russians against the Turks. That is why the genocide took place.
That is why they were moved out and moved offshore.
1848
There is a good deal of dispute about the exact numbers.
However, does it matter if it was 1.5 million, 1 million or 800,000?
If it was one it was one too many. Genocide, as defined by The
Concise Oxford Dictionary is the mass extermination of human
beings, especially of a particular race or nation. Any mass
slaughter is by definition genocide. One cannot whitewash
genocide. We cannot use words to make it sound better. Genocide
is genocide.
The ground zero of the genocide that took place against the
Armenians in Turkey is when, on April 24, 1915, the interior
minister of Turkey said in 50 years the only Armenians will be in
museums.
Today all that remains in Turkey of the Armenians, who were the
people who were there first, are between 30,000 and 50,000, most
in Istanbul. Today the situation in Turkey for the Armenians left is
such that when their churches, schools and cultural institutions
need repair the Armenians must apply to the interior ministry of
Turkey to have them repaired.
(1515 )
What is the link between my story of Jack Cohen and the
situation that exists today? It is this. Hitler, when asked before the
holocaust what would mankind say in light of what he was doing,
responded: ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The genocide
against the Armenians was the foundation of other genocides to
come. It was the foundation for the mass extermination of the Jews
of Europe.
What is so chilling, so frightening, so repulsive about what is
going on in our world today and how does it link to the genocide
perpetrated against the Armenians? In my view the link is denial.
Who will speak for all of the dead? Who will speak for those
who will die in future genocides if we do not recognize and honour
those who died before us? In my view it is the denial of what took
place that is the most reprehensible aspect of what is before us
today. We know we cannot change history. We know we cannot
reverse the hands of time. We know that what happened, happened.
We know that Canada has a relationship with Turkey today. We
know and understand that the vast majority of people in Turkey had
nothing to do with what happened in 1915 and would be just as
repulsed today as we are.
Basically people are good, but genocide goes on day after day all
around the world. We do not seem to learn from our mistakes.
Perhaps that is because in one way or another we try to pretend that
it does not exist because it is just too hard to bear.
That is what is going on in Canada and around the world with the
holocaust denial. That is why it is so important that light is brought
to this situation so that those who went before us are not forgotten.
In Canada, even as we speak, people deny the holocaust. They
say it was impossible. How could mankind be so cruel? How could
a cultured and enlightened people perpetrate such a horror against
mankind, such a horror against the Jews and others, but specifically
against the Jews? How could the people of a whole nation turn their
eyes or not see it?
Perhaps there is a germ of a reason for that in what is happening
today. Perhaps we do not believe what we do not want to believe.
Let me give an example of what is going on today in holocaust
denial and link it to the events which took place in 1915 in Turkey.
The people at the Ecole polytechnique in Montreal and the
University of Montreal will shortly hear a speaker. There will be at
Ecole polytechnique a conference sponsored by 15 Muslim
organizations. The person speaking is a revisionist historian and
anti-Semite, Roger Garaudy. This person is coming to these two
institutions. He has a right in a free society to express his views.
(1520 )
The problem is that when someone in a free society is able to
expound his revisionist theories which are generally known to be
untrue and does so as an academic, that person puts a cloak of
respectability on history which was not there before.
We live in a free society and people have the right to say what
they will, provided they are not spreading hate propaganda. The
fact is these revisionists, these people who are rewriting history,
must be challenged and challenged at every opportunity. If we do
not, we run a risk. What will certainly happen is that we will repeat
the mistakes we made in the past.
I would like to conclude my comments with this thought:
Anything that diminishes any one of us as a human being hurts and
diminishes all of us. We are all human beings. Regardless of our
gender, skin colour, sexual orientation we are all human beings. We
are all children of the same God. When any one of us is diminished
we are all diminished.
It is desperately important that every time violations of human
rights occur, for example, the revisionists who deny history, who
try to change history and cloak what actually happened with some
sort of respectability, or the apologists for something that is beyond
apology, then others must stand up and tell the truth of what
happened. We cannot pretend it did not happen. It is important for
our grandchildren that we are aware of the foundation and where
we came from.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from
the Reform Party.
Why does the hon. member think that the Turkish government
today, 81 years after the fact of the genocide, still denies the crime
1849
that its ancestors committed in 1915? Why does Turkey not follow
the example set by Germany to accept the responsibility and
address the issue? No matter what kind of resolutions we pass in
this House or any Parliament in this country, the responsibility
remains: The Turkish government has to accept responsibility.
Why does Turkey up until now, 81 years after the fact, still
refuse to accept responsibility for 1915?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, that question speaks to the nub of
what is going on here today. It also speaks to the difficult position
the government is in.
I am quite certain that the vast majority of members opposite
would like to support a resolution which includes the word
genocide, but do not because of geopolitics or whatever.
As I understand it, the Government of Turkey would go a long
way to address the problems concerning this by recognizing what
has taken place. Turkey applied three years ago for admission into
the European community and was refused admission because it has
not recognized its complicity in the events of the genocide of 1915.
(1525 )
That was a condition of entry into the European community and
Turkey will not do it. It will not because it feels that they were
wartime casualties and that no deliberate mass slaughter took
place. Turkey says that the Armenians who died had aligned
themselves with Russia, were enemies of Turkey and that the
relocation of Armenians who perished, because the relocation took
place in the winter, had been collaborators in the Russian army.
There is also concern that by admitting guilt or by admitting
complicity the Turks would be leaving themselves open to
judgments or to claims against them.
I believe the very best thing the Government of Turkey can do at
this time is to say: ``We were wrong. We would never do that again.
It is a blight on our history. We recognize it as being wrong''. That
is exactly what the German government has done.
I attended a wedding on the weekend. The minister said there are
nine words which should never be forgotten in making a marriage
work and last. At least six of those words could be used in our
relations with other countries and six of those words could be used
by the Government of Turkey in addressing the Armenians. Those
nine words were: ``I am sorry. Please forgive me. I love you''. I
suspect, as the minister said in conducting the marriage service,
that if the Government of Turkey were to say to the Armenian
community: ``I am sorry. Please forgive what has happened and let
us live together in peace,'' it would be the beginning of a first step
to a new future.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one minute left to
ask a question or make a brief comment. I will comment the
question and then go back to my colleague for Edmonton
Southwest regarding the member for Don Valley North. I find it
odd that he should put such a question to our Reform colleague; he
should have put it to the government since the government, through
the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, moved an amendment
to the motion we brought forward, with a view to considering not
so much the genocide of Armenians as the tragedy it represents.
The problem today is on the government side. We agree with the
member for Don Valley North that pressure should be brought to
bear on the Turkish government to get it to recognize the genocide
of Armenians and take measures to right, if possible, the wrongs
done to this community.
As far as my colleague for Edmonton Southwest is concerned, I
want first to congratulate him on his speech. Liberal members like
to depict Reform members as right-wing. My colleague, who also
sits on the human rights committee, has taken a perfectly correct
position and shown how important human rights are for him and
how important it is not to make any compromise in this respect.
My question goes along the same lines. I would like my
colleague to tell us what his position and his party's position are
with regard to human rights and international trade.
(1530)
How far should Canada go in making concessions? Should it
make any at all? For my part, I believe it should make none, but in
his opinion, how far should the government go in making
concessions regarding human rights and international trade?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the kind
words.
The only way we can possibly affect the way a particular country
might work within its own borders as far as human rights are
concerned is if we have a dialogue. There are situations in which if
all countries work in unison we may be able to force an issue as far
as human rights are concerned. We have far more to gain by
ensuring that we can work with a country to somehow imbue that
country with our notion of what is correct and right as far as human
rights are concerned.
When the situation is one where a ruler or a regime goes beyond
what is right, then the only way Canada can show it will not
participate or will not countenance a particular situation is to cut
1850
off trade and dissociate itself from that. As long as there is the
possibility of improving the relationship with a particular country
then I think we have the right and the responsibility to trade and
work with it while constantly trying to improve its human rights
record. If it cannot and will not be done, then we have a moral
responsibility to have nothing to do with that country.
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have before
us today an important motion calling for the commemoration of the
tragic events of April 1915 in Armenia. The motion asks the House
to recognize the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week to
commemorate man's inhumanity to man.
The proposed motion refers to the concept of genocide, a
concept relatively recent as to form and content. In fact it was
defined and codified only in 1948, when the convention on the
prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was adopted.
We do acknowledge that the Armenian community was
victimized and that Armenian people were killed in 1915, but we
must remain cautious in defining those events with a concept that
was coined and codified only years later.
Also, the Turkish government of today is not the Ottoman
empire of yesterday, which was responsible for the killings. The
word ``genocide'' entails specific obligations, as stated in the
provisions of the international convention.
The question is, if this House were to acknowledge that the
concept applies to the events of 1915, could that bring about an
obligation to some form of compensation for historical prejudice? I
applaud today's motion because it forces all Canadians to reflect
upon history.
[English]
It is difficult to imagine anything positive resulting from the
horrific events that marked the first half of this century. The
tremendous loss of millions of innocent victims such as the
Armenians in April 1915 continues to haunt us today. Perhaps
however the victims of these calamities did not suffer and die in
vain. From their courage and our collective shame has emerged a
strong legacy, the recognition of human rights as a duty of all
states.
Grounded in the universal declaration of human rights adopted
by the United Nations in 1948, this legacy has led to an impressive
collection of human rights instruments. These documents set out
the rights of the individual and equally important, the
corresponding duties of states to respect, protect and promote those
rights.
(1535)
Why should Canadians care about human rights in far off places?
Human rights violations affect us all. They undermine our basic
humanity and prevent us as a global society from progressing.
Equally important, when these abuses reach widespread and
systemic levels, our own security is threatened. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs said it best during his recent statement to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights:
If we turn away from the desolation and dismay of human suffering, if we fail
to stop hatred from flowing through the channels of our new electronic
networks, if we do not care about the present or future of vulnerable children, if
we do not stand up to the despots and bullies, if we do not counter the capricious
and arbitrary actions of authoritarian governments with no legitimacy beyond
weaponry and terror, then we will face the harsh consequences down the road.
It is therefore very much in the interests of Canadians to work to
prevent human rights abuses throughout the world so as to avoid
the kinds of tragic events we have heard described in the House. If
we compare the protection of human rights today with the situation
of 80 years ago when the Armenian massacre occurred, we see
tremendous progress.
Drawing inspiration from the universal declaration, numerous
international treaties and principles have been adopted. The two
international covenants represent the most important of these, but
the many other instruments address specific fundamental human
rights concerns, everything from genocide and torture to the rights
of women, children and the disabled.
These instruments have broadened the scope of human rights and
have enhanced protection for all of us. The task of defining and
codifying human rights is largely complete although important
areas remain to be addressed, such as human rights defenders and
the rights of indigenous people.
We must recognize that the framework of human rights
instruments is not in itself sufficient to protect us from the scourge
of human rights abuses. We need only look at the events in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda among others to acknowledge that
humanity still has failed to rid itself of acts of barbarism and
hatred. The Canadian government is firmly committed to finding
lasting solutions to these problems.
As a recognized leader in the human rights field internationally,
Canada has worked to develop the institutions and machinery to
ensure that human rights recognized on paper are respected in
reality. In organizations such as the United Nations, the
Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Organization of American
States and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, Canada has and continues to play an active role in
advancing the human rights agenda.
One of the most important developments in recent years is the
creation of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights. Responsible for the co-ordination of all human
1851
rights activities within the UN system, the high commissioner is
poised to play an influential role in strengthening protection of
human rights.
Although severely underfunded, the creation of the post has
already had a salutary effect. In the aftermath of the Rwanda crisis,
the high commissioner was able to mobilize a team of human rights
monitors and establish them on the ground. Despite some initial
problems, the human rights mission has helped to improve the
situation for Rwandans, both in the country and in the refugee
camps. Canada played an important role in the establishment of
this mission.
Recently the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced a further
contribution of $500,000 to support the human rights field
operations in Rwanda. A separate grant of $300,000 was also
announced by the minister for a similar program in the former
Yugoslavia. These operations of the high commissioner are critical
for they represent the first forays into the areas of early warning
conflict prevention and post-conflict peacekeeping.
The ability of the United Nations and specifically the high
commissioner for human rights to place observers and monitors on
the ground should go a long way toward identifying the root causes
of gross violations of human rights and to play a role in finding
solutions to these problems.
(1540 )
These monitoring operations can and should play the role of the
eyes of the international community, alerting the world to potential
disasters in the making. In so doing they can hopefully provide
sufficient time to allow the United Nations or other bodies to
prevent or minimize human rights abuses.
A key element of the field operations is human rights education
and training of the military, police and other important actors.
Breaking down the culture of violence is fundamental to finding
lasting solutions. Through education and training, the UN is
seeking to create an ingrained respect for the rule of law among
those in places of authority. The goal is laudable but it is
impossible to achieve in the world's troubled areas unless the
international community devotes greater resources to the UN's
human rights program.
Canada is doing its part even as we work to put our own financial
house in order. The challenge for Canada is to maintain its
commitment and convince other states of the critical importance of
supporting the UN high commissioner.
Monitoring and training are but one part of the efforts to prevent
gross violations of human rights. A second important factor is for
the international community to send a clear signal to the
perpetrators of human rights abuses that their transgressions will
no longer be tolerated. The tribunals established to deal with war
criminals in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda are an important
start. Already a number of persons have been charged and
prosecutions are expected to commence in the near future.
As critical as these tribunals are, they remain ad hoc bodies
established to deal with the circumstances arising from two tragic
events. Will the necessary political will exist to establish similar
bodies should these types of events happen elsewhere?
To avoid the problem of attempting to develop solutions in the
immediate aftermath of an incident, the world community today is
considering the establishment of a permanent international
criminal court to deal with war criminals. Negotiations on the court
have commenced under UN auspices. While the negotiations are
difficult, Canada, which is playing an active role, is hopeful that a
positive outcome can be achieved. Once established, the court will
stand as a monument to the international community's resolve to
fight barbarism and to punish those who would shock the
conscience of the world.
As regards Armenia, Canada is a friend of Armenia. Although
this country is only four years old, Canada has been working to
help Armenia deal with the problems of nation building and to
resolve the difficulties which that country and that society have had
to deal with in the early stages of its nationhood.
For example, Canada has supported Armenia in dealing with the
ravages of an earthquake in the Leninakan region in 1988 and has
been contributing to finding a solution to the debilitating war in the
Nagorno-Karabakh which has extracted a terrible toll on the people
of the region and has aggravated the difficulties of building that
nation in that region.
I have spoken at length on human rights. I cannot overemphasize
their importance in preventing the kinds of situations we are
discussing today: the massacres, ethnic cleansing and other
egregious acts such as the Armenian tragedy of 1915, that have
occurred in the past and which we have again recently witnessed,
all started with isolated violations of human rights.
Would the situations in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have
occurred as they did if international human rights institutions had
been in place to alert and the international community ready and
willing to act effectively to protect the victims of the initial human
rights violations? We may never know, but the chances are that
some lives and some communities could have been spared the
suffering they endured. We owe it to them, to past victims of
widespread transgressions and to ourselves to do what we can to
ensure that these atrocities do not happen again.
1852
(1545)
Through its continued active participation in the UN and other
international bodies, and through our support for human rights
institutions such as the office of the UN high commissioner for
human rights, Canada can make a difference.
I salute the Bloc Quebecois motion. At the same time, to fully
give justice to all those, first among them the Armenians who by
birth or ancestry have been victimized by the inhumanity of war
and oppression, I call on the House to join with the government in
supporting an amendment which will proclaim the week of April
20 to 27 each year as the week to remember the inhumanity of
people toward one another.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my
colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. He referred to all
the decisions made by Canada to participate in peacekeeping
missions. He ended his speech by reminding us of Canada's great
friendship with Armenia, but his last words reflected his
government's tendency to play down the importance of the 1915
events and to dodge the real issue, namely the 1915 genocide of the
Armenian people.
Since my colleague has established a link with the first world
war, as though it were the only motive for trying to exterminate a
whole people, I would like him to elaborate on this.
My question concerns international trade. I would like our
colleague to tell us to what extent Canada, or its government, must
overlook human rights in order to maintain trade relations with any
country that abuses human rights?
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the Bloc member for his question. Canada does not deny
what occurred in 1915. However, the term ``genocide'' is very
specific in international law and was defined only later. It became
part of the international corpus of human right legislation only
later, and the Government of Canada feels that this is not the term
to use to describe tragedies, massacres or events which occurred
earlier in history.
It goes without saying that we live in an imperfect world and,
throughout history, many events showed man's inhumanity to man.
Canada is at the forefront of nations to create a structure which, in
the future, will limit if not eliminate such events. We want to create
a sense of respect for human rights, whether in the former
Yugoslavia, in Rwanda or elsewhere, to make sure that we
remember the lessons of history and do not repeat them.
(1550)
This is what the policy of the Canadian government aims to do.
We want to ensure that, without necessarily always looking back,
we move forward by creating a sense of respect for human rights.
We must work at the international level to create structures that
will allow us to anticipate problems. We must prevent massacres
which, unfortunately, continue to occur in certain parts of the
world. Over time, by working together as members of the
international community, we hope to gradually eliminate such
tragedies.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fully express support on this motion of course. Will the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree
with me that because of the geographic location of Turkey and
Armenia, adjacent to one another, practically neighbours, it would
be better for Turkey to address this issue once and for all and have a
good friendly relationship with Armenia for the future? This is a
stumbling block for developing a good relationship in the region.
Would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that if Turkey
accepts responsibility it would enhance the relationship between
Armenia and Turkey so they can go forward building the Armenian
republic again?
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
it is not a question I can answer on behalf of Turkey. I certainly
hope the Government of Turkey would be willing to do whatever
necessary to improve relations with its neighbours, including
Armenia, and would work in their bilateral relations.
Armenia is now a nation state, like Turkey. I hope they would
work collectively in the organizations of which they are both
members, notably the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe, other organizations in Europe as well a the United
Nations, to enable their societies to develop progressively together,
notwithstanding the tragedies that have occurred in the past.
Naturally Canada would support that and would want to
encourage both sides to improve their relations and to do whatever
is necessary to get over this historical conflict between the two
peoples.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am deeply touched by the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Ahuntsic, who has been very active over the years
within the Armenian community.
When we talk about the concept of crimes against humanity, it is
crucial to remember the profound significance of what they
1853
represent. However, to define these actions does not explain this
kind of almost inhumane behaviour.
I would like to quote the definition given by the Liberal member
for Don Valley North, Sarkis Assadourian, last April when he
moved a motion similar to the one now before the House. ``The
first time this term was used was in the London Charter of 1945,
the structure and basis for prosecution of major war crimes before
the international tribunal at Nuremberg. Crime against humanity
presents a distinct category of international crimes. Article 6(c) of
the charter defines crimes against humanity as murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population before or during the
war; or persecution on political, racial or religious grounds in
execution of all in connection with any crime within the
jurisdiction of the tribunal whether or not in violation of the
domestic laws of the country where the crime was perpetrated.''
(1555)
So as to not downplay the cruelty of actions taken against
civilians, it is essential to remember, at least during the
commemorative week, that behind these words are people, friends
and faces.
On April 16, 1984, the People's Tribunal concluded that the
Armenian genocide occurred in 1915 and 1916. The UN, however,
still does not recognize this well known fact because, according to
a former Quebec justice minister, Herbert Marx, and I quote from
the May 23, 1984 issue of Le Devoir: ``-because of the
interventions of the Turkish government within the UN itself, the
Armenian genocide is not yet officially recognized''. And yet we
know that nearly 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.
The conspiracy of silence cannot go on, and these actions, as in
the case of the Jewish people, must be recognized historically.
Still today, in 1996, over 120 peoples are victims of armed
oppression and all kinds of violence from ideological adversaries
in religious, racial or political conflicts. The use of military or
armed means to resolve human conflicts must be banned from the
behaviour of all peoples on this earth.
Canada must, through its democratic practices, continue to set an
example and tirelessly condemn any resolution of conflict other
than by peaceful, civilized and democratic means. These civilized
means are part of the basic arsenal of peoples who respect human
rights. Canada must take a stand and promote the resolution of
human conflict by willpower, rather than by armed power.
By remaining silent or declining to recognize even a simple
week commemorating crimes of genocide, particularly those
committed against the Armenian people in 1915, Canada is
encouraging the incomprehensible policy of letting time erode
memory.
This simple recognition is in no way comparable to the
seriousness of these reprehensible actions, but for Canadians it
represents an assurance that their country will never support
peoples who use these vile means as national policy, whoever they
may be.
This symbolic gesture is significant for the entire international
community and shows once again that Canada is among the great
defenders of human rights. This symbolic gesture does not,
however, have the same force of impact as a foreign policy that
would, at all times, place human interests above trade interests. In
fact, it is our foreign policy that leads us to think that the
government will not support our motion; the proof is the
amendment introduced for the same reasons that moved them to
halt construction of a monument commemorating the genocide in
Montreal this year. These reasons have to do with trade and can be
found in the report of the joint committee reviewing Canadian
foreign policy: non-interference and indifference. This report is
quite revealing, with Canada systematically ignoring the
importance of universal values of democracy and human rights.
The government's recent dealings with its trade partners makes
me fear the worst. Far worse than the rejection of our motion, I fear
the rejection of human rights in the name of business. What are we
to think when Craig Kielburger, a young Canadian defending the
rights of children in India, calls our Prime Minister to reason?
(1600)
What are we to make of the Prime Minister's silence regarding
the war in Chechnya, which is cruelly affecting civilians, during
the G-7 summit on nuclear and security matters held in Russia,
when well-known organisations for the defence of human freedoms
such as Doctors Without Borders were doing nothing less than
calling this conflict ``the worst war in the world''.
Such oversights, such silence are easier, and create no
obligation. In a devious way they are promoting the violent
resolution of human conflicts and oblivion. I hope I am wrong
regarding the government's intentions, and that reason will allow
us to have a collective memory so that we will never forget all these
atrocities.
To this effect, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, urge the present
government to set aside one week commemorating man's
inhumanity to man, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the
Armenian genocide. Only then will we be able to truly say that
Canada is a true champion of human rights.
We remember the genocide of Armenians and we want
everybody in Canada to remember it forever. This is the reason
why we
1854
brought this motion forward. This is a matter of respect for and
friendship with the Armenian people and its history.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to see the Leader of the Opposition
grandstanding on this very important human rights issue.
I asked on three previous occasions if members of the Bloc
Quebecois would undertake to write to their former leader, the
premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, and ask him to replace the
monument which was reneged on by the mayor of Montreal after it
was promised to the Armenian people and after he received their
votes.
Would he write a letter to the premier of Quebec, since he is so
anxious to help build bridges between the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc
Quebecois and minorities, ethnics and those who have the money?
Would he undertake in this House on behalf of his party to ask the
premier of Quebec to build a monument in Quebec City or
Montreal in memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who died in the
first genocide of this century?
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the kind of debate we are having
today should not give rise to acrimonious exchanges between the
member and ourselves. All I want to say is this: How can they take
advantage of such a debate to try to make the premier of Quebec
bear the federal government's responsibility which it shares with
the city of Montreal?
The member should take advantage of this debate to remind his
party that the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois is a
tribute to the Armenian people and bears witness to our respect and
friendship, as I said earlier. This motion must not be amended. It
must not be weakened.
He who is of Armenian origin should convince his party that we
cannot accept a diluted and watered down motion. We would like to
have his support and the support of the government to pass this
resolution as it stands, without being afraid of bearing witness to
the Armenian genocide, not the Armenian tragedy.
When you know the rules of the House, you are fully aware that
soon we will be asked to vote on a sub-amendment moved by the
Reform Party referring to the tragedy of the Armenian genocide,
and we know that the government will vote against it. We are
expecting it.
(1605)
We are also aware that we will be asked to vote on a motion
brought forward by the government, which mentions the Armenian
tragedy instead of the Armenian genocide. There is a slight
difference. We would like for everyone, including the member, to
make sure the motion brought forward by the member for Ahuntsic
is not weakened. For us it is absolutely essential that the House
clearly pay tribute and homage to the Armenian people,
recognizing that Armenians were indeed the victims of a genocide.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, by tabling a motion urging us as parliamentarians
to recognize the Armenian genocide regardless of partisan
considerations, the official opposition wants to show clearly that it
remembers and hopes to help increase public awareness of what is
probably the greatest tragedy, the most unacceptable, the most
intolerable, the most shameful thing that can happen in the life of a
society. Genocide must be condemned as a totally unacceptable
instrument of national policy.
This is an extremely sad day in Canadian politics because we
now know that there are hypocritical members in this Parliament.
There are people who talk from both sides of their mouths. This is
extremely sad, because we as parliamentarians had a rare
opportunity to join together in reminding ourselves that violence
has played too large a role in this century.
The history of the Armenian people is that of a persistent,
continuous determination to survive and assert themselves.
Historic Armenia, the great Armenia, which stretched from the
Black Sea to Mesopotamia, covered an area of 300,000 square
kilometres.
Armenia was independent until 1045, until the Middle Ages.
Historiographers agree that what kept Armenia independent and
united until the Middle Ages was its religion, its language and its
settlement of ancestral lands. It is in the 19th century that the
Armenians' world came crashing down.
According to historians, three successive governments are to
blame for the scattering and genocide of the Armenian community.
Like the Armenian people, we remember the government of
Hamid II. We also remember that, at the turn of the century, there
was a hope for the future because of a democratic government, an
apparently liberal government advocating greater freedom of
speech, a government that could have been more sensitive to the
Armenian community. However, the new Turkish government did
not turn out that way. After the Republic of Armenia was
proclaimed, one might have expected things to change, but they did
not, which brings us to the events of 1915-17, when 1.5 million
people died in the Armenian genocide.
Let us stop for a moment to try to understand what could be
happening in this Parliament today. We have a member who, since
he was democratically elected by the people of Ahuntsic, has been
an extraordinary ally of the Armenian community. We have, in the
person of the hon. member for Ahuntsic, someone who has made us
sensitive to what has been the very first genocide of the 20th
century. Without any partisanship, this member is calling on us, as
parliamentarians, to remember. Why? Because by remembering,
we avoid making the same mistakes over and over. I am convinced
that all our fellow parliamentarians who will participate in this
1855
debate today will remember and want to remember, without
acrimony or hostility, so that history does not repeat itself.
(1610)
Why did this government not hesitate for a moment to release
$500,000 to help set up a war crimes tribunal in the former
Yugoslavia? This tribunal will not only try to understand what
happened, but also to identify and take action against those
responsible. I clearly recall sitting in this House as the
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Immigration made her
speech, in which she indicated that this tribunal would have nine
members, including a Canadian lawyer, and the word ``genocide''
was used without hesitation.
The same with the recent events in Rwanda, although we were
not afraid to take a lucid look at the situation in that particular case.
We were not afraid to call things by their rightful name, seeing that,
as parliamentarians, we believe in the power of words. Anyone
who believes in the power of words is able to use the appropriate
word. In this case, the word to use in our speeches-and we should
say it loud and clear in a unanimous voice-is not tragedy,
desolation, exaction or wrongdoing, it is genocide.
Why is this government afraid, insecure all of sudden and
carrying partisanship to the point of acting like a tartuffe and an
hypocrite, by making all kinds of amendments to dilute a motion
that would have made us grow in stature as parliamentarians. I will
tell you why. And I do not think it takes a Ph.D. in political science
to figure out what the members opposite are up to.
We all know that Turkey is a middle power in the Middle East.
We also know that Turkey plays a lead role, it is a key player within
NATO. This government refuses to seize the opportunity to take its
responsibilities and to truly promote human rights by calling a
spade a spade.
Do you think Armenians are proud of the Canadian government
today? Do you think anyone working for non-profit organizations,
in the international co-operation sector, or for any of the major
international organizations responsible for the protection of human
rights is proud of the hypocritical attitude of this government? No.
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of attending the UN
conference on human rights, in Geneva. The speeches made on that
occasion by the Canadian delegation stressed how supportive and
involved Canada was regarding any international mission that
concerns human rights. Where is the consistency between being
involved in any number of UN initiatives to promote human rights
and being about to vote like this government?
Some might say that, when it comes to history, all sorts of
interpretations can be made. I will conclude by reminding you of
something very important. In April 1984, the Permanent People's
Tribunal was asked to answer the three following questions: Was
the Armenian people a victim of deportation and massacre during
the First World War? Second question: Do these events constitute a
genocide? Third question: What were the consequences, both for
the international community and for the parties involved?
(1615)
The answer is as follows, and I conclude with that: The
Permanent People's Tribunal, whose members could all have sat on
the International court of justice, concluded that: ``Armenian
populations were and are a people whose basic, individual and
collective rights should or must be respected, in accordance with
international law. The extermination of Armenian populations
through deportation and massacre is an imprescriptible crime of
genocide-genocide, Mr. Speaker-within the meaning of the
convention of December 9, 1948''.
The international law has spoken and the official opposition has
taken its responsibilities. It is up to this government to show the
integrity and the courage expected of it.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I much appreciated, of course, the remarks of
my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I commend him on
so aptly reminding us of the importance of designating correctly by
the term ``genocide'' what the Liberal government considers as a
tragedy experienced by the Armenian people in 1915 and 1916.
I would like to recall what I said this morning and I will put a
question to my colleague along the lines-
Mr. Ménard: And friend.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): And friend,
notwithstanding, as he reminds me.
I was saying this morning that there was an urgent need, with
respect to Canada's role internationally, its role in the defence of
rights and freedoms, not only to have consistent discourse, but not
to leave room for any interpretation that would tend, in the view of
humanity and of other countries, to diminish the importance
Canada accords to human rights.
When one looks at the amendment presented by the Liberal
government to this opposition motion, one might well ask some
serious questions. As my colleague has just mentioned, this is a
way to play down the seriousness of a completely reprehensible act
and almost to invite a certain tolerance of this type of event.
If we want human rights to be respected internationally, we must
send a clear message, because any departure from this line of
conduct will certainly have repercussions at home. As I have said,
if Canada shows a form of tolerance for what should be
condemned, sooner or later we will find ourselves in a similar
1856
situation. The danger is there. If we are less vigilant at home, it is
our fellow citizens who will suffer.
I am going to put my question to my colleague, because I know
that many people would like to hear him again. It concerns human
rights and international trade. I ask the question very seriously. I
would like my colleague to tell us what he himself thinks of this: To
what extent can a government make compromises, dishonest
compromises, in order to establish or maintain trade relations with
a country to the detriment of human rights?
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you are surely as fond as I of the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, and his questions,
each one more brilliant than the last. Without a doubt the answer is
one you would give yourself, Mr. Speaker, that there must be
assurance that, in any circumstances, profit motives such as
international trade must not take precedence over any
permissiveness in the area of human rights violations. I believe that
there has been sufficient unanimity today in this House for me to
state that we recognize that international trade is a very important
dimension of international life. We recognize that the history of
Canada has been built on trade, but this must never lead us to
neglect the vital importance of promoting human rights, as the
Liberals have since they formed the government in October 1993.
(1620)
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to share my time with the member for Scarborough-Rouge River.
We must see the debate we are having today in its historical
context. I am supporting this motion and I am supporting the
amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary.
The amendment seeks to place this human tragedy within its
historical context and at the same time to place it in the context of
what we as Canadians must do to recognize the historical reality of
what has happened in this world in light of today's interdependent
world in which we live and what we must do as active politicians
both nationally and internationally to ensure these events do not
occur again.
That is the purpose of the government's motion. That is the
purpose of the debate. I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois on
bringing forward this motion because I think it is important.
However, it is unfortunate the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has suggested the government in
proposing this amendment is trying to mix up this issue with
commercial relations and other interests with Turkey. That is not
the purpose of this amendment, as I read it. Before I consider this
issue I will provide some general observations on this matter.
This was an enormous human tragedy. It fits within the context
of other great tragedies, of killings of populations. There were
those in Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda. Unfortunately the list in
this century is all too long. For that reason it is important to have
this recognition. A question we all must ask in the complicated
world in which we live, a question posed in the New Testament, is
who is my neighbour?
The neighbour of yesterday were Armenians and the neighbour
of a nearer yesterday was the Jewish population of Europe. The
neighbours of a recent time were those in Cambodia. The
neighbours of a more recent time were those in Rwanda and in
Bosnia.
If we lose sight of our common humanity we lose sight of what
we are here to do as politicians. In so doing, we must not lose sight
that we operate within a historical continuum, a historical
framework and an institutional framework. It behoves us as
members of Parliament to ensure it operates in this modern world.
That is the reason I support the amendment.
We need international institutions. We need a United Nations
system, which the parliamentary secretary spoke of. I am proud to
support the government, which has been actively pursuing a United
Nations system which will ensure this does not happen again. Our
troops are in Bosnia in support of the reason the government
believes genocide should not be allowed to occur.
It is not right for the Bloc Quebecois to say the government does
not wish to address the issue of genocide. We are committing the
resources of Canada, much to the criticism of the Reform Party, to
ensure the stability of places in the world, to ensure this type of
event cannot occur again. We have committed troops to Haiti to
ensure this will not happen again. These are concrete measures
which address this problem and which we must deal with. That is
one aspect of the problem.
Another is the aspect of an institutional framework of world
government. We lack a legal system which would enable us to say
that such and such a group is guilty of genocide and the ability to
punish and deal with it. We are reaching toward that. It is still in an
embryonic position.
(1625)
This issue was debated at Nuremberg. When I taught public
international law I taught the Nuremberg trials as establishing
principles of international law. One must recognize those
principles were forged at the end of the second world war by the
victorious parties and imposed on the losing party in the conflict
and as a result lack that universality which has subsequently
developed since the second world war. We in Canada have played
1857
our part in developing those principles which we can now look to
for protecting human rights.
My colleague, Professor Humphreys at McGill University, was
one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Thousands of Canadians have by their actions, in military actions
such as IFOR and other military actions I spoke of earlier and in
less dramatic situations, working at the United Nations, working in
international commissions, sought to develop rules of law which
will enable us to deal with the issue before us today.
We must develop that issue. We must develop an international
criminal court. I wish the Bloc Quebecois would address that issue.
What lesson can we take from Armenia? The lesson that we must
take is that we need international institutions, legal institutions
which can deal with these issues.
These are the things which modern Armenians and modern
Turks and modern Canadians will thank us for, not seeking to
condemn and turn a question of language into something which
looks like a form of a political manoeuvre when what we all are
trying to do is address an issue which is of real distinct importance
to every member of the House, which is how to craft modern
institutions which respond to the needs of a modern world and can
assure that this type of event can never happen again.
I hope the criminal court which has been established in respect
of Bosnia and which a learned judge from my province has joined
as a prosecutor will contribute toward that process. I hope we might
in the House one day debate the possibility of having similar laws
as they have in the United States where civil actions may be
brought in the courts of the United States based on human rights
violations elsewhere.
We have much work to do as parliamentarians. We should attend
to that work. The parliamentary secretary said in all frankness to
the question asked of him about Turkey that he could not answer
what Turkey would say on the issue of genocide. That is for Turkey
to answer.
We can answer for ourselves about what we believe in terms of
the institutional framework of the world in which we operate and
what we can do as politicians to ensure terrible tragedies of this
nature do not occur.
That will be the greatest contribution we can make to our fellow
Armenian citizens and those Armenians living in Armenia today.
That is the greatest means whereby we can show our respect for the
meaning of this resolution, by not seeking to argue about the
terminology of it, recognizing it as a fact and turning our attention
to ensuring this can never happen again, or at least if it does happen
that there is a world order in place which will enable us as
Canadians to participate in that and prevent it.
There is a complicated subject to raise, but something I think is
worth saying in the House. Every issue of this nature has a
resonance within ourselves. We are not perfect in this country. We
have had our problems, human rights problems. We have evolved
and will continue to evolve in respect of it. We have developed a
country with a charter of rights which guarantees individual rights.
That is an extremely important part of our tradition and our
contribution to the international framework of which I spoke.
We have developed federal institutions which respond to the
needs of collectivities in different parts of the country which have
control over those events which are close to them and at the same
time a federal government which assures the charter and general
rules and principles may be applied equally and fairly across this
land.
I look at that and at what we have crafted over the years. Our
federal institutions are among the best guarantees Canadians have
that this type of event could never occur here. Remember, this
occurred in a unitary state that lacked the checks and balances of
many jurisdictions which could deal with this type of issue.
(1630)
Therefore, I suggest to members of the Bloc Quebecois that
when they bring forward a motion like this and want to know the
lesson of the Armenian tragedy, that one lesson is the creation of
modern political institutions with human values and with sufficient
responses to the needs to deal with them. That is what I suggest has
been done in our federal institutions and it is one reason why this
country is so respected and why it is a great country in which to
live. It is respected by everyone.
[Translation]
I know that my time is limited. I would like to say in closing that
the amendment proposed by the government is not only consistent
with the Bloc Quebecois' basic motion but it also introduces the
much broader notion that respect for human rights must enjoy
universal recognition. This respect also introduces the notion that
our country is based on tolerance and multiculturalism. It is a
federal state that guarantees respect for all its citizens, whether
they come from Armenia or any other country.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my colleague
from Rosedale for his comments. Had his remarks led to the tabling
of a motion, I would support it almost in its entirety, except of
course when he refers-I understand that he may have to toe the
party line-to his support for the amendment put forward by his
colleague, the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism
and the Status of Women.
In fact, as we mentioned several times, the government's
amendment to this motion plays down the impact of the tragic
events experienced by the Armenian people in 1915-16, thus
1858
managing to avoid calling a spade a spade and referring to those
events as a genocide.
I understand that the evolution of international law and attitudes
certainly allows us to be more specific in analyzing such events. It
seems to me that, even when referring to the 1915-16 context, the
facts can only point to a recognition that a real or at least attempted
genocide of the Armenian people took place at that time.
I fully agree that what my colleague said about Canada's human
rights record should be acknowledged. Both the international
community and the official opposition recognize outright that
Canada's human rights record is quite good. Last week, the Chief
Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
testified before the committee on human rights to point out the
major improvements needed with regard to the First Nations and,
of course, the need to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination. Having said that, I recognize, we
recognize that there are advantages to living in this country as far
as human rights are concerned.
But precisely because of the progress made in Canada and
Quebec in terms of human rights, I think the international message
we are trying to convey should not, as I mentioned, be watered
down in any way.
(1635)
That is why we must send a clear message with regard not only
to the Armenian genocide but also to the other crimes against
humanity being committed around the world. Can my colleague
tell us to what extent Canada must compromise because of
international trade and set aside human rights in favour of Canada's
commercial interests?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask for the
co-operation of the hon. member for Rosedale in giving us a short
answer in the few moments remaining in the period set aside for
questions and comments.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments for my hon.
colleague. First of all, I too am delighted to be living in a system in
which the human rights commissioner can raise such issues and
bring them to our attention. I agree with the hon. member when he
says that we Canadians still a long way to go. Instead of always
pointing an accusing finger at others, we should start by dealing
with our own problems. I am very pleased to be sitting in this place,
because I look forward to be doing just that with him and the other
members of this House in the near future.
Regarding the relationship between international trade and
human rights in other countries, do we really want, given the total
system we live in, to condemn others? Does condemnation foster
understanding and behaviour modification in other people or not?
That is what we must ask ourselves.
It may well be that, in some cases, condemnation is absolutely
necessary, while in others, maintaining a relationship with the
people in question will give us the opportunity to convince them to
change their minds. This must always be decided on a case by case,
or ad hoc basis.
This is why I find that the amendment moved by the minister is
more in keeping with today's needs than the wording of the original
motion. This is why I support these amendments and hope that they
will receive the support of all members of this House, because it is
in that spirit that we will be able to change people's ways. This
should be our aim. W should think ahead, and have the future of
mankind in mind. I think that this is what we are trying to do with
these amendments.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, it is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
following: the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka-FEDNOR; the hon. member for
Davenport-Fisheries.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the
debate on the motion proposed by the official opposition.
The theme is man's inhumanity to man, an exhortation that we
set aside a time every year to take note of this unfortunate subject.
The subscript on the theme is the Armenian genocide of 1915.
Some amendments have been proposed by the government and
by the third party dealing with technical aspects of the resolution
and exhibiting some caution in terms of the use of the word
``genocide.''
Perhaps some of us are looking for ways to finesse the use of
these historical facts, bring them into the present and find the
proper pigeonhole, the proper categorization, the proper way to try
to articulate it. I think there is some difficulty in doing that.
Members on both sides of the House have articulated various
perspectives on the difficulty. It is not easy to articulate events
which happened a long time ago, in this case 81 years ago.
(1640)
In any event, I have made up my mind. I made up my mind some
time ago. I do not care about the technical aspects of this. I will
leave that to others. Frankly, after 81 years we are at the point
where the lawyers have become irrelevant.
I first became aware of what is being called the Armenian
genocide about 12 years ago. I had an Armenian Canadian friend.
He certainly did not become my friend to make me aware of the
issue. However, in knowing his family I became aware of it.
1859
About the same time I had the occasion to read an academic
article in a British magazine of political philosophy and history.
That magazine is called ``Encounter''. It was a well written and
objective presentation of many aspects of history and political
philosophy.
The article that I read was quite objective. It dealt with the then
existing historical controversy about the issue of how many people
actually died in the Armenian genocide. At the time, and perhaps
still, there are conflicting views on the number. However it is
measured, we are dealing with six or seven digits. However it is
measured, it was, at least, a tragedy. It was the first genocide of this
century. I have accepted that.
Irrespective of the vote on the motion and how the lawyers
amend it, dovetail it and finesse it, I want Canadians to recognize
what happened in 1915.
Since that time I have attended the annual commemoration of the
April 1915 events. Everyone will know that the perpetrators were
incapable of killing 1.5 million people on April 24, 1915. It went
on for some time. At the time the world was engaged in another
slaughter, the first world war. Millions were killed in that exercise.
It happened at the same time that Lawrence of Arabia was pursuing
his military career, perhaps 100 miles south of where this was
happening. The world did not pay too much attention.
However, there were those who took note. I am pleased to say
that there were those in Canada who took note. About 1921 some
Canadians got together to bring to Canada some orphans of the
Armenian genocide. Those orphans came to be known as the
Georgetown boys. They were brought to a place near Georgetown,
Ontario. While by present day standards it does not look too pretty,
these orphans were parcelled out and taken to farms. They were not
adopted. They had guardians. They were sent to school and they
worked very hard on farms. Recently there was a commemoration
of them by the Armenian community in Toronto which I attended.
It was very moving.
These people are now very old. Most of them had smiles.
However, the wrinkles in their hands and faces showed me
something very real that happened 81 years ago.
(1645)
We can all pick whatever term we like on this, tragedy, genocide,
but all of us cannot help but pause and ask how this could have
happened and to ask God not to let it happen again.
Following that, for the Armenians of that part of the Middle East
and eastern Europe there was a diaspora. Those who were able to
flee did. Those who were deported moved on. Somewhere between
a few and many found their way, thankfully, to Canada, with the
Armenian community regarding itself as a minority within
Canada. Many of them have been mainstreamed, leading lives not
so much as Armenian-Canadians but as Canadians of Armenian
heritage.
However, one cannot forget that a huge chunk of people, part of
one's heritage, was simply liquidated by a political entity, the
Ottoman Empire. I was not alive during the time of the Ottoman
Empire so I do not know what it was. I can read about it in the
history books but I cannot reach back and touch it as part of history.
However, those who survived those events have told me they
happened. It is more than past due for the rest of the world to
recognize it as it really was.
We should not leave this event alone in history without
recognizing that man has on numerous occasions killed just as
many in this century. There was the first world war, the Russian
revolution which killed millions, and the genocidal German
concentration camps which killed millions of Jews, Gypsies and
political opponents.
We were a party to the second world war during which millions
were killed. The Chinese Communist revolution was not a
genocide but millions died. There was a massive slaughter of
military personnel and civilians in Yugoslavia immediately
following the first world war.
In the partition in India in 1947-48, two million people were
killed trying to draw a line between India and Pakistan. It was a
terrible tragedy. No one willed that one; it was man's inhumanity to
man.
Just since I have had the privilege of serving as a member of
Parliament, we have had the ugliness of the slaughter in Bosnia and
in Rwanda.
This motion today is not just an attempt to recognize what
happened in Armenia in 1915. It is an attempt by all Canadians to
reconcile inside themselves with what has happened here, these
tragedies, this death, these inhumanities. We have very little else
we can use to help us reconcile inside ourselves. This resolution is
one of the ways we can do it as a people.
We also wish, if we can, to reconcile ourselves with history. In
this case it is my view the history books do not show exactly what
happened. Maybe some do. Forgive me for not being able to read
all the books and articles on this. However, in my experience as a
Canadian and with my education I did not have access and was not
made aware of the extent of this slaughter as I went through my
schooling, as I was privileged to do for many years. I regret that we
do not in a dedicated and comprehensive way try to make our
students aware of some of these aspects of history.
(1650)
I do not think we should be too partisan about the 1.5 million
dead. I hope there is a way the opposition motion, the government
amendment and the subamendment from the third party will
resolve this in a unanimously adopted motion. It would be difficult
1860
for anyone to vote against a motion when we are looking down a
gun barrel at this many dead.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his fine intervention.
In the House on many occasions we have discussed genocides
which have taken place around the world, from Armenia to
Cambodia to the tragedies in Rwanda and Burundi.
Time after time we have said it is unfortunate, a tragedy, it is sad.
What have we done to prevent genocide in the future?
I ask my hon. friend if he has any ideas on what the Canadian
government could do and what he is prepared to do to intervene
with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make some constructive
suggestions on how Canada can work with its partners in the
international community to put forth ideas on collective actions
that can be taken to prevent genocides.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I
resist the urge to be too philosophical about a proposed solution. I
am sure all members of the House are prepared to do what they can
as legislators to advance Canada's role in the international arena in
a way that would hopefully obviate the need to address these kinds
of tragedies in the future.
I am compelled to recall a remark to me by a legislator of the
Indian Parliament. In a conversation we were having about another
issue he said you can only address the politics of a gun with a gun.
This to me means that if there is a potential genocide or a slaughter
by a machete or a gun or poisons the only way to deal with it is with
force. That means the United Nations, of which Canada is a
member, must pay more attention to the proposal of a rapid
reaction force. That means using a gun against a gun, a blade
against a blade.
If we want to sit around and be philosophical about why these
things should not happen for the next half century we may end up
watching another Rwanda or Cambodia without the means to stop
it. We will end up simply wringing our hands.
The only short run solution to stop these things when they begin
to brew is a rapid reaction force that will use force with prejudice
for the purpose of ending what may appear to be a genocidal
initiative.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of his reply to my colleague's question, the hon. member
referred to the symbolism of today's motion. I am a bit shocked
because, to me, this is much more than a symbol.
(1655)
One of the first things that struck me when I started working on
the commemoration of the Armenian genocide was what Adolf
Hitler, when he started his exactions from the Jews, asked the SS:
``Who remembers the Armenian genocide nowadays?''
The first measure that a country must take when a genocide
occurs is to make sure that it is not forgotten. The dictators of this
world must be reminded that such atrocities will be taken into
consideration by the international community. This is why Bloc
Quebecois members and Reformers wish to keep the term genocide
in the motion.
The word tragedy is not as strong. I ask the hon. member to
reflect on the very nature of the motion and to support it because of
its purpose, which is to make reference to the Armenian genocide
and to be a concrete action whereby the government will remind
the international community of such acts, which are all too
common.
This is meant to be a comment. I would like to hear the hon.
member's views on this.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I agree with almost all of what the
member said. I congratulate him on introducing the motion. If
somehow in the translation the word symbolic came across in my
remarks, I do not recall using it or at least intending it. I do not
consider there is anything symbolic in this at all. It means what it
says.
In terms of how the voting goes on the motions and the technical
words, I have already made my point that I do not want to be into
the technical side of this at all. I made up my mind long ago about
what went on 81 years ago. I simply want a resolution of the House
that is effective for the very well intentioned purpose of the
member opposite.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the official
opposition day on the Armenian genocide affords me the
opportunity to speak on this most important matter. The debates
surrounding this question are aimed at encouraging the Canadian
government to officially recognize the genocide of 1915. This
crime against humanity is, we believe, something that must not be
left in the shadows to be ignored.
The motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois stipulates that, on
this 81st anniversary of the genocide, the government ought to
designate the week of April 20 to 27 of each year as the week to
commemorate man's inhumanity to man, acknowledging that the
actions in question are to be strongly condemned and all people on
earth are to bear witness to them.
In fact, the Bloc motion essentially reflects the spirit of a motion
tabled by the Liberal member for Don Valley North in April of
1995. Unfortunately, some of his colleagues opposed it, and the
motion was not put to a vote in the House at that time.
1861
It would have provided the government with another feather in
its cap as a defender of human rights. Instead, we are faced with
an astonishing about face.
The Liberal government's attitude in this matter is
disappointing, but not really a surprise. When the Liberals were in
the opposition benches, they did not hesitate to call for explicit
recognition of the Armenian genocide by this House. Since they
have returned to power, they have completely changed their tune,
you might say. Human rights are no longer necessarily a priority,
but are often subordinate to economic interests.
(1700)
Just recently, the brand new Minister of International
Cooperation was pressuring the mayor of Montreal to abandon his
plans to erect a monument to the victims of genocide, including the
Armenian people. The minister would have preferred ``tragic
events'' to be used instead of the term ``genocide''. Watering down
the concept in such a context is tantamount to confirming that the
final step in a genocide is to attempt after the fact to deny its very
existence, or at the very least to minimize its importance, and that
is what we are seeing here today.
This is what the Liberal government is again trying to do, by
proposing an amendment in an undignified attempt to water down
the seriousness of the situation. If it refused to support the motion
of my friend and colleague from Ahuntsic, the Liberal government
would be implicitly supporting the extremists who wish to stifle
historical memory. This in no way reflects the fundamental values
of Quebecers and Canadians.
Fortunately, the governments of Quebec and Ontario have long
supported the universal values human rights represent. In 1980,
they both adopted motions recognizing the Armenian genocide and
demanding that the federal government follow suit.
It is incongruous that, 16 years later, here we are still in this
House calling for the Canadian government to act. Does the federal
government refuse to recognize this reality? During World War I,
the Ottoman Turk government committed atrocities against the
Armenian people.
The Ottoman Empire executed one and a half million Armenians
and deported another 500,000. And what is especially sad is that
many people are keeping this situation hidden.
If we want to avoid impunity one day inciting other peoples to
similar actions, and, unfortunately, we have more recent examples
still fresh in our minds, Parliament must today recognize that the
genocide of the Armenian community is one of this century's major
tragedies. We must avoid euphemisms at all cost and give words
their due in keeping with the events that occurred. As the proverb
has it, ``An idea well conceived presents itself clearly, and the
words to express it come readily''.
When things are described as they are and international pressure
is brought to bear, one day soon, Turkey will take responsibility for
this genocide. We must not close our eyes to such crimes and allow
the passage of time to bury them.
The government's position on human rights, as I said earlier, is
disappointing. For the present government, trade and export are all
that count. Foreign affairs and business affairs go hand in hand, and
the rights of the individual are being muddled with the rights of the
businessman.
The Liberal government is so obsessed by the simple rationality
of money and trade that it forgets the vital element and has to be
reminded of it by the Canadian Exporters' Association. At a
conference organized by the international centre for human rights,
the president of the exporters' association pointed out that
international trade and efforts to increase respect for human rights
were not mutually exclusive and that the government should
seriously pursue both. He also added that business should
voluntarily adopt rules of conduct for activities abroad.
Finally, and this is what counts, he pointed out that international
trade and investments alone did not bring about improved respect
for human rights. This is from the Canadian Exporters'
Association. And yet, the Prime Minister has been endlessly
repeating the opposite ever since he came to power. The world is on
its ear.
The government's priorities in this area do not reflect the values
shared by Quebecers and Canadians.
(1705)
In a recent poll, Canadians and Quebecers were asked to rank the
various objectives of Canada's foreign policy according to their
importance. Fifty three per cent of Quebecers and 48 per cent of
Canadians said that the protection of human rights was very
important.
In Quebec the protection of human rights was deemed more
important than the promotion of trade. Fortunately, the peoples of
Quebec and Canada are much more compassionate toward victims
of terror than their government.
These values shared by the peoples of Quebec and Canada as a
whole are universal values which can be found in the universal
charter of human rights. They must be reflected in Canada's
international policies. The values of equality, justice and respect
for fundamental rights transcend culture, language, continents and
even time.
It would be too easy, for instance, to keep trading with China
without uttering a word regarding its shameful record of human
rights violations. I refuse to believe that the Chinese are marginally
more inclined to live under dictatorial rule or that their culture
makes it easier for them to do so.
1862
Along the same line, we cannot endorse the idea that women
are second class citizens, just because they are women, and view
this as normal, because local religious beliefs.
Another case in point: the Canadian government must react
when trading with a country where young children work in
appalling conditions. The government has the moral duty to
promote and protect human rights. This is one of the main reasons
for its international involvement.
As a Montreal journalist said last week: ``Finally, this issue
raises-and I believe it is of the utmost importance-the question
of the universality of rights. Are relativism and piecemeal policy,
which are the essence of politics and diplomacy, not being taken
too far when we hear major western leaders preach the relativity of
universal values?'' This is the crux of the matter. It has also been
said that it was a very popular theme with despots in Africa and
Asia''.
To conclude, I would urge my colleagues to support the motion
brought forward by the member for Ahuntsic to set aside a week to
commemorate man's inhumanity to man. This way, every year we
would have the opportunity to remember the errors of the past, and
to offer on the international stage an image of Canada reflecting the
values of the peoples of Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River. I also want to ask the same question of
my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. It is with regard to what is
taught in school regarding the history of genocide and the
holocaust.
Before I do that, I want to make a statement. Since 1965, or 31
years, I have been involved with this issue. This is the first time we
have had seven hours debate and the word ``alleged'' has not been
used. I give credit to this House and members of Parliament for not
using the word ``alleged'' in the discussions we have had so for.
I want to make the point that nobody has ever denied the fact that
1.5 million innocent people perished in 1915 during the first world
war as the first genocide of the century.
I am quite sure that Armenians in this country and all over the
world are prepared to do as the Jewish people did after the
holocaust. Once this issue is addressed by the Turkish government
they are prepared to forgive what happened but never to forget what
happened. Once you forget it will be repeated again. I hope this
debate will focus attention on the fact that the victims these days
are prepared to forgive if they are asked but they will not forget.
Once we forget we repeat it again in the future.
(1710)
I go back to the first point I made. Would the hon. member
encourage including the subject of genocide, or crimes against
humanity, or however it is described, a tragic event, massacres, as
part of the school curriculum so the younger generations can be
taught in the high schools what happened? Awareness is the key.
Once they are aware of what happened in history hopefully they
will not repeat it because that is where the problem is. Once it
happens it repeats itself over and over again.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for
Don Valley North for his question and comments.
As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, I fully support most of his
comments, except for one. He said no one had denied or refused to
acknowledge the Armenian genocide. He said no one had denied
this event, and I totally agree with him. The hon. member's
statement, however, raises the following question: If no one denies
it, why refuse to give it official recognition? That is what I cannot
understand on the part of Liberal members.
As for his second question concerning what is taught in the
history books in Quebec and Canada about the genocides that have
taken place throughout the world, I also fully agree with him.
Being an educator who taught for many years mostly at the primary
level, I obviously think that, in terms of giving students a sense of
history, of collective conscience, it is very important to teach them
about all these tragic errors, all these genocides that have been
committed throughout the world, to give them this sense of history,
this collective conscience so that, once they become adults, they,
too, will exert pressure on their governments to ensure that such
mistakes are not repeated.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must
admit that it is very difficult for me to speak on the motion put
forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Ahuntsic. It is not
that I disagree with what it says, quite the contrary, but the subject
is so terribly sad.
If I have agreed to participate in the debate today, it is because I
believe that the events referred to in this motion must never be
forgotten by present or future generations.
Who has not heard about the violence and mistreatment inflicted
upon the Armenian people in the early part of this century? The
violence was such that the word genocide, as defined by the United
Nations in 1948, can be used without hesitation. And I believe that
any amount of manoeuvring to avoid using the word genocide
would be sheer deception or hypocrisy.
In a nutshell, genocide means the systematic and purposeful
extermination of entire groups of people, whether ethnic, national
1863
or religious. There is no doubt that the Armenian people were the
victims of a genocide. As painful as it may be, it is therefore
necessary to remember the tragic events which started on April 24,
1915. On that day, the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of our
century and one of the most important in terms of number of
victims, started in what was known at the time as the Ottoman
Empire.
In ensuing years, more than 1.5 million innocent victims will be
murdered or deported for reasons that remain unclear, their temples
and monuments destroyed and the names of their towns changed.
They even tried to wipe away all mention of their very existence.
(1715)
All this simply could not be a series of coincidences. It had to be
a carefully planned and methodically executed plan. The Bloc
Quebecois believes that humanity must be constantly reminded of
the Armenian genocide. Why? So that this type of orchestrated
violence against our fellow human beings can never occur again.
We may sometimes think that a genocide is a rare occurrence,
that it is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it is still current
practice. We cannot and must not forget that, since 1915, many
leaders on this planet ordered radical, extremist and immoral
measures carried out. The excessive number of genocides that have
occurred since then clearly demonstrates this fact.
How can we forget the fate of the Jews and gypsies at the hands
of Hitler's regime? How can we forget the fate of the Cambodian
people at the hands of the Khmers Rouges, in 1975? How can we
forget the fate, in 1994, of more than 500,000 Tutsi, in Rwanda?
How can we forget the ethnic cleansing of civilian populations in
the former Yugoslavia? How can we forget the fate of the Tibetan
population at the hands of the Chinese occupant? How can we
forget the reign of terror imposed by Indonesia in East Timor? The
list goes on and on.
These few examples, already far too numerous, are most
revealing. Millions of people have been assassinated, while
millions of others were deported, and are refugees, without a
country and without a family. According to the UNHCR, over 27
million individuals currently live outside their country because
they had to flee war and repression. These 27 million persons are
refugees, in a century that is said to be modern.
It is with horror that, every day, we witness barbaric and
inhumane practices that we thought were history. Will the human
race ever learn from its mistakes? What is surprising regarding
these genocides and their consequences is that, all too often, their
authors are never punished. They act with complete impunity. But
who is responsible for these deaths? Who is responsible for this
suffering?
Given its magnitude, a genocide cannot be the work of mere
individuals. The participation, or at least the consent, of
government leaders is necessary.
Too frequently in the past, those responsible for these genocides
have gone unpunished. A laudable effort is now under way and we
can only rejoice in the creation of the International Criminal
Tribunal in The Hague. This tribunal, created in 1993 by the UN
Security Council and responsible for judging crimes committed in
the former Yugoslavia, is a step in the right direction, particularly
because, in 1995, another international tribunal was created, this
time to judge crimes that took place in Rwanda.
These two courts are still in their early days. It is to be hoped that
they will soon have real means of rendering justice. In the former
Yugoslavia, over fifty charges have been laid, including charges
against Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.
But a large problem remains and is experienced in the same way in
both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This problem is related to
the impossibility of actually laying hands on the criminals, who put
themselves under the protection of governments or take refuge in
other countries.
War crimes must not, and should never, go unpunished. The
international community, including Canada, has a legal and moral
obligation to find the criminals. Some will even say that the
international tribunal should be able to count on the assistance of
an international police force with the power to apprehend suspects
wherever they are.
For the time being, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates an opinion it
expressed at the time of the Dayton peace accords. The
International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague must continue its
efforts and judge war criminals. It is important that the tribunal
retain its autonomy and that its mandate not be hampered by any
amnesties negotiated and granted by the parties in question.
Bargaining to have sentences dropped and pardons granted to
criminals accused of genocide should not be allowed.
We know that Canada has for a long time been considered one of
the world leaders in promoting and protecting human rights. This
excellent reputation did not come about simply through the
importance accorded to trade.
(1720)
This enviable reputation is the result of the priorities set by
former prime ministers such as Lester B. Pearson, awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for having initiated the creation of
United Nations peacekeeping forces, and John Diefenbaker, who
constantly defended human rights, particularly by taking a stand in
1961 against apartheid in South Africa.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois feels it is high time for the House of
Commons to finally recognize the Armenian genocide. If the
1864
motion is rejected, this will confirm our gravest doubts about the
real importance the Liberal majority assigns to human rights as an
issue. It is not because Canada maintains profitable trade ties with
Turkey that we need to close our eyes to a historical reality.
As far back as 1980, the Ontario legislature recognized the
Armenian genocide. The Quebec national assembly followed suit
in 1985. This past year, in April 1995, the Russian parliament also
recognized it. What is the Liberal majority here waiting for?
Even if we often have the impression that money, productivity,
and trade are what rules our lives, we must not lose sight of the fact
that other values must be taken into consideration when looking at
trade relations with other countries. As markets become global, it is
important to ensure the respect of human rights.
Since their arrival in power, the Liberals have been thinking they
can drift along on Canada's excellent reputation abroad in order to
put the emphasis on strictly trade relations. In April 1994 in this
House, the Prime Minister himself claimed that his government
had a policy to protect human rights and raised the issue in every
country it traded with. However, Team Canada's latest trip to Asia
revealed just how little importance the Liberal government pays to
human rights.
It took a 13 year old youth, Craig Kielburger, to accost the Prime
Minister in India and finally bring to light the sad truth of the lack
of respect of the fundamental rights of children. This young man's
cause immediately caught the sympathy of Quebecers and
Canadians thus proving that our fellow citizens are concerned by
this important issue of human rights.
This is why the Bloc, like all Quebecers and Canadians, wants all
people to be able to grow and develop on this planet without fear of
threat to their life and liberty in any way. This is why we must act
to prevent the government, through its silence, from becoming a
partisan and an accomplice of the indifference and individualism
that all too often seem to have become the prerogative of this
century.
Governments must sometimes be called to order on the issue of
basic human rights. The House of Commons and the government
members must take special action to make sure that the Armenian
genocide is not forgotten, contrary to all the other acts of violence
committed against innocent civilian populations.
This is why I support with all the might and fervour I can muster
the motion asking that every year the period of time between April
20 and 27 be set aside to commemorate man's occasional
inhumanity to man. Even if it is sometimes easier to forget past
events and to chose to plough on, the House of Commons and the
Liberal majority must officially recognize the genocide of 1915 to
avoid the reoccurrence of tragedies of this kind.
In closing, I would like to salute all our fellow citizens of
Armenian origin in their beautiful tongue.
[The member spoke in Armenian.]
[English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic for
bringing this motion to the attention of the House. The issues raised
are far reaching and universal.
History has not focused its brutality. Its cruelty has not been
limited to one community or to one people. The tragedies of history
have not discriminated on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity for
they befell humanity as a whole. The deaths of innocent men,
women and children, cut down by tyranny because of their
ethnicity, their religion or their race is a tragedy for the entire
human family.
(1725 )
Canadians need to be sensitive to this reality and recognize that
the individual histories of many of our citizens do not begin on our
shores. We must be sensitive to the experiences of our fellow
Canadians who by birth or by ancestry may have been victimized
by the inhumanity of wars and oppression.
By being compassionate and understanding of the deep scars that
such experiences have on individuals and communities, we are
contributing to the healing process. While our actions today help
ease the pain, we must know that the scars will never be erased.
We are, by and large, a country of immigrants who have come to
Canada from every corner of the world. As immigrants we have
attachments to our respective heritages. In Canada we take pride in
the fact that these diverse heritages are what makes Canada unique
as a nation.
We seek to build a society that ensures fair and equitable
treatment and that respects the dignity and accommodates the
needs of Canadians of all ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic and
racial origins. The challenge for us now is to strengthen a cohesive,
respectful, inclusive and democratic society and a shared sense of
identity reflective of the diversity of Canada's people.
What makes a society cohesive? Three pillars in my mind: social
justice, civic participation and a sense of identity. How do we
create a cohesive society that incorporates these three principles?
First, we offer to all Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity,
colour or religion, the opportunity to contribute to society and
enjoy the full benefits of participation.
1865
Second, we ensure that Canadians of all backgrounds are able
to participate in society. To foster this very important symbiotic
relationship requires Canadians to work hard.
Our Canadian mosaic means that we must be accommodating in
ways that other nations feel free to ignore. We have built a strong
tradition of respecting each other's cultures, of understanding how
diversity enriches us. We work with many partners across the
country to accomplish this. We work with other levels of
government, with major institutions, with organizations, business
and labour and with individual Canadians to make sure that we all
have the opportunity to participate fully in society.
Why do we go to this trouble? What is our incentive? We do it
because when Canadians are treated equally and fairly, when they
feel they belong and when they have the opportunity to contribute,
we are ensuring our future growth and prosperity. We do it because
Canada in its diversity is a mirror for the rest of the world. We dare
hope that other nations who see themselves reflected in our
diversity will be persuaded to follow us toward peace,
understanding and justice for all.
From our beginnings as a country, diversity has been a fact of the
every day lives of Canadians. The issue is not whether we are
culturally diverse-there is no question about that-but rather how
we intend to make sure that our diversity continues to strengthen us
as a nation.
Even today as religious and ethnic conflicts take their toll around
the globe, Canada has been a light of democratic resolution of
profound political difference. We have been a beacon to displaced
people from around the world who recognize what racism,
prejudice and ignorance can lead to. We are an example of respect
and accommodation that has been far too lacking in other parts of
the world.
Our efforts in this regard have been recognized by Nelson
Mandela, president of the Republic of South Africa. In his message
to Canadians, President Mandela referred to Canada's lasting
tradition of dedication to human rights and hoped that our efforts
would continue to ``enrich humanity''.
With this very desire in mind, the government remains
committed to the multiculturalism policy built on the pillars of
identity, civic participation and social justice. These are the
cherished principles of democracy that are the best deterrents to
tyranny and oppression. These are the values that bind all
Canadians as a nation.
While the pace of change may be challenging or even
frightening, we want to ensure that all who call Canada home are
able to take full and active part in the affairs of their community
and country, that Canadians are valued for their individual
contributions, for their value as human beings and not judged by
their membership in any number of identifiable communities.
(1730 )
So by all means, Canadians, remember who you are and where
you came from, but do not forget that Canada's future lies ahead of
us and that its creation depends on how well we work together.
We are a diverse society. We will remain a diverse society. Our
job is to make that diversity work for all of us. It is this
compassionate vision of our community that has and will continue
to make Canada a beacon to victims of violence and oppression
from around the world.
April 24 is an emotional day for Canadians of Armenian ancestry
as they recall the very painful and tragic events of the past. The
Canadian government has consistently extended its heartfelt sense
of sorrow on this difficult occasion.
However, the motion as presented does not reflect accurately
Canada's position. The Government of Canada does not deny the
tragic events that befell the Armenian community. Indeed, it
sympathizes with the victims of the tragic events of 1915 and with
their descendants, particularly those who have come to Canada to
make a new life.
In memory of the victims of inhumanity: Armenians, Jews,
Bosnians, Cambodians, aboriginal peoples, gay men and lesbians
and people of colour, I urge the House to support the amendment
proposed earlier by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
In the government's recognition that we must be ever vigilant in
our defence of the values we share as Canadians, it is this
government's commitment to never forget and to work toward
reconciliation and understanding.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion presented by
the member for Ahuntsic with regard to the commemoration of the
Armenian genocide.
The member for Ahuntsic should remember that my colleague
from Don Valley North introduced a private member's motion,
Motion No. 282, on April 3, 1995. That motion, on which
incidentally the member opposite spoke in favour, was a motion
which called for the designation of the week of April 20 to 27 each
year to commemorate the issue of man's inhumanity to his fellow
man.
In speaking to that motion, which read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should designate the
period from April 20 to 27 of each year as the week in which we commemorate
the issue of man's inhumanity to his fellow man, to remind Canadians that the
use of genocide and violence as an instrument of national policy by any nation
or group at any time is a crime against all mankind which must be condemned
and not forgotten.
1866
I have deliberately chosen to speak to this issue of man's
inhumanity to his fellow man during the week that we remember
the tragedy of the Armenian genocide for one main purpose.
During the years that followed, it was very difficult for many
people of Armenian background to accept the genocide caused by
the Turkish army and to understand why victims were whipped,
clubbed and refused water as they passed by streams and wells.
These were men, women and children. The victims were lashed
when they lagged behind.
Telegrams to provincial capitals captured by the British army
and reports by witnesses like Henry Morgenthau, the American
ambassador to Turkey, provide evidence that the extermination of
the Armenians was planned and organized by the central
government.
The significance of this week in relation to man's inhumanity to
man does not, however, end with the commemoration of the
slaughter of the 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turkish
authorities. April 20 to 27 was chosen because April 19 and 20,
1939 was the beginning of the holocaust committed by the Nazis
against the Jewish population. April 27 was the end of the apartheid
regime of South Africa which gave the South African population
the right to vote, one person, one vote.
Throughout history there are terrible examples of man's
inhumanity to man. There was the holocaust which included the
extermination of six million Jews in various concentration camps
all over Europe. The Nazis were also responsible for the death of
over one million gypsies, homosexuals and other minority groups
deemed unacceptable by Hitler's Third Reich. The holocaust was a
denial of God and of man. It was a destruction of the world in a
miniature form.
(1735)
Hitler, and those he appointed to his imaginary government,
regarded the Jewish people as a political problem and its so-called
solution as a political necessity that had to be addressed in
Germany's foreign and domestic policy. The Nazis used mass
terror, forced labour, starvation, forced immigration, deportation
and other forms of oppression to achieve their end goal, the
destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people.
In 1975 after a five-year civil war, the communist Khmer Rouge
gained victory and power in Cambodia. They evacuated all of the
cities, including Phnom Penh, the capital whose population had
swollen with almost three million refugees. All were brutally
driven from the city and some were killed immediately.
Whomever Pol Pot and his small group of communist leaders
regarded as potential enemies of the ideal state they wanted to build
were executed. Those killed included officers of the army,
government officials, intellectuals, educated and professional
people such as doctors and teachers.
Communists who became victims of infighting were often
interrogated before being killed. The killings varied according to
regions; meaning more were killed in certain areas and during
different times. The killing became more rampant just before the
end of the Khmer Rouge rule in 1979.
Rwanda is another recent example of one group pitted against
another, where the world's complacency allowed the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands. The genocide of Rwanda began in April
1994. It was preceded by a war launched in October 1990 by the
Tutsi guerrillas of the Rwanda Patriot Front against the Hutu led
government.
Before this, Rwanda was already one of the poorest nations in
Africa. The war's origins go back to a wave of violence from 1959
to 1966, when the Hutu overthrew the Tutsi monarchy which had
ruled for centuries. About 20,000 to 100,000 Tutsi were killed in a
slaughter that the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, described
as the ``most horrible and systematic massacre we have had
occasion to witness since the extermination of the Jews by the
Nazis''. The violence caused about 150,000 Tutsi exiles to flee to
Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania and Zaire.
The recent fighting in September 1994 had begun after Rwandan
president, Juvenal Habyarimana, was killed in a mysterious plane
crash in April. At least 500,000 were estimated to have been killed
in the massacres which has prompted a UN investigation into the
charges of genocide.
The list of horrors continues with the mass deportations and the
so-called ethnic cleansing that the world witnessed in the former
Yugoslavia. Only now are the independent observers free to
investigate. The situation is tragic now that the extent of the mass
executions are coming to light.
How can we pretend to live in a civilized world when decade
after decade we witness such terrible crimes? We must condemn
these crimes of the past, of the present and of the future. We must
do so by recognizing the Armenian genocide for what it was, not
allow revisionists to rewrite history along with that of many of the
other atrocities that have occurred in the world.
Canada is a tolerant nation. Over half of its population are
Canadians of other origins. I believe that we live in a very tolerant
society where we respect each other and we respect the rule of law.
I believe that we must do something and encourage the UN to
implement an all-encompassing, international instruments which
codify crimes against humanity. Whenever some crime against
humanity occurs it not only affects the people directly involved but
also affects all of us no matter where we live.
1867
I hope that somehow around the world we are able to encourage
peace between nations in a swift manner.
(1740)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to my colleague opposite and I conclude in the end that he
thinks that the United Nations should find a way to deal with
crimes against humanity.
In my opinion, there are some inconsistencies between what we
are hearing today from the government side and reality.
I will remind the House that Pierre Sané, the president of
Amnesty International, was in Ottawa on April 11. He spoke on the
issue of human rights and trade.
I will highlight a number of points he raised. I believe he was
right when he said: ``The fight to protect human rights can only be
fought on a global scale otherwise it will be lost before it starts''.
He added: ``In this era of globalization, the question is to know how
to ensure that exchanges are not limited to goods, information and
money, but also include values''.
Could my colleague opposite explain through which magical
trick his Prime Minister believes that trading with countries with
no regard for human rights is going to address, just like in a crystal
ball, the issue of the violation of human rights? In this regard, I will
remind the House that in 1994, the Prime Minister said: ``I could
make resounding speeches on the issue and make headlines, but I
prefer to open markets and trade; eventually, the walls will fall''.
My colleague from Laval East said earlier that even the Canadian
Exporters' Association is considering a voluntary code with respect
to trade relations with countries that do not respect human rights.
How can the government believe that the issue of human rights
will be settled as if by magic?
[English]
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, one makes a choice as head of
government on how to deal with human rights. I believe that the
Prime Minister has chosen the right vehicle.
Isolation does not accomplish the shared values that we can
bring from our perspective to many peoples. Let us take China as a
prime example. I believe that by increasing interaction with the
Chinese and with our shared education, business and the other
values that we are able to share with one another, we see that they
start to get a sense of what Canada is all about and the values we
have as Canadians.
I can give an example. On Saturday I met with 40 Chinese
visitors that are in the union movement. They had taken a course in
Canada and met with many trade unionists. They had learned a
great deal in a short period of time. When I sat with them they said
basically what they saw in Canada was tolerance and respect for
one another. I asked: ``How do you see that helping you in China?''
The response was: ``What we saw was the partnership that occurred
within Canada between labour, business and government somehow
produced a sharing of goals, ideals and of course, economic
value''. They realize that if those in China who are working for
very low wages could improve their plight, somehow or other by
showing it from the perspective of a partnership and how their
enterprises would benefit by everyone sharing in the pie, they
would accomplish their goal.
(1745)
When we hear of that kind of example, and we would not have
dreamed of the Chinese having union movements considering what
we hear, there is hope. As long as we continue to interact and share
values, ideas, education, et cetera, there will be improvement,
especially when we take into account the new global economy and
satellite communication. It is very difficult to consider southern
China as being isolated when we take into account the fact that it
receives TV signals from Hong Kong and other places. The
Chinese are beginning to see how the rest of the world lives.
Sharing is what will accomplish the goal of achieving a freer
society. It will also provide an opportunity for us to work toward
the end of discrimination against people anywhere in the world. I
strongly believe that by communication we will be able to achieve
our goal.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 50 years ago the world emerged from one of the bloodiest
conflicts in our history. The international community got together
to try to reform the structure in which nations dealt with each other
to prevent that tragedy from reoccurring. Out of that catharsis came
the Bretton Woods institution and the United Nations.
Unfortunately, the last 50 years has proven that we have failed to
prevent genocide, we have failed to prevent conflicts from
occurring and we have failed to prevent inhumane disasters. From
Chechnya to Angola, from Cambodia to Rwanda, the world has
been completely ineffective in preventing these wars from
occurring. Rather than preventing conflict we have mired ourselves
in conflict management.
Rather than talking about the Armenian genocide of 1915, about
the holocaust and about Cambodia, rather than speaking of these
historical events, supplicating ourselves on the ground to God and
saying never again, we should use these historical tragedies to look
at what is happening today in the world and what is going to happen
tomorrow to prevent further conflicts and tragedy.
The conflict between North Korea and South Korea is one of the
hottest potential war zones which could easily become nuclear. We
see The Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi occurring again. We see
Kenya and the decimation of the Kikuyu by the Kelenjin tribe in
which Mr. Moi is implicitly involved. We see Nigeria and the
decimation of the Ogoni people. We see China and Taiwan, which
1868
could easily produce a conflagration that could leave millions dead.
We see Tadjikistan.
We see Turkish Kurdistan where as we speak elected members in
the Turkish parliament, Kurds, have been incarcerated without
trial, tortured and summary executions have taken place. We see
what is happening in the Middle East, the tragedy which has
occurred which our Parliament has spoken out strongly against in
the hope that peace can finally come to this ravaged area. It is an
area where there is little hope in the future for peace to occur unless
decisive action is taken.
These are the conflicts and the genocides of tomorrow. These are
the issues we must deal with if we are going to prevent millions of
people from dying unnecessarily and countries from being laid to
waste.
(1750)
One of the sad things I have found is that words without actions
are completely useless. Rather than being a collection of mere
words, I hope that today's debate will translate into definitive
actions to prevent genocides from occurring in the future. If we do
not do that the deaths of all the innocent people in previous
genocides will be for nothing.
As I have said before in this House, we have a very difficult
situation. It is difficult to prevent conflicts but it is not impossible.
There are solutions we can employ and solutions in which Canada
can take a leadership role.
It is easier to prevent a conflict than to deal with a conflict after
it has occurred. After a conflict has occurred the seeds of future
ethnic discontent, the seeds of future death, destruction and war are
laid out for generations to come. Once the killing begins, it is
impossible to turn back the hands of time. We must deal with
conflict before it occurs. It can be done. This is the challenge of the
post cold war era. This is the challenge I know our country can deal
with together with like minded nations. It will not cost us more
money. In fact, it will save us billions of dollars every year which I
will discuss later.
We have to identify the precursors to conflict such as
inappropriate militarization. Often there is a destruction of basic
human rights of a group of people. When one group of people is
dealt with preferentially over another an imbalance exists. Often
the result is a compromise of the human rights of a certain group of
individuals. This spirals and becomes early conflict, then more
widespread conflict. What often happens is a breakdown of
democratic and judicial structures in a country. These are the
warning signs of a potential conflict.
We must organize a warning system which uses
non-governmental organizations, peace building institutions and
countries, and diplomatic observer forces from the United Nations.
These groups can extract information and then feed it into the
United Nations crisis centre in New York. The information would
be fed directly into a security council, not the security council we
have today, but a modified security council. I will discuss that later.
The security council must bring forth non-military initiatives to try
to defuse the conflict before it occurs. In addressing these
precursors the following initiatives can take place.
There can be diplomatic initiatives from the United Nations to
try to bring the warring parties together. Positive information must
be put forth to try to defuse and dispel the myths that are often put
forth early in a conflict. We need not look any further than the
tragedy in the former Yugoslavia or what happened in Rwanda and
Burundi to see one of the early signs is that one group often puts
forth a lot of very negative hateful propaganda about another group
which polarizes groups under stress and leads to conflict. This can
be defused. The United Nations currently has mechanisms to
achieve that end but it is not employing them as aggressively as it
should. I hope that Mr. Fowler, our representative there, can take
the initiative to put this forth in the United Nations.
We can use the international financial institutions as
non-military levers in conflict prevention. It is a cutting edge issue
that we can put forth, but it requires changing the IFIs and their
function as we know it.
Some of the interventions they can make involve: using
economic levers on groups in conflict; providing economic and
technical help to potentially warring parties; providing technical
assistance on good governance and building up democratic
infrastructure; and providing loans to peace building groups in
order for them to pursue peace building initiatives by people in the
country in question. They could provide small repayable loans,
such as those of the Grameen Bank, to groups which are being
subjected to human rights abuse or where economic levers are
being used to push them down economically.
(1755)
Sanctions must be used very carefully so as not to harm those
who will suffer the most in these conflagrations.
Another approach which is not used often enough is to freeze the
assets of leaders who are flagrantly abusing the rights of their
citizens. This can be done to great effect. Unless we employ
measures that will directly affect these leaders where it counts, in
their pocketbooks, there will not be much change in their
behaviour. This could be applied to such individuals as General
Abacha of Nigeria, Mr. Moi of Kenya and others. By applying
financial
1869
restrictions and freezing their assets, a powerful lever can be
applied to their behaviour.
Implicit in this are changes to the UN Security Council. The way
it is structured now, these suggestions cannot and will not work. I
suggest expanding the United Nations Security Council to involve
the top 32 economic countries in the world. Many would argue that
it is unfair. The reality is that he who pays the piper calls the tune
and that is the premise it has to be based on. It is not fair, but it is
certainly better than what we have today. We must also provide that
there is no veto power. All decisions of the security council must be
made with a two-thirds majority.
These changes are necessary. We cannot use the 1940s model of
international co-operation which has failed to deal with the present
geopolitical situation in the world which does not resemble the
world situation of 1945. The current structure has hamstrung our
ability to pursue peace and avoid the genocide we are talking about
today.
Some would argue that the aggressive interventions I have
addressed today are not going to be useful and they are not allowed,
that they are somehow illegal. That is simply not true. The United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights presupposes that a nation's
affairs are not sacrosanct. What is sacrosanct are the basic human
rights of the individual. In other words, international law protects
the individual, not the integrity of the nation state. That should be a
very important consideration if these changes are to be made.
There is also an economic rationale for early intervention in
these areas to prevent a conflict rather than managing the conflict
at a later time. We only need to look at the statistics of the last five
years to see that peacekeeping costs have skyrocketed way out of
proportion and the demands on peacekeeping are going to increase
in the future. We cannot allow this to happen. It is simply not
sustainable. Therefore, these conflicts must be prevented.
All countries, Canada included, are hamstrung by their current
economic situation, their debts and deficits. We do not have the
money to get involved in these conflicts. The time is coming when
we will not be able to carry out peacekeeping duties which our
military men and women have done so admirably, honourably and
bravely for so long.
I suggest that Canada cannot do this herself. Canada has an
international reputation for fairness and good diplomatic initiatives
which is unrivalled in the world. Canada is known to be fair and
above board, unlike many other countries. We ought to bring like
minded nations, such as New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Sweden,
The Netherlands and Belgium, together as a group and then try to
influence international structures around the world for peace
building. As I said, we cannot do this alone. We have to do this in a
multinational fashion. We can get these groups together right now
to start.
(1800)
If we are to have peace we will need all parties involved in a
potential conflagration on board. We cannot deny any one group
representing the people. We have to also pursue democratic and
judicial peace building initiatives in a potential conflagration.
Another issue we are avoiding in peace building is the economic
issue. A country will never be able to get on its feet unless the
economic structures are there for the people to stand on their own
two feet and provide for themselves.
The former Yugoslavia is an excellent case in point. The Dayton
peace plan which produced the international implementation force
there today is a noble and good solution for the short term. It will
not, though, provide peace in Bosnia in the long term. The reason is
unless the people in Bosnia can have the economic infrastructure
and can then stand on their own two feet and provide for
themselves we will always have conflict. We will always have
people struggling to get the basic necessities for themselves that
are simply not there.
When the basic necessities are not there then we have a desperate
population which is prepared and willing by necessity to whatever
it has to do to get those basic needs met. That includes conflict.
Those have to be provided. We cannot do it ourselves, and I am
not suggesting that. The international community must work with
the nations involved and the belligerents involved to build up the
infrastructure. In the former Yugoslavia a greater responsibility
must be placed on the shoulders of the European Union.
The world has seen the proliferation of internecine conflicts.
They have littered the face of the globe over the last 50 years. The
international community has been completely unable to prevent
conflict. We have managed it sometimes well, sometimes poorly,
but we have neglected and have been unable to prevent the
genocides from occurring.
We can do this and we must do it. I have given some suggestions
I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will take into consideration.
The way to sell this not only to the Canadian people but also other
countries is not only on the basis of humanitarian grounds, which
are ample, but on the basis of self-interest.
Unfortunately we will not be able to get anything done unless we
argue in a nation's self-interest. If we do not prevent conflicts
nation states are laid waste, we have migration of refugees, we
have increasing demands on our defence forces, our foreign aid and
our domestic social programs. These are costs that hit home. We
can prevent these. It takes an investment now but the saving in the
long term will be far greater than the investment we do today.
1870
A negotiator in the Palestinian peace process once said peace
is when a child buries its parents; war is when a parent buries its
child. I hope we can do something to prevent in the future more
children being buried unnecessarily.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the member on his speech, on his knowledge of
international law and on the excellent suggestions he made for
reforms to our international institutions. As this debate is winding
down, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the entire
Canadian Armenian community and members of the Armenian
National Committee of Canada are watching us today. And I salute
those who are present in the gallery. As the hon. member was
saying, words without action are meaningless.
(1805)
In a few minutes we will be called upon to vote in various
divisions on the proposal I put forward. We have achieved much
today through this sensitization to the cause of the Armenians, the
history of peoples and the history of humanity. But words have
meaning.
I therefore salute the member's party for intervening to prevent
the watering down of the motion and to prevent our calling a
tragedy what is a genocide. I would like to hear him a little more on
this attempt at watering down in particular.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, what
we are trying to do in the House is apply the tragedy that occurred
in Armenia in 1915 to what is occurring today and what will occur
in the future.
I hope the purpose for this motion is not only to mourn, to
commemorate and to teach all of us what occurred in the past, but
to use this and other genocides such as what occurred in Europe
during the Holocaust and in Cambodia during the vicious regime of
Pol Pot to build for the future a constructive, formalized plan for
Canada and its neighbours in the international community to
prevent these events from occurring again.
As I have said before, the people who have died during the
genocides in the past, their lives will have been wasted for little if
we do not act today. It is incumbent on all of us to act on history by
making the future a better, stronger and more peaceful future for all
people.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
debate today has been a very high level debate, one which restores
to the public the sense that this is a place to deal with important and
significant issues not only for our own country but for all of
humanity.
I particularly appreciated the comment from my colleague
opposite concerning the need for this to not just be a day in memory
of tragic events throughout the history of mankind but a day of
dedication to action.
I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Don Valley North who
first brought forward this type of motion at this time last year. He is
quite gratified by the nature of the debate that has taken place in the
House.
There is no question genocide in a number of forms throughout
history has been one of the primary manifestations of the
inhumanity people can exercise toward one another.
I ask my colleague if he would not agree that crimes against
humanity go beyond genocide, that they take numerous forms.
Certainly war crimes would be some of those. The deliberate
starvation of people and the deliberate disruption of people from
their homes would also be part of crimes against humanity. These
are all tragedies.
I prefer the wording before us in the amendment. It refers much
more broadly to crimes against humanity and to the tragedy of such
events. I wonder why the member wants to focus in by narrowing
the description to genocide.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I think
implicit in this statement is the idea that this motion not deals with
not only genocide but other inhumane tragedies that are occurring
as we speak.
(1810)
She alluded to a number of very important ones, from the rape of
innocent civilian women in the former Yugoslavia to forced
starvation and summary executions and torture in far away places
such as East Timor, Chechnya and the Sudan. All of these are
taking place today. We need today as a stepping stone to deal with
genocide and also to deal with these other inhumanities.
I know there are many good ideas in the House today that can be
applied to the genocides of yesterday and the genocides of
tomorrow and also to deal with these multiple inhumanities that
litter the globe today.
Again it requires early intervention. Prevention is better than
dealing with actions after they have occurred. I welcome the hon.
member and any other members to come together through perhaps
the committee on foreign affairs or directly through the Minister of
Foreign Affairs to put forth many of the good suggestions they
have where Canada can take a leadership role in addressing these
tragic inhumane situations.
We live in a democracy today. We have that amazing freedom to
put forth these ideas and to translate these ideas into action. I have
no doubt that some of the fine ideas put forth today and some of the
big problems my hon. friend has alluded to can be dealt with and
1871
addressed. Canada can take a leadership role in putting those forth
in the international theatre.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I, too,
want to thank and commend the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan
de Fuca for his speech.
Reform members have often had a narrow view of things, but not
in this case. I think the hon. member who just spoke managed to
open up the debate, to talk about genocide, which is at the heart of
the motion before us today. He managed to extend the debate to the
broad issue of human rights.
Today's debate allowed us, I think, to address issues of vital
importance for the future of humankind. There are still major
issues we barely spoke about. In my car this morning, I was
listening to a news report that there are now one million
antipersonnel mines around the world. Given how slowly they are
being removed, they said it would take 1,000 years to remove them
all. What is really sad is that such mines are still being laid. I can
only conclude that the work will never end.
Yesterday, there was another news report on CBC about child
soldiers. In Liberia, children who are only 7, 8 or 10 years old are
being asked to murder people, something the military are
sometimes reluctant to do for fear of the consequences. So they
send children instead. My colleague from the Reform Party also
talked about a reform of the Security Council. I think this may help
resolve some of the problems being debated today.
I would like to end with a question. The hon. member mentioned
at one point in his comments that we could use our economic levers
to intervene in conflicts. Does he not agree that, by setting a foreign
policy that is totally focused on trade, the Canadian government
has deprived itself of some of the levers available to it in the past?
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for the question. I absolutely agree with him that
the government has in part abrogated its responsibility by putting
trade above human rights.
They are not mutually exclusive principles. They can occur hand
in hand. You do not have to abrogate your responsibilities to the
businesses in this country by just dealing with human rights
because it is not fair to them.
However, to ignore human rights ignores that constructive,
effective and economic interactions between countries is
predicated on peace. If you do not have peace you will not have
trade. Therefore both are two parts of the same whole and both can
be dealt with in co-operation. I think the international community
and the business sector must have a vested interest in peace
building. I know the government can deal with both without the
exclusion of the other.
(1815)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in this debate on the Armenian genocide and I want to
salute my Armenian friends from Montreal who are in the gallery.
An hon. member: And from Toronto.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, my friends from Toronto and throughout
Canada.
Needless to say I strongly support the Bloc Quebecois motion,
which states that, on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the
Armenian genocide that started on April 24, 1915, this House and
the federal government recognize the week of April 20 to 27 of
each year as the week to commemorate man's inhumanity to man.
I cannot support the government's amendment, as this was a
genocide, not a tragedy. The extermination of one and a half
million human beings is not a simple tragedy, it is a genocide. I
commend my hon. colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, a riding
next to mine, for the great work he has done on this issue.
As you know, I was born in Latin America, an area that has gone
through dictatorships and civil wars, which have resulted in
millions of murders, disappearances and blatant violations of the
most basic human rights. I am therefore very sensitive to the ordeal
the Armenian people have gone through. This people has been
persecuted for centuries, but one event defies the imagination: the
genocide that took the lives of one and a half million Armenian
men, women and children between 1915 and 1917. I should point
out that these were unarmed and often defenceless civilians.
During this tragic period of our history, more than 2,000
churches and 200 monasteries were desecrated, while half a million
survivors were exiled and forced to live in foreign countries and
with foreign cultures. Unfortunately, no reparation has taken place
and no action has been taken against those responsible for this
genocide.
Armenians are now scattered all around the world, in the United
States, Canada, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, France, Lebanon, Syria and so
on. But half of them are still living in Armenia. Canada's cultural
heritage has been enriched by the arrival of 60,000 Armenians, I
am told, 25,000 of whom live in Quebec.
As an immigrant myself and in my capacity as the official
opposition critic for citizenship and immigration, I want to salute
all our fellow citizens of Armenian origin and to recognize their
most valuable contributions to Canada and Quebec. It is a very
active and dynamic community whose members are present in all
sectors of society, including economy, trade, social and community
organizations, culture and politics.
1872
I take this opportunity to salute the hon. member for Don Valley
North, who is the first member of Armenian origin to sit in this
House. As you know, I am the first member of Latin American
origin to sit in Parliament. We share the same responsibility and
honour.
The Armenian community is well integrated to its host country
and it is also well structured. It has its own schools, churches and
cultural centres. In spite of the hardships, Armenians managed to
preserve their language, culture, traditions and values. Last
Sunday, I delivered a speech in Saint-Laurent's Alex Manoogian
school, during the commemoration of the 81st anniversary of the
Armenian genocide.
(1820)
I was very touched when a wreath was laid in honour of the
martyrs by a man of over 85 years of age, who was a survivor of
that genocide in Armenia, in 1915.
I am proud that the Government of Quebec and the National
Assembly recognized the Armenian genocide, as did Ontario,
Russia, Israel and the European Parliament. I am also pleased by
the attitude and the action of Uruguay's president, who took part in
a ceremony to commemorate this genocide.
As for the UN committee on the prevention of discrimination
and the protection of minorities, it adopted, on August 29, 1985, a
report which states that the 1915 extermination of Armenians is an
example of genocide.
Meanwhile, the Canadian government merely deplored the fact
that a large number of Armenians were killed during the wars that
marked the end of the Ottoman empire, and extended its sympathy
to the Armenian community. Given its tradition of democracy and
respect for human rights, I hope that, some day, Canada will
formally and clearly recognize the Armenian genocide. Why is the
Canadian government waiting to make this long-awaited decision
by Armenians and, I think, by Quebecers and Canadians as well?
The government should stop making speeches and start taking
concrete action. Even senator Bob Dole, who is now a candidate to
the U.S. presidency, criticized Turkey for refusing to recognize the
Armenian genocide.
I also want to express my support for the construction of a
memorial for the Armenian martyrs by the city of Montreal. Mayor
Pierre Bourque promised to erect such a monument in
Marcelin-Wilson park, at the corner of Henri-Bourassa and
l'Acadie boulevards, not far from my riding. The ground was
broken for it in a ceremony on April 22, 1995 attended by various
VIPs but then, seemingly as a result of pressures from the Turkish
and Canadian governments, the work was stopped.
It must be noted, however, that such monuments are already in
place in a number of cities throughout the world, in France,
Lebanon, the United States, Switzerland, Colombia, Argentina,
even in Toronto and Ville-St-Laurent in Canada. There are plans in
Los Angeles to build an Armenian genocide museum. I therefore
appeal to the mayor of Montreal to keep his promise to erect a
monument to the Armenian martyrs.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to point out the
worrisome state of human rights in the world. According to
Amnesty International, torture is still practiced in more than one
hundred countries. Basic human rights are being violated in
Liberia, Algeria, Indonesia, China and other countries. Despite
some improvements in Latin America, Amnesty International, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and a number of
NGOs have condemned certain countries' use of torture, violence,
repression, forced relocation of indigenous communities, the
emergence of paramilitary groups, disappearances and impunity.
I feel it is my duty to condemn in this House the contradictions
and lack of cohesiveness in the Canadian government's record in
promoting democracy and human rights. When the Liberals were in
opposition, they had a great deal to say about it, but now they are in
power, they place trade before human rights.
This government does nothing to dissuade Canadian companies
that invest in countries that do not respect human rights. It ought to
follow the example of the European Union, which has taken such
actions as making it illegal to import rugs that have been made by
child labour.
The Canadian government ought to ensure that its trade
agreements include clauses on the respect of human rights. It must
be realized that repressive governments lead to instability, which is
not propitious to trade and to investment.
I thank the Armenian community for marking, each year, the sad
anniversary of this genocide. It has all my admiration and esteem,
and deservedly so, for its struggle, its courage, its faithfulness to its
language, its culture and its traditions.
It has not forgotten, nor will it ever forget, this tragic event. I
support its efforts and tenacity in persuading the international
community to do justice to its nation. I salute all those of Armenian
origin, and offer them my sympathy and my undying solidarity.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank those who participated in
this debate. It is the first time this issue has been debated in
Canadian history.
I also want to thank the parties involved, in this case the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party. I regret that the
NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party did not participate in
the debate.
I think it is incumbent on all of us to stand for one moment of
silence for the victims of genocide.
1873
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence].
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.27 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 38)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -93
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Augustine
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peters
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-118
1874
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
(1855 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment to
the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be
unanimous consent for the question to be deemed to have been put
and that the result would be that applied to the previous motion in
reverse.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. whip of the
official opposition agree?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting with
the government on this issue.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for the
amendment.
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I am voting with the
government.
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I am also voting with the government
on this amendment.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the government
on this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While we are going through
this process, while individual members are rising to indicate their
vote, the table officers and I are having some difficulty in hearing
clearly what that vote is. I ask the indulgence and co-operation of
the House.
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
with the government on the amendment.
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting
with the government on this amendment.
(1900 )
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with
the government on this amendment.
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as
voting with the government on the government amendment.
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as supporting
this amendment.
Mr.
Peric:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting for the
government on this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Could I ask the whip for the
New Democratic Party to indicate the vote for the New Democratic
Party?
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are following the suggestion by the
hon. government whip.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the
amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 39)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-129
1875
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -93
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on the main motion as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
1875
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 18 consideration of
the motion that Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain
laws relating to financial institutions be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the
third reading stage of Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal
certain laws relating to financial institutions.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent
that members who voted on the amendment by the secretary of
state be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote no,
except for those who might wish to vote yes.
(1905 )
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party votes nay.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the motion.
Mrs. Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting
yes on this motion.
Mr. Dromisky: I vote yea on Bill C-15.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 40)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
1876
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-131
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -93
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from April 19, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, be read the third time and passed, as well as of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment by Mrs.
Lalonde, at third reading of Bill C-11, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts.
The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the House is prepared to give its
unanimous consent, I suggest that the vote that was taken on the
preceding motion be applied to the motion now before the House,
but in reverse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
1877
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 41)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -93
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-131
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
negatived.
1878
[English]
The House resumed from Monday, April 22, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health
and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at
third reading stage of Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department
of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the House were to give its
unanimous consent, I believe that all members who voted on the
previous motion could be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will vote no except
those who wish to exercise their right to a free vote.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats will vote no.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, can I get clarification? Are we on
Bill C-11 or Bill C-18?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are dealing with Bill
C-18.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, in that case may I register the vote of
Reformers as being yes except for those who wish to exercise their
right in another way.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 42)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-172
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
1879
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Sauvageau
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont) -52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
(1910)
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11,
an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the House to take the vote on the main motion for third
reading of Bill C-11 by applying in reverse the vote taken on the
amendment to the motion, which we discussed in the House a while
ago.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Is there unanimous
consent to apply the vote as indicated by the chief government
whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, could I get clarification once again?
The chief government whip has turned the order over. We have
gone from the amendment to Bill C-11 to Bill C-18 and now we are
back to Bill C-11. Are we quite sure we are on the main motion of
Bill C-11?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are dealing with the
main motion on Bill C-11.
Mr. Ringma: Reform members will vote no, except those who
wish to exercise their right to do otherwise.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 43)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-132
1880
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-92
PAIRED MEMBERS
Canuel
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Kirkby
St-Laurent
Venne
Wells
(Bill read the third time and passed).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the delay there will be no Private Members'
Business today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for
another sitting.
1880
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1915)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many of the constituents in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka are directly affected by recent changes to
FEDNOR programming. As a new initiative, this will have a
positive impact on their businesses.
I wholeheartedly support the government's renewed
commitment to regional economic development in northern
Ontario. The budget for this program is being increased to $60
million over three years. The government is assuring that this
money is being wisely invested on programs and services that work
to increase the economic and employment potential in northern
Ontario.
In his response to my initial question, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry referenced an approximate
fivefold leveraging of money from Canada's financial institutions
to help get capital into the hands of northern Ontario's small
business men and women.
This partnering is an excellent example of how government and
the private sector can work together for the benefit of small
businesses. This is very good news for northern Ontario. Improved
access to capital constantly dominates small business' wish list. It
is one very important part of the recently announced FEDNOR
initiative and is an improvement that my colleagues and I in
northern Ontario worked very hard to see implemented.
The government has also worked persistently to get more money
into the hands of Canada's small business men and women so they
in turn can invest in their businesses, expand their services and
most importantly, hire fellow Canadians.
The government's renewed FEDNOR initiative emphasizes
working with private and public sector partners to facilitate in five
specific areas: access to capital which I mentioned; enhanced
business competitiveness; community economic development;
networking, and providing a stronger regional voice for the north.
This emphasis on developing specific tools for northern Ontario
businesses is of critical importance in the communities in my
riding and in communities across northern Ontario. I strongly
support the partnership approach in the new initiative which creates
1881
an environment in which small businesses can create wealth and
jobs in northern Ontario.
It is also significant to note that not only are the programs being
improved but service delivery is being made more efficient.
FEDNOR's operating expenditures will be reduced by 40 per cent.
The existing Community Futures development corporation will
become a major delivery component of this program, making
highly effective use of resources that are already in place in
northern Ontario. These organizations will be provided new capital
and given the tools to attract additional private sector investment.
Also, the new FEDNOR program will be providing up to $4
million in direct investment in tourism, another very important
component of the economy in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka. This will be done through co-operative
marketing initiatives and through the development of specialty
tourism packages and training.
The government cares about northern Ontario. It understands its
role to create an environment in which the small business
community of northern Ontario can create jobs. The changes to
FEDNOR demonstrate this Liberal government's commitment to a
jobs and growth agenda.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1995 a major conference was organized in
Timmins on the economic development needs of northern Ontario.
Over 200 northern Ontario stakeholders attended.
The results of the conference were analysed by expert groups
that formulated recommendations which were further refined by
regional sounding boards comprising a cross section of regional
interests.
The new FEDNOR will work closely with all existing regional
economic development stakeholders, including the province. It
seeks to create a permanent set of local capabilities to support jobs
and growth while reducing overlap and duplication. Under the new
FEDNOR, small businesses will have better access to the
information, services and capital they need to be successful.
(1920)
FEDNOR will increase the availability of capital in northern
Ontario by forming partnerships with financial institutions to
provide new forms of higher risk financing of small businesses. It
will also provide additional capital to community futures
development corporations to further develop their micro-lending
programs.
Finally, FEDNOR will provide start-up financing for emerging,
innovative small businesses as well as for such activities as
non-bankable R and D specialized training.
FEDNOR remains a work in progress which will continue to
evolve to meet the needs of northern Ontario. Future priorities
include programs to address the equity and quasi-equity needs of
intermediate small businesses having difficulty attracting venture
capital, initiatives to meet the special needs of aboriginal
entrepreneurs and northern Ontario's francophone communities
and measures to improve the economic prospects of women and
youth.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
essence this intervention is to urge the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans not to give away key federal powers.
Let me explain. Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans not to delegate to the provinces section 35(2) of the
Fisheries Act. In brief, this section prohibits the harmful
alternation, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless
authorized by the minister or under regulations.
If section 35(2) is delegated to the provinces it could no longer
serve as a trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The result would be less protection for our streams, our shorelines
and wetlands when it comes to the environmental assessment
process.
Instead the suggestion is being made that environmental
assessment be carried out only on large projects, as some are
proposing. I submit this is not desirable because dealing with large
projects only means that the cumulative effect of small projects
would not be taken into account.
In the past the government has, on occasion, delegated certain
powers under the Fisheries Act to the provinces but it should be
cautious and learn from experience. For example, in his 1990
report the auditor general points out that when powers were
delegated to the provinces for monitoring and enforcement of
mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, compliance
fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988.
This poor track record is now compounded by the fact that some
provincial governments such as the Harris government in Ontario
are deeply cutting their ministries of the environment and natural
resources. These are the ministries that would be charged with
monitoring and enforcing the federal powers such as the protection
of freshwater fish habitat under section 35(2).
For example, the Ontario government is cutting 752 staff from
the Ministry of the Environment and Energy and 2,170 from the
Ministry of Natural Resources. Furthermore, with the
implementation of Bill 26 and the repeal of the Planning Act
legislation, the Harris government has effectively eliminated
protection for environmentally significant areas in the province of
Ontario.
1882
In light of this massive dismantling of environmental
regulations, can the minister of state responsible for natural
resources assure the House that he and the government will not
give away section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act and actually retain that
section as a federal power so that the trigger offered by the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will not be lost and its
benefits to the Canadian population and future natural resources
not damaged?
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans administers a piece of
legislation, the Fisheries Act, which contains very broad
prohibitions against the destruction of fish and their habitat. In
simple terms, no one can modify a fish habitat without being
authorized to do so by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, which,
by the way, is the only one empowered to grant such authorizations.
Many human activities can alter fish habitat, from the
construction of a culvert to the damming of large rivers to generate
electricity.
Reviewing development proposals to determine their potential
impact on fish habitat is a key component of DFO's habitat
management program. Like all other DFO activities, this program
is being assessed as part of the program review.
In other words, the department asked itself if maintaining this
function was justified. The provinces are also reviewing a number
of these development proposals according to their own legislation
on the environment as well as on land and water use.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans wondered whether its
was appropriate for two levels of government to be involved in
projects of such little significance as building a drainage trench or
if efforts should not be made instead to identify any potential areas
of duplication and overlap with a view to eliminating them. I think
that the choice was obvious.
As the hon. member knows, this government's intention to take a
more efficient approach to freshwater fish habitat management in
closer partnership with the provinces was clearly stated in the
speech from the throne. The challenge now facing all levels of
government will be to identify those sectors where activities can be
streamlined while at the same time ensuring the level of protection
that we all want for the environment in general and fisheries
resources in particular.
To conclude, I can assure the hon. member that the government
attaches and will continue to attach great importance to the
protection of fish habitat and to the integrity of the environmental
assessment process.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.)