(back to beginning of this debate)

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, 35 years ago, I was in the House of Commons. I organized the first visit of the Armenian community to Parliament. Thirty-five years is a long time. I have been close to the Armenian community during that time. The able Deputy Prime Minister of Quebec, who is now in the Senate, the member from Îsle-Saint-Laurent who was a municipal councillor, and many other members of the House of Commons, the Senate and the National Assembly of Quebec have all been close to the Armenian community. I am the oldest.

I recall all the speeches that I made in the House of Commons over the years that are simply in favour of the Armenian cause. I did not speak out against any other country. I know the sensitivity of our friend from Turkey on this issue. I am not part of any cabal against one country in favour of another.

I have been carrying on my work of dealing with many diverse issues at international gatherings. I recently returned from Cuba with the Honourable Senator Finestone who acted as presiding officer of the International Parliamentary Union.

Had today's date not been April 24, I would not have spoken. Senator Maheu's motion makes specific reference to April 24. Perhaps a miracle will happen on this day and we will find ourselves in total agreement.

When I sit down, senators will be asked if anyone else wishes to speak. If nobody wishes to speak, perhaps someone will ask to adjourn the debate in his or her name. I do not know what will happen.

The motion is clear. It does not require that I make a speech. My views on this issue are on record in the House of Commons and in Montreal, Quebec, and I have expressed them for over35 years. I even studied this issue with the late Honourable Jean-Luc Pépin who was my professor of political science. He dealt with this issue at the University of Ottawa in the 1950s when studying the Treaty of Sèvre, which everyone signed and forgot thereafter.

I wanted to be on record. My friends in the Armenian community will understand that I could have spoken much longer on this issue. However, they know where I stand. I hope that our friends, good Canadians of Turkish origin, will not take this as an insult to them. I know how strongly they feel. However, this is a historical event. I know other senators will want to participate in this debate,

Usually I attend all the commemorative events on April 24. However, this year I was unable to do so.

(1840)

However, I wanted to be on record as having stood up today to say that I do support this clear motion by Senator Maheu and by our new friend, Honourable Senator Setlakwe. I thought Senator Setlakwe was of Lebanese origin, but he is of Armenian origin. It is good that I also put that on record today. Senator Setlakwe did so in his own speech.

Honourable senators, I am on record. I have spoken. I support this great motion, especially today, April 24.

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I wish to speak to this issue that was raised by Senator Maheu, and I congratulate her for bringing it to the floor of the Senate. However, I would urge caution and sober second thought before we leap into the middle of what seems to be a controversial and hotly contested issue.

There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Armenian, Turkish and Russian descent. All of these historic groups played a role in what happened in Anatolia between 1912 and 1922. These groups all have very strong and, indeed, properly emotional opinions on what exactly transpired. I believe this issue deserves study from many perspectives before any pronouncement should issue from this place.

First, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in and around Anatolia, that troubled area of the world, between 1912 and 1922. Estimates of the dead range from just under 600,000 to, more recently, 1.5 million Armenian Christians and up to 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims. We may never know exactly how many died or what happened to each of those lost millions of individuals, but by any measure the loss of human life was staggering and heartbreaking.

Senator Setlakwe has told us how two generations of his own family were decimated by the slaughter. I have heard from members of the Turkish-Canadian community whose families were also destroyed.

Was this awful slaughter/genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire in its death throes, or was it serious and bitter inter-communal warfare between warring groups of Christians and Muslims that resulted in incredible suffering and relocation of and by both groups, in eastern Anatolia, particularly? I do not know.

The term "genocide" was coined towards the end of World War II to describe an official government policy of systematic killing of a group of people defined by race, religion or ethnicity.

As Senator Maheu pointed out, the United Nations, in 1948, set up the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention is now recognized by most of the nations of the world, including modern Turkey. Does this awful slaughter of both Armenians and Turks meet the very strict "minimum standards of proof," required under the UN convention? Again, I do not know. This is clearly a matter for scholars and historians with more knowledge and more resources than we have in this place to decide.

I do know that there is an enormous amount of disagreement between present-day Turks and Armenians over the historical facts of the matter. The two sides disagree vehemently on many of the precise charges that both Senator Maheu and Senator Wilson raised in their speeches on this controversial subject. Furthermore, these disagreements extend to many peaceful groups of Canadian citizens.

As I noted at the outset, there are many Canadians of Armenian and Turkish descent who have diametrically opposed views on what happened during those 10 horrific years. There is even disagreement over whether or not that monster Hitler did say those horrifying words, "Who, after all, today speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?" Apparently even several contemporary Nazi records of that speech do not include the word "Armenians," and the Nuremberg trials were unable to authenticate it. The speech was actually a diatribe against Poland and the Polish people.

I am compelled to ask: What would be the value of inflaming the disagreements between groups of Canadians on such a complex and deeply emotional issue by taking a stand without hearing fairly and dispassionately from both sides?

I believe we would all agree that for thousands of years people living in that area have had great difficulty living together in peace, as members of so many different ethnic, religious and nationalist groups have fought to find a way to live and to coexist. There have been dozens of wars fought in this broader region in just the last 200 years as a result of these ethnic, religious and nationalist tensions, each more complex than the last.

A study of the bloody history of that area of the world seems to suggest that leading up to, during and after World War I, as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, times were even more chaotic and passions were perhaps even more inflamed. I do not believe that it is advisable for this place to make a pronouncement on who was right and who was wrong during those woeful years without some serious study on both sides of the issue.

Honourable senators, I should like to shed a rather different light on a few points that may help to illustrate the fact that there is another view of what happened during those years. Some evidence seems to suggest that wherever the Ottomans still held firm control during that time, such as in and around Istanbul, no mass killing occurred. The Armenian population of those areas not only survived in great numbers, but their churches remained open throughout the period. We do know that as the Ottoman Empire crumbled, groups of Armenians wished to form their own homeland and that some who held that view organized militarily to destabilize the remnants of the empire in the hopes of creating that homeland.

Finally, I have been told that, after the Russian revolution, many Armenians from the area were supported by the Russian army and even armed by the Russian army and encouraged to rebel violently against Ottoman control of Anatolia.

(1630)

I freely admit that I cannot confirm any of the information that I have just given you, but I can safely say that many do believe it to be fact and have researched at length to prove its veracity. I have seen some of the research and some of it is pretty compelling.

Honourable senators, perhaps a bit of information about modern Turkey would be of use in our thought processes on this matter. Turkey straddles the Bosporus with territory in both Europe and Asia. This extremely strategic location places it right at the crossroads of the world. It controls the southern sea access to Russia and to five other European and Asian countries through the Bosporus and the Black Sea. It controls the historic land routes from Europe to the Middle East and beyond to Africa, India, and even to China.

Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe but has been unsuccessful so far in gaining admittance to the European Union, I believe mainly because of its - to be polite - somewhat mixed record on human rights. In fact, currently there are about 500 prisoners in the jails of Turkey who have been on a hunger strike for the past five or six months over conditions within the prisons. Twenty of them have died, including three women.

However, I believe that Turkey is the only predominantly Islamic nation in the world with a secular, democratically elected government. It is our ally in NATO. Like Canada, Turkey has a strong separatist movement - the Kurds - but their separatists have been very violent in the recent past.

Unlike Canada, Turkey is surrounded by neighbours, some with historically expansionist ideas, who many Turks believe still covet portions of this strategically located country.

I ask honourable senators once again: Should the Senate of Canada be inserting itself into such a controversial issue without at least hearing from both sides and without hearing from independent scholars and historians? That is not the way we in this place deal with even the least controversial of bills from the other place.

Should we be inserting ourselves into an issue between two other countries, both of which I feel have themselves an obligation to open their archives to independent researchers to try to settle this matter? In fact, I have even heard it suggested that this is not only a historical matter arising from the bloody massacres of the early 1900s but could also be a weapon to be used in a potential future political issue between Turkey and Armenia dealing with reparations and boundaries.

Canada has a very hard-won reputation in that area of the world as a peacekeeper, as an impartial broker between warring factions. I would certainly want to take some time in sober second thought before voting for anything that might erode that reputation or that might put some peaceful and entirely innocent groups of Canadian citizens, of either Turkish or Armenian ancestry, at odds with each other.

Honourable senators, I repeat that I do not believe we should be taking a stand on this deeply troubling issue until historians, unbiased researchers and scholars have had full access to any archives that may hold documents about that terrible time. I call urgently on the governments of Turkey, Armenia, Syria and Russia to open their archives to these independent researchers and to let the scholarly light of history shine in.

Honourable senators, I cannot support this motion. I believe the world has yet to hear the full story and so I urge you to vote against it.

[Translation]

On motion of Senator Robichaud, for Senator Bacon, debate adjourned.

Thursday, May 10, 2001

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, this particular item is in the name of the Honourable Senator Bacon. I hope that she will allow me to speak. She could then take the adjournment, if she so wishes.

I rise today to participate in the debate of Senator Maheu's motion. The senator, along with our colleagues Senator Setlakwe and Senator Wilson, have been spirited in their support of this motion. Today, I will restrict my comments to the first part of Senator Maheu's motion. I should add that I do not believe, as the honourable senator proposes in the second part of the motion, that the Senate has the authority to designate a particular day of remembrance for anyone or any group. Senator Maheu's motion would perhaps be better served by removing the second part by way of an amendment. In that way, it would not take away from the main purpose of her motion.

Honourable senators, Senator Maheu's motion asks us to consider condemning acts of barbarism and atrocities of unspeakable magnitude committed against Armenians many decades ago.

(1450)

What happened during those dark days has been the subject of opposing and strongly held views since the events first occurred. However, one unaltered fact remains - uncountable numbers of men, women and children were killed during the period in question.

Honourable senators, the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians, which resulted in so many deaths, was yet another of the many manifestations of man's beastial tendencies toward his own race. The human animal, it seems to me, is the only one capable of seeing its own kind as vermin to be exterminated - the only inhabitant of the animal kingdom that is capable of killing for sport, killing for trophies and killing for revenge.

This atrocious behaviour is nothing new. It has been happening since the dawn of time and continues today in many parts of the world. Honourable senators, some of us were reminded of this today at the prayer breakfast, when General Dallaire pointed out this great failing that we have, as human beings. A cynic would say that it is part of our makeup as human beings, particularly when madness invades our hearts - a condition from which none of us is totally immune.

Honourable senators, to be more precise, Senator Maheu's motion asks us to recommend to the Government of Canada that it recognize that the Armenians were victims of genocide. "Genocide," as all honourable senators are aware, is one of the strongest words in the English language. It conjures up unspeakable images of ovens, trenches, killing fields and mass graveyards. Whether we agree with Senator Maheu's motion, it behooves us to take it seriously.

Honourable senators, support for the Armenian cause has been widespread. Recently, Pope Paul expressed a favourable opinion. I understand that many Turks, including some eminent scholars, have also taken up the cause. They are urging their government to acknowledge the events and apologize to the Armenians for the atrocities committed against them. Some are even demanding that a full and open public inquiry be held. These people have been joined by a group of Turks in Germany, said to number in the thousands, who have also condemned the Turkish government for its refusal to acknowledge the behaviour of its predecessors.

Honourable senators, I will say a word or two about this issue from the Turkish point of view. In a nutshell, the Turks placed the event in the larger context of a crumbling empire under siege. For 700 years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over significant parts of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. At the time in question, the Ottoman Empire was besieged and contested by both enemies from without and nationalist independence movements from within. Within this context, the Armenian community, or parts of it at least, took up arms against the Ottoman Empire to further its particular cause. The Turkish response to this led to the events that we are discussing today.

Honourable senators, if history has taught us nothing, it is that no race, nationality or creed has an exclusive hold on evil. None of our ancestors are blameless or free of the blemish of guilt. Indeed, I wonder if we will ever eradicate that pernicious trait that is the desire to do ill to our fellow humans.

Honourable senators, perhaps our saving grace will be the fact that as humans, we at least have the ability to reason, to feel pain and pleasure, and to recognize the value of a sincere expression of regret. We are able to express sorrow and forgiveness.

Unfortunately, sorrow and forgiveness in the case of the Armenians and the Turks appear to be in very short supply. I find it difficult to accept the stubbornness of governments to apologize for wrongs committed by them or their predecessors. Such intractability seems nonsensical and an obstacle to social harmony. Such harmony is one of the highest goals of any national government.

A wonderful recent exception to this apparent rule occurred in South Africa, where, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, they created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Honourable senators, this commission made brave and commendable efforts to foster forgiveness. In so doing, it made the transition between apartheid and real democracy less painful than might otherwise have been the case.

I wonder, honourable senators, if the Senate could not play a more useful role by recommending a similar process to the Turks and the Armenians to help them resolve their differences.

There was an article on the weekend in The Globe and Mail that contained one particular quote that I would like to read to you dealing with forgiveness. Forgiveness, Tutu said:

...requires opening up wounds that you thought had been closed. When you nurse a grudge, you're allowing yourself to continue in victimhood. When you get to a point when you're able to forgive - even if the other person maybe doesn't want or doesn't ask to be forgiven - you have moved out of the situation of being a victim, you're no longer held to ransom by that person.
Unquestionably, the Armenians suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Undeniably, many hundreds of thousands or more were murdered or forced to emigrate. These things happen. Nothing we can say or do now will alter that fact.

Honourable senators, where do we go from here? Perhaps the best message that we can send to the Turks is that the actions of those days deserve some formal recognition and some expression of contrition. To the Armenians we might say equally that perhaps, as Archbishop Tutu forgave, it is time for them to forgive and to look to the future. That is my personal opinion.

It is in this spirit, honourable senators, that I support Senator Maheu's motion. I am cognizant that this motion is largely symbolic and of limited value. However, the point that needs to be made is that it is not the Government of Canada or, indeed, any other government, but rather it is the Turks and the Armenians alone, who can truly bring closure to this matter. For this, I wish them Godspeed.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On motion of Senator Bacon, debate adjourned.


Wednesday, June 13, 2001

Hon. Serge Joyal: I wish to speak today on behalf of the motion by Senator Maheu and Senator Setlakwe to recognize the Armenian genocide that took place primarily in Anatolia between 1915 and 1923. In 1918, Theodore Roosevelt stated:

The Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it...the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.

It is now estimated that between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians were exiled or murdered by the Ottoman Empire.

This afternoon, I intend to address three questions: Did the genocide actually happen? What are the implications of publicly recognizing it? What is the position that we senators should formally adopt?

How does one define "genocide?" In everyday language, the term is defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or ethnic group." The word "genocide" comes from the Greek word genos, meaning "race," "nation" or "tribe," and the Latin word, cide, meaning "killing." It was coined by Raphael Lemkin - who is being remembered at a ceremony at the UN today - after events in Europe in 1933-45 called for a legal concept to describe "the deliberate destruction of large groups."

There is also a precise definition contained in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and Senator Maheu has already cited that definition.

Did the Armenian genocide actually happen? One cannot dispute the overwhelming historical evidence that the Armenian genocide did, in fact, occur. This horrific tragedy happened and has been confirmed by eyewitness accounts, by the initial political settlement of World War I and by subsequent academic studies.

Allow me to bring the attention of honourable senators to a few samples of the contemporary evidence that has been brought forward.

(1740)

To begin with, there are eyewitness accounts of the genocide. The U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1915, Mr. Henry Morgenthau, later wrote in his memoirs that:

When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race. They understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact...I have by no means told the most terrible details, for a complete narration of the sadistic orgies of which these Armenian men and women were victims, can never be printed in an American publication.

These eyewitness accounts are supplemented by a wealth of documentary evidence from both Turkish and foreign sources. On May 24, 1915, France, Great Britain and Russia signed a joint declaration stating that:

Inhabitants of about one hundred villages near Van were all murdered...In view of those new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announced publicly...that they will hold personally responsible -

- for -

- these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.

After the war, the Allied powers included article 230 in the peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, the proposed Treaty of Sèvres, which required the Turks to turn over those individuals responsible for carrying out massacres on their territory. The Turkish government consented to the treaty, and this provision, but it was ultimately never ratified due to the military success of the Turkish resistance led by Mustafa Kemal.

Accounts of Turkish atrocities could perhaps be dismissed as mere propaganda if they were based entirely on the testimony of its wartime enemies. They are, however, corroborated by the reports of German and Austro-Hungarian officials - allies of the Ottoman Empire - which also documented the annihilation and specifically refute Turkish suggestions that the slaughter was a response to an Armenian uprising or the unfortunate by-product of a civil war.

Visitors to the region in the years after the massacres observed the suffering of the survivors. In 1929, during his journey to Palestine, the author Franz Werfel visited Damascus and wrote that:

The pitiful scene of the starved and mutilated children of the Armenian refugees gave me the last push to redeem the cruel fate of the Armenian people from the abyss of oblivion.

Later investigations have confirmed these initial accounts. In 1985, a sub-commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities reiterated that reliable estimates by independent authorities and by eyewitnesses clearly indicate that "...at least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, were exterminated."

On November 15, 2000, the European Parliament, which includes representatives of 15 European countries, also recognized the existence of the massacres by adopting a resolution calling on Turkey to publicly recognize the Armenian genocide as a step toward its eventual European Union membership.

The existence of the genocide has already been acknowledged by Argentina and Sweden, as well as by three NATO countries: France, Italy and Belgium, which is the seat of NATO. Pope John Paul II has also acknowledged it, stating: "The Armenian genocide has been a prelude to the horrors that followed."

In addition, last year, on April 24, the Armenian day of remembrance, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Education both publicly recognized that the genocide actually took place.

Honourable senators, the dangers of rushing to judgment on historical questions before all the facts have been subjected to serious study have rightly been pointed out during this debate. I fully share these concerns, but I think that after nearly a century of investigation of the sources by experts, the inescapable conclusion is that the Armenians were undoubtedly the victims of genocide. This conclusion is supported by a majority of academic opinion.

In 1989, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations recognized the genocide. Professor Elie Wiesel, the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize winner, said that:

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Executive Council has unanimously agreed to include reference to the Armenian and other genocides to help illuminate or relate to the story of the Holocaust.

In 1997, the Association of Genocide Scholars, an international non-partisan organization consisting of more than 100 academics dedicated to studying and teaching people about the world's genocides, unanimously reaffirmed that:

The mass murder of Armenians in Turkey is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

In March 2000, 126 Holocaust scholars signed a petition affirming that the World War I Armenian genocide is an incontestable historical fact and accordingly urging the governments of Western democracies to likewise recognize it as such. Amongst them were writers, professors and editors, including Professor Elie Wiesel; Professor Stephen Feinstein, Director of the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota; Professor Yehuda Bauer, Director of the International Institute of Holocaust Research, Jerusalem; and Professor Dorota Glowacka, King's College, Nova Scotia.

Taken together, the mass of eyewitness testimony, the documentary evidence of the First World War period and numerous subsequent studies clearly establish that the massacre of the Armenians is a case of genocide.

Honourable senators, let us deal with the second question. What are the implications of publicly recognizing the Armenian genocide?

As Canadians, when confronted with a clear violation of such fundamental human rights, we must ask ourselves these two simple questions: Does Canada put a price on the value of human life? Are the fleeting economic and political benefits gained by refusing to formally recognize the genocide worth sacrificing our fundamental principles?

I ask these questions, honourable senators, because it has now become apparent that it is commercial and political interests that are behind the U.S. President's decision to refrain from recognizing the Armenian genocide. On October 19, 2000, in a letter to Congress focused specifically on the Armenian question, then-President Clinton indicated his opposition to acknowledging the genocide, due to the far-reaching negative consequences for significant U.S. interests in the region, such as the containment of Saddam Hussein.

The new Bush administration has also maintained this policy. A February 2001 Washington Times article reported that:

...administration officials instead highlighted Turkey's potential usefulness in helping to build a new pipeline in the Caucasus and the country's $6 billion yearly consumption of goods.

The U.S. concerns raise important questions about how far economic and political objectives should be allowed to supersede the fundamental ethos of a country?

Of course, there is trade between Canada and Turkey, and Turkey is also a member of NATO. Those are important economic and political considerations, but should they prevent us from following the underlying spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Should we close our eyes to the most serious of all crimes against humanity for the sake of an indeterminate amount of money or ill-defined geopolitical considerations? How large must the profit margins be in order to persuade Canada to forgo its principles?

(1750)

Trade is significant, but, equally, if not more important, are the principles that we as Canadians value and support domestically and internationally: the sanctity of human life, the protection of minority rights and the obligation of the international community to fight any form of or attempt at genocide. These are the principles that we have fought for, espoused and committed ourselves to uphold by signing a significant number of international treaties and conventions, including, of course, the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which Canada signed on November 28, 1949.

The preamble of the Genocide Convention states the following:

...genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world.

The link between our international stance and domestic policies was explicitly outlined in the recent Supreme Court decision, of February 15, 2001, in the case of Burns and Rafay, United States v. Burns. The court stated:

Canadian support of international initiatives opposing extradition without assurances, combined with its international advocacy of the abolition of the death penalty itself, leads to the conclusion that in the Canadian view of fundamental justice, capital punishment is unjust and should be stopped.

This decision of the Supreme Court is clearly parallel to Canada's stance against genocide and our ensuing obligations.

As the preamble of the Geneva Convention states, genocide is against the spirit and values for which Canada stands. Faced with an act of genocide, we cannot abdicate our moral responsibility if we want to remain coherent in our domestic and international stances. Most recently, Canada has been a leading champion of the creation of an international criminal court specifically mandated, according to article 5, paragraph 1, of the Rome Statute, to try those responsible for committing genocide. Our international reputation will come into question if we shy away from our responsibility and contradict the very principles and conception of human rights that we have encouraged other countries to endorse.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Joyal, I must advise you that your 15 minutes have lapsed.

Senator Joyal: I seek leave to terminate my remarks.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Joyal: I will try to conclude quickly.

It would be inappropriate to suggest that the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Turkish government would be a simple and uncomplicated matter. Dealing with such an issue will be difficult for Turkey, even though the present constitutional government of Turkey cannot directly be held responsible for the crimes committed by the Ottoman Empire.

Nonetheless, many other governments confronted with similar historical tragedies have recently been forced to accept their past: Germany, France, Switzerland, and even the Vatican have all acknowledged their roles in the Holocaust. As recently as 1995, French president Jacques Chirac, speaking on the Holocaust, confessed publicly that "those dark hours forever sully our history and are an insult to our past and our traditions...France had committed the irreparable" by delivering "those she was protecting to their executions."

Facing the same responsibility, the Vatican stated on March 12, 1998: "We have to purify our hearts through repentance of past errors and infidelities..." and "heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices" done to the Jews.

Although it has taken a long time for all these countries to recognize their past, as their admissions of wrongdoing have been wrenchingly painful and often entailed consequences, it has been an essential step in confronting their history and moving forward.

Turkey is not different. An admission of genocide could eventually lead to demands for financial compensation and, possibly, territorial claims, although this has been denied by the President of the Armenian Republic, Robert Kocharian, who, in a February 1, 2001 television interview reported on Turkish daily news formally stated: "Recognition of Armenian genocide will never result in Armenia's demand for land."

Difficult as these problems may be to resolve, democratic countries can address them in a satisfactory manner. Germany has proven this and has moved forward by envisaging a future based on acceptance and reconciliation.

Furthermore, Canadian recognition of the genocide would in no way violate our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. As NATO members, we are committed to joint defence under article 5 and to enhancing friendly relations under article 2, but, certainly, not at the expense of our fundamental principles and other commitments that we have pledged ourselves to uphold in other international human rights treaties and in our constitutional principles.

Given all these factors, we must examine the third question: What position should the Senate adopt? Let me conclude, honourable senators, with a statement made by Yossi Beilin, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 24, 2000:

I think that our attitude towards such a dreadful historic event cannot be dictated by our friendly relations with Turkey, even though that relationship is particularly important to me as one who worked so hard to develop it. I also see the contradiction between the political track and the ethical one. Something happened that cannot be defined except as genocide. One and a half million people disappeared. It wasn't negligence, it was deliberate...An ethical stand cannot be dictated by political needs - these are two separate tracks.

Honourable senators, by formally recognizing the Armenian genocide, Canada will not be breaking new ground. We will even not be the first in Canada, as both the governments of Ontario and Quebec have already done so. We will live up to the principles we have promoted throughout the world. The long-term benefits that we will derive from affirming our conviction will far outweigh any temporary circumstances that might need to be addressed.

[Translation]

I share the opinion expressed by the German academic, Dr. Tessa Hoffman, who wrote the following in the preface to a work on this issue:

Forgetting, silence, indifference can make us accomplices to the crime of genocide in our century. The concept of the moral, collective and indivisible responsibility of peoples and states toward each other is more timely than ever.

[English]

Therefore, honourable senators, I urge you to reaffirm the values and principles we Canadians stand for and support Senators Maheu and Setlakwe's resolution.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, this awesome resolution placed before the Senate by Senators Maheu and Setlakwe compels each and every senator to independently examine whether the frightful designation of genocide, ethical and legal, applies to the Armenian question of 1915 and the events following.

First history, first facts, and then policy. History tells us that Armenians have lived in the land of the Middle East from the shores of the Black Sea to those of the Caspian along the Mediterranean for millennia.

(1800)

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to interrupt Honourable Senator Grafstein, but I must bring attention to the fact that it is now six o'clock and I am obliged to leave the Chair unless honourable senators agree not to see the clock.

[Translation]

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I move that we not see the clock.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do honourable senators agree that we not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

Senator Grafstein: Millions have resided under various regimes since the independent Kingdom of Cicilia, the first Armenian Kingdom, which fell in 1375. Over the years the lands of Armenia were divided, re-divided, partitioned and re-partitioned into what is known as the Turkish Provinces, largely inhabited by Armenians, and Russian Armenia, now the Republic of Armenia, the largest portion of lands lying within the boundaries of modern-day Turkey. In the Caucasus, in addition to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh still obviously have a substantial population of Armenian descent. As you know, Nagorno-Karabakh remains a simmering problem to this very day.

Certain of the Balkan peoples emerged in the last half of the 19th century as nation states. The Armenian Question, however, within the Ottoman Empire, now the modern Turkish state, took a different and very revolting course.

Following the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-78, Article 16 was introduced under the Treaty of Berlin. Under that article, the Ottoman authorities were required to undertake local reforms in the provinces inhabited primarily by the Armenians and guarantee their security. Thus, as many historians have suggested, the Armenian Question was launched in the sea of international law in the modern era.

The evidence appears overwhelming that the Ottoman Empire would not implement its treaty obligations respecting Armenian human rights. In 1895-96, the Ottoman Empire provoked or allowed a series of massacres, which cost the lives estimated to range from a low 40,000 to a better number of around 300,000 Armenians. These massacres triggered a public outcry in the West, especially in England and France.

As a result of these massacres, Armenians contend that they resorted to self-defence for the preservation of their human rights. In their desire for independent status, Armenian discontent within the Ottoman Empire animated discontent amongst the Turks themselves for greater rights. The Ottoman authorities vacillated over the history of time toward its minorities, including the Armenians, sometimes protecting them and other times provoking violence and bloodshed.

A coup d'état was staged in the Ottoman Empire on July 10, 1908. In the result, the Ottoman Empire adopted a constitution for the first time. Armenians anticipated that under a constitution, reforms would be introduced in the Armenian provinces to respect their linguistic and religious rights. The so-called Eastern Question, in effect, primarily the eastern portion of modern Turkey, was again placed on the international agenda after the combined forces of Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Serbia, all seeking greater "lebensraum," attacked the Ottoman state and defeated her, having reached within 25 kilometres of Constantinople, now Istanbul, in 1913. This violent interlude was called the Balkan Wars. Religion and nationalism combined with Christian nationalism to foment the historic claims of greater ethnic nation states. The operative political cry was the word "greater"; Greater Bulgaria, Greater Romania, Greater Greece and Greater Serbia, mostly at the cost of the Ottoman territories. Echoes of that nationalist agenda persist to this very day.

The European Powers met in Bucharest and London after the Balkan Wars to discuss peace terms between Turkey and the Balkan States which resulted in a peace settlement that ratified the loss of Turkish territory to Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. The so-called Eastern Question was not resolved. The Eastern Question substantiated the Armenian claims, but the Eastern Question, respecting Christian Armenia, was never resolved.

Under constitutional Turkey led by the Young Turks, the divisions of powers from the central organs of state to those of provinces or regions substantiated by the Armenians within Turkey was never fully or fairly introduced. They never received what they were entitled to by those treaties. The question of internal autonomy of the eastern provinces, primarily occupied by Armenians within Turkey within the proposed reforms for protection of linguistic and religious rights, continue to be outstanding.

On July 3, 1913, at the initiative of the Russians, ambassadors met in Constantinople where they agreed to divide the seven provinces, those substantially inhabited by Armenians, into two parts within Turkey. On September 3, 1913, at a London conference, the decision included two administrative units, two inspector generals appointed by the great powers and agreed to by the Sultan. The two administrative units would each have a general assembly with Christians and Muslims represented equally. They would have the power to appoint and discharge officials. The administrative and judicial personnel, and police officers would be recruited from Christians and Muslims equally, reserving for the great powers the right to control and implement reforms through their ambassadors.

On February 8, 1914, Russia and Turkey signed an agreement giving effect to the above, and two inspector generals, one Dutchman and one Norwegian, were appointed. In July 1914, the inspectors were on their way to their posts when the First World War broke out. Turkey entered the war on October 12, 1914, on the side of the Germans against the Allies of the West - Britain, France and Czarist Russia. The inspector generals never reached their destinations. The question of Armenian reforms was then suspended.

In this interlude, the Turkish Government then, apparently, based on the evidence presented on the history record, commenced a policy of mass execution, torture and forced displacement of Armenians, which in turn resulted in Armenian refugees seeking to leave Turkish lands.

Many Canadians and Americans of Armenian descent trace their origins to this and earlier Armenian refugee streams. On April 24, 1915, mass arrests of prominent Armenians, the intellectual and political elites, were made in Constantinople and in the eastern provinces. Many were tortured and murdered. Many were essentially displaced to Anatolia and beyond to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Persia and the Caucuses, where many perished either along the way or upon arrival.

Young Armenians drafted into the army were disarmed and transferred to labour battalions. Later, they were massacred in groups, leaving the Armenian population largely defenceless and subjected to forced displacement, deportation and massacres. Many were burnt alive in their villages and towns. Many of those deported were comprised of old men, women and children. Upon reaching their desert displacement destinations, they were once more subjected to wholesale massacres in certain places, in particular a village called Musa Dagh, which attained special significance. I will return to that in a moment.

The Turks were joined by the Kurds and others in the slaughter, rape and pillage of these Armenian refugee streams. Having heard of the fate of their fellow Armenians and co-religionists, many could only offer feeble self-defence. A portion of the Armenian population died a tragic death in defence of their fellow Armenians.

I will take a brief aside, honourable senators, to say that in 1929, as Senator Joyal pointed out, Franz Werfel, a famous Czech writer, wrote a shocking book that he called The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. It was published in German in 1933. Shortly thereafter, the Nazis burned that book, along with others - a tragic but ironic fate.

Within the Ottoman frontiers, the policy of extermination and deportation continued, with the exceptions of Constantinople and Izmir. Massacres subsequently took place in Izmir, when the Turks defeated the Greeks and re-occupied that city in 1922. As a result of these massacres and deportations in Turkey, from 1915 and subsequent years, it is estimated that about half of the Armenian population - from a very low estimate of 800,000 to at least 1.5 million - perished, while the other half escaped to the mountains and were rescued by advancing Red Russians.

Many Armenians joined the Russians and many retreated to Russian Armenia while the struggle continued against the Turks. During World War II, Armenians primarily fought on the side of the Allies, with the high expectation that the promises made during the war would emerge, as Turkey was an enemy of the Allies. According to some figures, over 200,000 Armenians volunteered in the Russian Army, 20,000 Armenians fought on the Caucasian front, and another 5,000 Armenian volunteers fought with the French and the British as a separate unit in areas now known as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel and Transjordan. The British, French and Russian military leaders all applauded the soldiering of Armenians.

(1810)

With the 1917 Russian Revolution, the territories in the Caucuses, known as Russian Armenia, established a provisional government to be known as the Soviet Republic of Armenia. After October 1917, when the great Czarist army dissolved as a result of the Russian Revolution, the Armenians continued fighting in the eastern regions of Turkey and gradually retreated until they reached the old Russian-Turkish border.

Under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, Turkey was given back its eastern provinces. On June 4, 1918, the Turks signed a peace treaty with Armenia in Batum and recognized the independent Republic of Armenia, located in the Caucuses. Under the Treaty of Sevres, in 1920, which designated the peace treaty with Turkey, this treaty recognized the rights of Armenians because of their military contribution especially against the Turks in the Caucasus.

After the withdrawal of Russian forces, thus delaying the Turkish-German occupation of Baku, the oil centre in the Caucuses, one month after the Treaty of Sevres, on September 20, Turkey attacked the Republic of Armenia. Unaided by the Allied powers, Armenia succumbed on December 2, 1920. A third of that territory was annexed by the Turks while the eastern portion later became a Soviet Republic. You will recall that when Stalin took over, he joined Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucuses under the Soviet hegemony. In 1923, under the Treaty of Lausanne, the Armenian question within Turkey was left as an unresolved matter.

Senators will forgive me if I sketched this complicated, tangled history too quickly. I hope that I have not taken history too much out of context due to the brevity of this exposition, but I have concluded, based on the overwhelming evidence, that genocide, as defined under conventional and customary international law, took place. Indeed, the Ottoman war trials did take place after these events, but I have not been able to get access to those records or those conclusions.

In 1915, within the territories now known as Turkey, the evidence appears to be overwhelming that such was the case that genocide did take place. Let me quote from a fascinating book of history entitled Europe by Norman Davies, an outstanding British historian, published in 1996, at page 909. The section I am quoting is entitled "Genocide."

On 27 May 1915, the Ottoman Government decreed that the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia would be forcibly deported. The Armenians, who were Christians, were suspected of sympathizing with the Russian enemy on the Caucusian Front, and of planning a united Armenia under Russian protection. Some two to three million people were affected. Though accounts differ, one-third of them are thought to have been massacred; one-third to have perished during deportation; and one-third to have survived. The episode is often taken to be the first modern instance of mass genocide. At the treaty of Sèvres...the Allied Powers recognized united Armenia as a sovereign republic. In practice, they allowed the country to be partitioned between Soviet Russia and Turkey.

Adolf Hitler was well aware of the Armenian precedent. When he briefed his generals...on the eve of the invasion of Poland, he revealed his plans for the Polish nation:

These were his words:

Genghis Khan had millions of women and men killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees him only as a great state-builder...I have sent my Death`s Head units to the East with the order to kill without mercy men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the lebensraum that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

The term "genocide", however, was not used before 1944, when it was coined by a Polish lawyer of Jewish origin, Rafal Lemkin...who was working in the USA. Lemkin's campaign to draw practical conclusions from the fate of Poland and of Poland's Jews was crowned in 1948 by the United Nation`s "Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide." Unfortunately, as the wars in ex-Yugoslavia have shown, the Convention in itself can neither prevent nor punish genocide.

Honourable senators, I thought, to be fair to myself, that I would not only give this version of history but that I would seek to find out what the Turks were saying about these events. I turn to an excellent book published recently, entitled Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey, by Nicole and Hugh Pope.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Grafstein, I am sorry to interrupt you but your speaking time is up. Are you asking for more time?

Senator Grafstein: I would ask for leave to continue.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, this book was published in 1996. I think it is cogent to see what Turkey says about these events. I will read to you a paragraph and a half on page 42:

...Turkish schoolbooks do not dwell on the subject. Subsequent events on the Ottoman eastern front, so important in the formation of European and American attitudes to Turkey, earn at most a few dozen lines. The grim tone of the half-told story in a leading textbook leaves it open to many interpretations:

This is a quote from a recent Turkish textbook:

The Russians used the Armenians as a cat's paw. Thinking they would achieve independence, they attacked their innocent Turkish neighbours. The Armenian "committees" massacred tens of thousands of Turkish men, women and children. This made it hard to wage war on the Russians. So the Ottoman state decided in 1915 forcibly to deport the Armenians from the battlefields to Syria. This was the right decision. During the migration some of the Armenians lost their lives due to weather conditions and insecurity...the Turkish Nation [original emphasis] is certainly not responsible for what happened during the Armenian migration. Thousands of Armenians arrived in Syria and there lived on under the protection of the Turkish state.

The authors conclude:

To Turkish schoolchildren, and other visitors to Turkish "museums of barbarity" in the east, the impression is given that the massacres were committed solely by Armenians on Turks. Those Turks who know that massacres of Armenians occurred are left to conclude that since the "Turkish Nation" was not at fault, the Kurdish tribes must have been to blame. The truth is not so reassuring.

I thought I would place that on the record because it is important to put this in some kind of historic context.

Beyond other claims under international law, beyond a finding of genocide, other claims, both conventional and customary, respecting the provinces of Eastern Turkey are a much more complex and difficult matter. The resolution, thankfully, does not compel me to address those questions. Suffice it to say that contesting claims, in the absence of a thorough review, are unreasonable. Such claims, considered independently, makes it almost impossible without a thorough review to render a fair opinion. The issue of self-determination within the boundaries of a recognized state invoke, as we know, great complexities and matters beyond the scope of this resolution. Once `genocide` is concluded, I have not, in the time available, considered the legal consequences.

The question of responsibility, while primarily on the 1915 Turkish authorities, opens up other questions.

While complicity in these crimes adheres to the authorities and the participants at the time, it is difficult to extend sanctions to legal entities or individuals. The question of genocide, however, is not a retroactive question. Under international law, as declared by the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War, genocide is considered contrary to natural law and therefore is not retroactive. What can one do under the present circumstances?

Honourable senators, before addressing the consequences, may we revisit the Armenian question from yet another perspective. Let me add some historical points of reference that might capture more closely our Canadian attention.

In 1896, shortly after Winston Churchill was commissioned as an army officer in England, he attended the Alhambra Theatre in London with a fellow officer for an evening of theatre and enjoyment. An entertainer, inspired by Salisbury, then Prime Minister of England, and the new Russian Czar's clamour of concerns about the Armenian massacres of 1896, sang these words in his vaudevillian style:

Cease your preaching,
load your guns.
Their roar our music tells,
The day has come for Britain's sons,
To seize the Dardanelles.

Winston Churchill leaned toward his friend and asked, "Where are the Dardanelles, exactly?" That word, "Dardanelles," had historic consequences for Churchill and the British Empire, including Canada and Australia, and is closely related to the Armenian question that we are debating today.

(1820)

Let me return to 1914. The British Empire troops from Canada and Australia, together with France and England, had suffered over one million casualties on the bloody trench fields of France. We see the pictures above us. Political leadership in Canada, the Empire and Britain were frozen, trapped by geography and mass mobilization.What was required was a strategic imagination, a strategic vision, to break the endless slaughter in France. Hence, the idea of attacking Gallipoli on the Turkish Straits of the Dardanelles, attacking the soft back of the tottering Ottoman Empire, then a neutral power but leaning toward the German adversaries. This was a very important strategic vision for a union of a Christian and Balkan league of states, together with the British Empire, all seeking greater living room to match the religious ideas of greater Serbia, greater Bulgaria, greater Romania and greater Greece. On the east, Czarist Russia planned to occupy the eastern lands of the Ottoman Empire. The narrow tactic was to free the waterways from the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea through the Dardanelles by the occupation of Gallipoli.

The Greek prime minister of the day had first offered 60,000 troops to recapture the European side of the Ottoman Empire. The connection of the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmora and then the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea would open the sea lanes for both Imperial Britain and imperial Czarist Russia, and they could attack and occupy what was considered to be the strategic lynch pin, Constantinople. Turkey was weak and unpredictable.

I recount this history briefly because this will establish the atmosphere surrounding the massacre and deportation of Armenians, which they commemorate, on April 24, 1915, a day before the imperial English attack on Gallipoli on April 25, 1915.

In September 1914, Britain had stopped Turkish torpedo boats and discovered Germans aboard. The Germans had moved to mine the Dardanelles, darken the lighthouses and cripple water transit. This was a flagrant violation of international convention, guaranteeing free passage of those straits. German cruisers, flying under Turkish colours, attacked the Czar's Black Sea ports.

Turkey finally became a belligerent on the side of Germany. The word "Chanak," located on this perilous passageway, became a rallying cry in Canada and the West and a strategic point of British attack.

In the circumstances, the Imperial War Cabinet, including the Prime Minister of Canada, Henry Borden, the Prime Minister of South Africa, General Smuts, and the Prime Minister of Australia supported the British war cabinet in its strategic attack on Gallipoli.

The Greek King, Constantine, married to a German princess, worried about Bulgarian intentions and German reactions, vetoed the Greek prime minister's offer of troops, so Britain was left without troops.

On February 19, the British naval attack force attacked the outward Turkish force guarding the lips of the Dardanelles. The Turkish defenders fled. The British marines landed and the start of the strategic onslaught against Gallipoli was underway. The Greeks had second thoughts. Seeing that the first attacks were successful, they now agreed to send troops. Turkey, encircled, looked doomed. The Greek government fell. The Russians were encountering difficulties at home, which ultimately led to the Russian Revolution two years later.

On March 18, 1915, the British naval attack resumed on the Dardanelles. On April 25, the day after April 24, commemorating the Armenian catastrophe, the Allies landed at Gallipoli. Before the year was out, the Allies suffered well over 250,000 casualties.

Churchill, now politically burned because of his support for the Gallipoli venture, ruminated to his friend Sir George Riddell on April 29, 1915. These words were found in Riddell's memoirs. Churchill said, as he looked at a map of the region, the following:

This is one of the great Campaigns of History. Think what Constantinople is to the East. It is more than London, Paris and Berlin rolled into one. Think what its fall will mean. Think how it will affect Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Italy, who have already been affected by what has taken place.

The dreams of a greater coalition of Christian nations still occupied Churchill's strategic imagination.

To the surprise of all, the Turks defended and held. While they did so, the massacred intensified. The Western attacks were repulsed. One historian put it this way:

The Armenians were available. They were Christian. They were clever. They were wealthy. They were suspected of sympathizing with the Russians and smuggling arms and plotting revolts and so the planned massacres began. Leaders were captured and tortured. The young were sent to labour, the old, the weak and the children forced to march toward Syria, Persia and Mesopotamia, where they were robbed, left naked, raped and left to die of hunger and exposure. And so a million or more died.

Churchill was demoted in the Cabinet on May 22, 1915. Ironically, in the British press, Churchill was called "England's Armenian."

I add this template of history to indicate how directly and indirectly other nations, including Canada, were involved in the events surrounding the Armenian massacres, which are the subject matter of our resolution.

Let me return to the word "genocide," first coined by Raphael Lemkin, in 1944, who was then working in the United States. Lemkin defined "genocide" in two ways: as the planned annihilation of a people and as a progressive process - a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of the essential foundations of life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. Under this generic definition, clearly the actions of the Turkish authorities, up to and following April 24, 1915, respecting its Armenian populations, would lead to an inescapable conclusion of genocide as defined by Lemkin.

Honourable senators, once we make this finding, in which I concur, what are we to do? Beyond the acceptance of the claim to genocide, other claims under international law, both conventional and customary, as it applies to the province of Eastern Turkey, are more complex and difficult. Thankfully, the resolution does not compel the Senate to address these questions.

Let me repeat. Suffice it to say that any other claims, hotly contested, absent a thorough review, makes it almost impossible to render a balanced opinion on these other questions. The issue of self-determination, often a tortured notion ripped from its international context, can cause great harm. Within a recognized state, it evokes great complexities, great factual issues and great philosophic and legal issues that are simply beyond the scope of this resolution.

The question of responsibility opens up other questions. Honourable senators should note the following statement made by a senior Turkish official on May 13, 1915:

For the last month the Kurds and the Turkish populations merely have been engaged in massacring the Armenians with the connivance and often help with the Ottoman authorities.

This is grudging Turkish acknowledge of genocide. What therefore should be the sanctions? What was the role of the Ottoman war crimes tribunal? What should be done now? What are the consequence of a finding of genocide eight decades after the events? I can offer no ready solution to those questions.

I will draw the attention of honourable senators to two magnificent books that might help us address these questions, since Turkish governments past and present have barely acknowledged or appropriately dealt with these historic questions. In effect, what are the consequences of denial of historic truths on future conduct? What is the consequence of the Turkish denial of these historic truths.

First, I commend to honourable senators a book that was granted an award in this hall some months ago. That book, by a Canadian, Erna Paris, a long-time friend of mine, is entitled Long Shadow: Truth, Lies And History. The second book I commend to honourable senators is by Ervin Staub; it is entitled The Roots Of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence.

(1830)

My conclusion, honourable senators, is that nationalism married to religion always seems to activate the rawest nerves, instigates hate, defining, dividing and distorting the human condition. Memory and history require that first the truth be told so that the human condition can be exposed to this flaw of hatred, the roots of genocide, the human condition so often and so easily injected by greater calls of nationalism and religion.

The roots of evil lie not in the heart of darkness but more often in lip service and prayers invoked and taught to our children, when one person or one group is ascribed a higher place in the natural order of the human condition, where equality is displaced by theories of superiority. When one does not treat the stranger as oneself, we open the arteries to the heart of genocide. Thus, genocide lurks in the shadows and haunts us still. Will we ever learn from history?

This resolution is in itself a modest lesson in history. For that, we must commend our colleagues Senators Maheu and Setlakwe for bringing it once again to our attention.

[Translation]

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, it is Senator Bacon who asked for the adjournment of the debate. Since the senator is absent, she must have given up her place to the two honourable senators.

I think that the debate should be adjourned again, under the name of Senator Bacon. Could the Chair explain what could be done without depriving Senator Finnerty of this right?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The honourable Senator Prud'homme is right. The motion to adjourn is still under the name of Senator Bacon.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, after consulting with Senators Maheu and Bacon, it was agreed that adjournment would be under the name of Senator Finnerty.

On the motion of Senator Finnerty, debate adjourned.

[English]

Thursday, November 8, 2001

Hon. Isobel Finnerty: Honourable senators, I speak today in support of the motion of my colleague Senator Maheu regarding the recognition of the Armenian genocide. I am delighted there are others in this chamber who are prepared to join this modest effort to promote historical truths.

The facts of history in this matter are well known. This story, now almost 100 years old, has, however, always been in the nature of a taboo. We are not supposed to talk about it

Citizens of Turkey who have dared to discuss it over the years are strongly encouraged to forget about it. The Government of Turkey is in a perpetual state of denial about it. This is state policy. The events that pitted the Turkish forces against Armenians in 1915 resulted in catastrophic acts of genocide. The facts are well known. Some Turkish scholars admit the facts. These scholars now declare that it is factually correct to say that unchecked Turkish nationalism caused the death of more than 600,000 Armenians in fewer than 10 months.

Rewriting history has often been a state policy. Many totalitarian governments have promoted half-truths and lies to prop up the sagging popularity or to fortify national myths that serve to consolidate internal support for the government of the day.

In the old Soviet Union, the spinners of propaganda were given free reign to write history to suit current political needs, to keep citizens from asking questions that would expose atrocities and human rights violations. The same patterns occurred during the lengthy regime of apartheid in South Africa. Three generations of government in North Korea have been enormously guilty of such practices. Communist China is another government that is notoriously active in twisting the truth.

The common thread among these and other like-minded regimes is that they are totalitarian in fact and in spirit. It is perhaps surprising that the ongoing distortions of history have been perpetuated by a succession of governments in Turkey that are democratic. In the atmosphere of democracy, it has not been possible to change state policy and have the real story about relations between Turks and Armenians officially acknowledged.

(1530)

Frank and open discussion of one's own history is taken for granted to be an essential component of life in a democracy. Prominent members of the academic community in Turkey have been discussing openly the facts of Armenian genocide since 1999, 84 years after it happened.

No doubt it is time for participants on Canadian delegations who interact with their Turkish counterparts to freely compliment those citizens of Turkey who are forthright in removing some of the cobwebs of history that cloud the understanding of a most unpleasant episode in ethnic politics. Progress has a great deal to do with the changing patterns of behaviour. We should not shrink from playing a small part in promoting progress.

I hope that Turkish academics will be successful in encouraging new generations of Turkish students to embrace the truth about their nation's past. In Germany, the truth about its Nazi past is part of the school curriculum. In Eastern Europe, the atrocities of a totalitarian past are continuing to be revealed to anyone who wishes to listen. It is only when we let the light shine in that we can truly challenge each other to create a better world for us all.

I compliment Senator Maheu and other senators who seek to let the light shine in.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

Thursday, February 21, 2002

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, as we can see, we have reached day 15 on this particular question. As honourable senators know, it had been my intention to speak to this matter.

This particular item is one of great importance to Senator Setlakwe, and he and Senator Maheu caused this motion to be put before us. This motion essentially asks the Senate to ask the government to recognize the genocide of the Armenians and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity.

Honourable senators, I had been intending to speak on this matter because it is a very important question, but the important fact is that it is a question of some enormity and some complexity which is not immediately apparent in the wording of the resolution. In addition to the substantive issues contained in the motion, there are also several issues that I would consider to be procedural questions in the scripting and drafting of the motion. I have not had sufficient time to prepare the kind of response that this proposal demands, particularly in an area the complexity of which is marked by the fact that if the resolution were to carry, we would be assigning a legal effect and legal liabilities, and perhaps legal obligations and rights as well, ex post facto, which is indeed extremely unusual. Honourable senators must remember that the term "genocide," with the heavy onus and the legal burden it carries, did not exist at the time of this terrible tragedy.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

Thursday, April 25, 2002

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, this item has been standing in my name. Obviously, senators know that I believe this to be a very important matter, a very important question and one of tremendous significance to the Armenian community. I have made it quite clear to honourable senators that I am interested in the subject matter and have tried to point out to honourable senators that it is an involved and complicated matter because the business of declaring a particular conflict a genocide has the effect of assigning legal conditions and legal meanings retroactively. In today's community, I think of international criminal courts and international criminal tribunals. This is a matter to be undertaken with a degree of seriousness.

I had informed honourable senators that it had been my hope and intention to give a fulsome and full-bodied speech on the subject matter. As honourable senators know, I have been terribly preoccupied and very busy and unable to give this matter the attention that I would have wanted. Other senators are prevailing upon me to yield so that they may be able to speak to the subject matter. One of those senators is Senator Jaffer. Having said that, I should like to take the adjournment in the name of Senator Jaffer.

On motion of Senator Cools, for Senator Jaffer, debate adjourned.

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I have asked the permission of Senator Jaffer to speak to this item and then have the item stand in her name when I am finished. I do not know if it is necessary to first obtain the approval of the house.

I have waited quite a while to speak on this motion because I wanted to have either Senator Setlakwe or Senator Maheu in the house. Luckily enough, Senator Setlakwe is an old friend.

Thinking back many years ago, when I was working as a geologist in northeast Turkey, I had the experience of the Turkish people through an interpreter. There was one person who maintained he was 100 years old. The Turks gave me a blowbyblow description of all the terrible things the Armenians had done to them in the period from 1914 to 1920.

Historically, just to give a quick snapshot of history, the Turks were united with the Germans in the last World War, fighting the British, French and Russians. Of course, the Armenians were also in Russia. Russia wanted to open another front, so it invaded eastern Turkey.

As honourable senators know, Churchill, in one of the few failures in his life, ordered the Allies to land at Gallipoli.

The Turks were able to repel the Armenian and Russian invasion, although it did make some inroads.

Later on, perhaps 15 years later, I was in Nagorno-Kharabakh where the Armenians settled north of the Caucasus. I was able to hear, as I had from many of my Armenian friends, of the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks after the Russians had withdrawn from the war. The Armenians no longer had Russian protection.

In listening to both sides — having been a geologist on the ground with the Turks and having listened to many Armenians here in Canada — there is no doubt that they are both right. As to who killed the most in those times, it is hard to discern.

There is a carry over from the old Muslim-Christian interface, which is happening to a limited extent even today. The Armenians were Christians and the Turks were Muslims. Christians write most of the history books one can pick up in Canada. As a matter of fact, I know very few Muslim history authors. I will be interested to discover what they think of the last 100 years of history. We have a Muslim-Christian interface even now on the issue of terrorism in the U.S.

These are all points that I am trying to get across, in the sense that I do not know who is right and who is wrong. However, I want to go further.

One of the things about being a Canadian is that we check our prejudices at the border when we come to this country. My ancestry is Irish and Scottish, and I have still not forgiven — although I should have — the British for the famine. The Ukrainians hold their famine against the Russians. In Chile, as honourable senators know, the left-wingers were deported and massacred. I could go on. History was made by one nation massacring another.

With a large family, I have had the chance to coach hockey, baseball and football teams. It is a pleasure to go out there and see Arab boys, Jewish boys, Armenian boys and Turkish boys — and girls when I was coaching basketball — all playing together.

Honourable senators, I do not think we help the issue and I do not think we help the modern generation of youngsters when we pass resolutions censuring people for what they did in the past or in another country. It may have occurred. We have the right to hold our own views, but I do not think this is the way we want our younger people to be brought up today. I want to see them playing together, without carrying any of the baggage their fathers or grandfathers might pass on to them, or prejudices in the way of legislating this or that, because it will be used against them.

In other words, honourable senators, there is no reason to haul this baggage in from the past in order to be a Canadian today. When someone comes to Canada today, whether they are an Arab or a Jew, Christian or Muslim, Black, Brown or White, they must check their prejudices and their massacres at the door.

(1520)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Might I ask a question of the Honourable Senator Taylor?

The Hon. the Speaker: Will the Honourable Senator Taylor entertain a question?

Senator Taylor: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Honourable senators, from what the Honourable Senator Taylor has said, why are there no Armenians in north-east Turkey? Can the honourable senator explain that? At one point there were 2 million.

Senator Taylor: The honourable senator has said that 2 million Armenians disappeared. I do not know the numbers. When I was in Turkey, they had their side as to how many were missing. There was a war crimes trial after the Turks lost the war. One of the privileges winners receive is to take the losers to court. We had a court in Malta where the British hauled in the Turks; however, it fizzled out.

Honourable senators, I am merely saying that the evidence is difficult. That is not what I am trying to get across. If every word said is true, there is still no reason to bring that fight into this chamber or to Canada.

On motion of Senator Jaffer, debate adjourned.

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion that was moved by the Honourable Senator Maheu and seconded by the Honourable Senator Setlakwe on March 29, 2001, dealing with events that took place toward the end of the First World War in what was at the time known as the Ottoman Empire.

A number of senators have already spoken to this motion at its introduction, including Senator Di Nino, Senator Joyal, Senator Finnerty, Senator Cools and, most recently, Senator Taylor. I have followed the progress of the debate with a great deal of interest. It is my hope that all honourable senators will look at what has been said thus far in the debate, as the issue involved is one of tremendous complexity.

We in the Senate have the absolute privilege of working on issues that affect people all over the world. The in-depth study that we are able to do gives us a greater opportunity to reflect on issues, to address the issues and work to further issues. When Senator Cools spoke briefly on this motion, she noted it was a matter to be undertaken with a degree of seriousness. This is a point on which I believe all of us can agree.

Once again, I should like to reiterate that we are very fortunate to have the privilege to look at many issues and work on them extensively.

Hon. Shirley Maheu: Would Senator Jaffer respond to a question?

Senator Jaffer: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Maheu: Some people think that these events took place too long ago to discuss all over again. These people may also think that all immigrants suffering from what they went through should leave these massacres behind them before coming here.

But let us take a moment to think about such statements. Let us analyse, extrapolate, imagine this philosophy. Let us imagine that we are a young Canadian family wishing to adopt a child. The child offered is so lovely that we immediately fall in love with it, but there is a problem. It was abandoned; both its parents were shot right before its very eyes.

The child is now ten and cries because it saw and felt this violence which led to the death of its parents. What can we say to this child? We can say: ``Don't cry. I know that you are sad. I understand and I love you.'' We can also say: ``I do not want to hear you crying. When I adopted you, I wanted you to leave all your emotional problems behind.''

Is this really what we are asking our new Canadians, our immigrants and our fellow citizens to do? I would like to know what honourable senators think we should say to the Armenian communities who have been hurt and who are suffering from the terrible aftermath of this genocide.

(1650)

[English]

Senator Jaffer: The honourable senator has asked a profound question. I would suggest that the strength of Canadians lies in the fact that we value people's roots. This is something that I, as a new Canadian, have learned from Canadians. We always must ensure that we honour people's roots.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is there another question?

Senator Maheu: I should like to move the motion standing in my name.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Our normal practice is that we respect a senator's wish to speak.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators in favour of the motion please say ``yea''?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators opposed to the motion please say ``nay''?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the ``yeas'' have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there agreement between the whips as to the ringing of the bells?

An Hon. Senator: One hour.

The Hon. the Speaker: The bells will ring for one hour. Call in the senators.

(1750)

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams Kelleher
Andreychuk Kinsella
Austin Kroft
Bolduc Léger
Callbeck Lynch-Staunton
Carstairs Milne
Chalifoux Moore
Christensen Murray
Cook Oliver
Cools Pearson
Corbin Phalen
Di Nino Poulin
Fairbairn Robertson
Fitzpatrick Robichaud
Forrestall Roche
Fraser Sibbeston
Gauthier Sparrow
Grafstein Spivak
Gustafson Stratton—39
Joyal

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Baker Kolber
Banks Lapointe
Biron Maheu
Day Mahovlich
Ferretti Barth Morin
Finnerty Nolin
Furey Pépin
Gill Setlakwe
Hervieux-Payette Stollery
Jaffer Tunney—20

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: Accordingly, debate on this item is adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate.

Senator Maheu: Honourable senators, I wish to ask the Honourable Leader of the Opposition if this is a delay tactic or does he truly wish to speak to the motion after 15 months? I pray that he does.

The Hon. the Speaker: I will look to Senator Lynch-Staunton. If he wishes to answer the question, it is entirely up to him.

Thursday, June 13,02

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, with your permission, as I am speaking, I should like to have distributed a slightly revised text of this resolution. I want the revised text distributed so that senators can appreciate the amendment I will propose.

The problem that others and I have had with this proposal is not so much with the intent but, rather, with the way it is worded, particularly, in paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) calls upon the Government of Canada to recognize the genocide of the Armenians. Paragraph (b) asks this house to designate April 24 of every year to mark that tragic event.

It seems to me there is no consistency between those two paragraphs. First, this chamber has no authority to designate days. It can do so, but it has no force of law. It is just a good wish, a good intention, but it stops here. Days are designated either by Order in Council, or by private bills, or by an international organization to which Canada belongs. Automatically, that day or month or year marking a certain event or individual then goes on the official calendar, but the Senate itself cannot do so.

The recommendation I should like to make is to keep the first paragraph as it is, with a slight repositioning of the words. This chamber would ask the Government of Canada both to recognize the event and to designate the day. That is its responsibility. If the Government of Canada does not recognize the event, our designating the day takes on even lesser importance.

Motion in Amendment
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I move, seconded by Senator Atkins:

That Motion 44 be amended to read as follows:

That this House calls upon the Government of Canada:

(a) to recognize the genocide of the Armenians and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort a historical truth as being anything less than genocide, a crime against humanity, and

(b) to designate April 24th of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the twentieth century.

I hope this minor change in wording will give the resolution much more impact, while respecting the intent of both the proposer and the seconder.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Milne: On division.

Motion in amendment agreed to, on division.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, as amended?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

Motion agreed to, on division.

| Website | Contact Us | ©2004 Campaign for Recognition of the Armenian Genocide