HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 8, 2000

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is a meeting today pursuant to the order of reference of the House of Commons of November 30, 1999.

[Translation]

This Order of Reference of the House relates to the study of the subject-matter of Bill C-224 regarding an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize crimes against humanity

[English]

as defined by the United Nations, having been perpetrated during the 20th century.

Yes, Mr. Mark. You've asked me for a brief intervention. Please.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we speak to our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, you may recall that during the public hearings on Bill C-27 with Parks Canada I made some comments regarding the Parks Canada representatives tampering with minutes of meetings. I was at that time reminded by a Liberal colleague on the government side that these were serious allegations and I needed to substantiate my comments.

For the record, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I have sent to both the clerk and to all members of this committee documents that will support my comments of the day, as well as two statements made by Mr. Booth, from the Riding Mountain National Park, that also echo the same sentiments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Just before we start, I wanted to mention to members that I received on May 29 a letter from MP Wayne Easter about the CBC, which is being translated and sent to all of you. So I suggest we deal with it when we tackle the motion presented by Ms. Lill yesterday, which will come up for discussion on Tuesday.

• 0910

Before we open the meeting to you, I wanted to put into brief words the context of this meeting.

Bill C-224 was a private member's bill that related to setting up an exhibition within the Museum of Civilization to highlight crimes against humanity as an education tool for better awareness by Canadians. By unanimous consent of the House it was referred to this committee to review, study, and report back to the House. Our mandate of course is surrounding this bill, which relates to an exhibition within the Museum of Civilization.

Yesterday we heard from many witnesses. Of course witnesses are free to give their own thoughts, and a lot of them went beyond this mandate to speak about a physical museum and so forth. Our task here is really to try to find some sort of a consensus to report to the House. It's not an easy task, because as was shown yesterday, people have different perspectives about this, depending on their own experience and their community's experience and feelings about it. So what we want to do is to try to find out what common threads there are among all the various interveners so that we can make some sort of a creative or positive report to the House.

So that you're well aware of what we can do and we can't do—and yesterday there were some suggestions asking the committee to do this or do that—a standing committee of the House does not have decision-making powers. We can't decide whether there will be a museum, there will be an exhibition, or there will be something else. We are purely a vehicle for listening to you and reporting to the House of Commons. The House of Commons then makes the government aware of our report and from there on it's for the government to act in whichever way it sees fit. It's also the prerogative of the Speaker of the House of Commons once he receives that report to deal with it as he sees fit himself. So I wanted to give you the context of where we stand on this.

Today we are very pleased to welcome here the Canadian Arab Federation, represented by Mr. John Asfour, its president; the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, represented by Mr. Eugene Czolij, its president, and Professor Roman Serbyn, who is the chair of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and of the subcommittee on the genocide museum; from the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Ms. Marsha Skrypuch; the Rwandese Canadian Association of Greater Toronto, represented by Mr. John Ruku-Rwabyoma, chair of the board of directors; the Council of the Muslim Community of Canada, represented by Mr. Ahmed Motiar; and the Association on Learning and Preserving the History of World War II in Asia, ALPHA, represented by Ms. Thekla Lit, co-chair of ALPHA Canada.

The format is that we will open the meeting to you to make a short presentation, seven to ten minutes at the maximum, to allow enough time for questions by the members, which is really what this is about, so that the members can dialogue with you.

We'll start with Mr. Asfour. Is Mr. Asfour here? If not, we will go on to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Professor Serbyn or Mr. Czolij, whichever one of you two wants to start.

Mr. Eugene Czolij (President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Eugene Czolij and I'm the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Joining me this morning is Dr. Roman Serbyn, chair of our genocide subcommittee.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, also known as the UCC, is the national coordinating body of the Ukrainian Canadian community. There are over one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent in Canada.

• 0915

Since its incorporation in 1940 the UCC has played an active role in the development of national policies and programs, which not only impact on Ukrainian Canadians but also on Canadian society as a whole. Through this proactive approach we have been able to ensure that the voice of our community is heard in areas such as multiculturalism, immigration, justice matters, constitutional development, and foreign affairs.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of genocide is hardly a topic for popular discussion, for it gives us a glimpse of the evil and ugly side of human nature. We have all seen in one form or another the destruction that human beings can inflict on one another. The Ukrainian people have, as part of their history, experienced periods of incredible persecution and suffering. Remembering this past, the Canadian Ukrainian community recommends the building of the necessary structures and educational tools to ensure that the atrocities endured by Ukrainians are never repeated.

Mr. Chairman, two years ago both houses of the U.S. Congress passed a concurrent resolution stating, among other things, and I quote:

Whereas this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 that caused the deaths of at least 7,000,000 Ukrainians and that was covered up and officially denied by the government of the Former Soviet Union;

Whereas millions of Ukrainians died, not by natural causes such as pestilence, drought, floods or a poor harvest, but by policies designed to punish Ukraine;

Whereas when Ukraine was famine-stricken, the government of the former Soviet Union exported 1,700,000 tons of grain to the West while offers from international relief organizations to assist the starving population were rejected on the grounds that there was no famine in Ukraine and no need for the assistance;

Whereas the borders of Ukraine were tightly controlled and starving Ukrainians were not allowed to cross into Russian territory in search of bread;

Whereas in his book The Harvest of Sorrow, British historian Robert Conquest explains, `A quarter of the rural population, men, women and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbours.';

Therefore the U.S. Congress resolved:

The Congress condemns the systematic disregard for human life, human rights, human liberty, and self-determination that characterized the repressive policies of the government of the former Soviet Union during the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933.

Mr. Chairman, on the brink of the 21st century one might ask the following three questions:

First, why should we care about the Ukrainian famine genocide that occurred almost 70 years ago?

Secondly, will the Ukrainian government not do the right thing to ensure that this horrific event is remembered?

Thirdly, why should Canada recognize the Ukrainian famine genocide?

The UCC responds to these questions as follows:

Yes, this premeditated massive extermination of human life occurred some time ago, but food is still a weapon used by authoritarian regimes to ram through a political agenda.

Yes, the Ukrainian government has erected a national famine memorial in Kiev, where Prime Minister Jean Chrétien participated in a wreath-laying ceremony during his first official visit on January 27, 1999, and Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma declared on November 26, 1998, that the fourth Saturday of November be a national remembrance day for the victims of this mass atrocity.

And yes, Canada should recognize this dark period in modern history, because while Ukrainians were being starved to death, Stalin's regime still managed to export 1,700,000 tonnes of grain to the west, which only compounded the nightmare. Canada should also remember this human tragedy, since Canada became the home for many survivors of the Ukrainian famine genocide.

• 0920

Mr. Chairman, it has been said of Canada that our strength as a nation lies in the diversity of our people. As this standing committee will have seen throughout the presentations made to it, many other ethnocultural communities in this country have also experienced tremendous atrocities caused by man's inhumanity towards man.

These experiences, always fresh in their minds and permanently engraved on their hearts, have led the survivors of such terrible acts to become remarkable Canadians—Canadians who have instilled in their children and grandchildren the importance of community and family, Canadians who understand the necessity of freedom in order to encourage and challenge the human spirit, Canadians who have helped build a nation recognized in the global community as a leader in peacekeeping and in speaking out on injustice. These remarkable Canadians have placed in the fabric of our nation the values that make us always vigilant against intolerance and tolerant of diversity.

Therefore the UCC believes an all-inclusive museum dedicated to the victims of all genocides would be a noble and dignified way for Canada to demonstrate to Canadian citizens and to the international community Canada's readiness to condemn all genocides. It would also show Canada's concern for an equitable recognition of all victims of genocides, irrespective of where and against whom the atrocities were committed.

In addition, it would sensitize future generations to the brutal fact that ethnic hatred and intolerance can lead to mass destruction. Hopefully it would also strongly encourage our youth to live in harmony in a multicultural Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Chair, different monuments remind us of various tragedies which marked the history of humanity. In 1998, the city of Montreal broke new ground by erecting a monument built by artist Francine Larrivée and entitled La réparation—Monument à la mémoire des victimes de génocides. The artist wrote in the middle of the monument that it was dedicated to the memory of all the peoples victim of genocide in the 20th century, across nations, without any distinction based on race.

Mr. Chair, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress recommends that the federal government create a Canadian museum of genocide dedicated to the memory of all victims of genocide. The Congress feels that such a museum will demonstrate Canada's constant desire to condemn all forms of genocide and will commemorate fairly all victims of such atrocities, no matter where or against whom these were committed. Moreover, such a museum will be an important education tool for generations to come.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have much longer? Because in fairness to the others—

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: The UCC is convinced that Canadians will support an all-inclusive Canadian genocide museum. It would be an original and uniquely Canadian endeavour. Such a museum would also ensure that a permanent legacy is established to honour the victims of all genocides in the world, and as an educational tool, it would have no equal.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of genocide is already being discussed in various academic circles. An all-inclusive Canadian genocide museum would move the discussion from the halls of academia to the mainstream and allow all Canadians to be informed on these critical issues. This broadening of the base of discussion would strengthen the resolve of all within our society to ensure that these terrible events are always remembered and never repeated.

Thank you very much for your attention.

• 0925

The Chair: Thank you.

I will remind witnesses that there are many of you, and we would like to have at least pretty close to an hour for questions. So if you could just keep your remarks to within ten minutes maximum, we would appreciate it.

I would like to now give the floor to the Canadian Arab Federation, represented by Mr. John Asfour.

Mr. John Asfour (President, Canadian Arab Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for including us in this presentation.

I would like off the bat to reflect on what our humanity has done in the 20th century and on what we will, a couple of centuries from now, be remembered as.

The 20th century without any doubt is the most horrendous century in man's history. We developed weapons of mass destruction and used them very widely. We also committed one atrocity after another, right from the beginning of the 20th century until the end. The latest, if I can refer to it, is the Rwandan experience. In one hundred days, a million to a million and a half people were killed.

If I can personalize the experience, I will tell you I am one of those victims we speak of. I'm not dead, but I was injured in a war in Lebanon that left me blind. Had I died, I probably would want my story to be told among the other dead.

In my experience in the civil war in Lebanon in 1958, I saw a lot of dead. I saw a lot of families suffering. I saw the terrible horror of war. And one thing I can tell you for sure: when those victims who died closed their eyes, they had no specific religion written on their forehead, they had no specific race written on their head, they had no specific identity. They were human, like you and me, but they were killed.

The Canadian Arab Federation is greatly interested in founding a museum in Canada that would tell the story of every human being in the 20th century who found his fate and who found his death under any atrocity and under any regime.

If this museum is to be an institution of education, I would like our children to learn the stories that have taken place—the stories of horror, the crimes against humanity that have taken place in the 20th century. We would be very interested in exhibiting horrors that have taken place in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, and certainly in Europe.

Mr. Chair, we have been very lucky in North America. We have never experienced—except I would guess our first nations have—the mass destructive nature of wars and the mass killing of humanity in the 20th century.

• 0930

A museum would tell us the story and would always remind us that this country was built on equality, was built on inclusiveness of every human being, was built under the Charter of Rights that respects every human being. It would be able to educate us about a story of every human being in this country.

Mr. Chair, if we are to build this museum, every ethnic community should have the right to exhibit and to tell its story to Canadians either in an exhibition, in a book, in a pamphlet, or in any other publication, be it electronic or print or any other form. Those stories have to be told as they are. They have to be a tool to educate Canadians and remind them that this country is very peaceful and this country is inclusive for everybody.

I would remind us of one more thing. We hope and pray that if we keep telling the story of horrors in the world and the horrors that have taken place in the 20th century, none of those horrors will be repeated again. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your very clear and eloquent testimony.

I would now like to turn to the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Marsha Skrypuch.

Ms. Marsha Skrypuch (Spokesperson, Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association): Thank you.

I have a copy of our brief. I'm hoping everybody has this, but I can pass it around later if you don't.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): —

Ms. Marsha Skrypuch: Yes.

I'm going to speak on a more personal note. I'm half Ukrainian. My mother's family was from Ireland and they were potato-famine Irish. My great-grandmother was killed by the Soviets in Ukraine. My great-aunt was killed by the Nazis. My grandfather came to Canada just before World War I and he was interned by Canada as an enemy alien. So I think my own family alone has experienced, in many different ethnic ways, various atrocities and genocides.

Also, I'm a children's author. The very first novel I ever wrote came out in the fall. I've written children's picture books, but this was my first novel. Even though I am Ukrainian, this is set during the Armenian genocide. In the book I quote Hitler. He said “Who remembers the Armenians now?” That was said on the eve of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis. I think we have to remember that.

Just because I'm Ukrainian and I'm half Irish doesn't mean I'm only interested in remembering what happened to my family. I'm very interested in what John Asfour said and I'm very interested in what Thekla Lit is going to say. This is something we have to remember: if we're going to have memory of genocide, it has to be inclusive. I'm more interested in hearing about others than only about myself.

I think what separates Canadians from other groups is that we're more interested in all of us and why we chose to be Canadian. We chose to be Canadian for freedom. That means that as Canadians, if we're going to have a museum or whatever we have to memorialise injustices, it has to be inclusive. It cannot be of only one ethnic group. It has to be for everyone, because every single death is equal. I can't say that strongly enough.

I would hope that children are able to know about more than one genocide. They have to know about them all. When I go into schools and I talk to children—and I do this a lot because I am a children's author—I ask them if they know of any genocide. They only know the Holocaust. That's the only one they know. In fact, many children don't even know what genocide means. They don't have a definition of what genocide is, and I think that's frightening.

• 0935

The problem is that if we don't realize that these things have happened time and time again, we get the idea that it won't affect us. It's okay if it happens to someone else, as long as it doesn't affect us. The more exclusive we make that message, the more people feel it's not going to affect them.

Well, I'm sitting here today and saying that on so many sides of my family alone, genocide has affected me. I want children to understand how it can affect them and I want them to think of themselves as Canadian and to think that everyone is equal, not that anyone is more equal than someone else.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You made your point of view extremely clear and you said it extremely well.

I'd like to now give the floor to Mr. Batshinduka, who is replacing Mr. Rwabyoma on behalf of the Rwandese Canadian Association of Greater Toronto. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Batshinduka (Representative, Rwandese Canadian Association of Greater Toronto): My name is Richard Batshinduka. I am Rwandese and the sole survivor of my whole family.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, the Rwandese Canadian community warmly welcomed Bill C-224 as a very important step toward the establishment of a Canadian museum of genocide supported by the federal government. The Rwandese Canadian community would like to take this opportunity to express their grateful thanks to the Canadian government for having shown the intention to recognize human suffering wherever it happens in the world, everywhere the human beast has taken the foolish decision to destroy mankind.

Indeed, Mr. Chair, we are forced to believe that whoever we are and wherever we come from, the roots of evil, those of human destruction, remain the same. They all originate in the powerful and very negative energies that exclusion and hatred represent.

Mr. Chair, genocide does not strike its victims suddenly like lightning. It is a culminating point that is reached after several steps, that represents a continuum of destruction, a process whereby the actors gradually learn through action.

In the case of Rwanda, the scapegoating of Tutsis as well as the first programs started in 1959. Since then, every time the country went through difficult times, Tutsis were held responsible and some paid with their life or were forced to go into exile. This happened frequently between 1959 and 1963, as well as in 1966 and 1967.

Mr. Chair, since the beginning of the October 1990 war, the government invested all their efforts into preparing what one superior officer of the army called the apocalypse. Hutu extremists, especially intellectuals and business men, put together all possible means and energies in order to prepare the Tutsis extermination as methodically as possible and they did everything in their power to maximize the result.

The Hutus ten commandments were written and largely distributed in extremist medias, notably in the newspaper Kangura. At the same time, the Interhamwe and Impuzamugambi militia were established, as well as a new Hutu extremist party called the Coalition for the defence of the Republic and democracy.

According to an Interhamwe member who defected, militiamen were trained to a performance level that allowed them to kill as many as 1,000 Tutsis an hour. The infamous radio RTLM—Radiotélévision libre des Mille Collines, was born in the same circumstances. Its mission was clear: transmit messages of hatred against Tutsis and call upon all Hutus to kill Tutsis without mercy.

In Rwanda, everything that the authorities say, be it on the radio, television or any other media, is gospel for the population. The Rwandese are culturally renowned for their unfailing respect and blind obedience of authority. But one must emphasize the fact that the implementation of the extermination plan also went step by step.

• 0940

Thus, the day after Mr. Léon Mugesera's speech, given in Kabaya November 22, 1992, during which he summoned Hutus to kill Tutsis, Tutsis were killed in the same commune and in neighbouring communes. As no action was taken against the culprits and nobody exposed the situation, 1,000 Tutsis from Bagogwe, Ruhengeri were also massacred with impunity,; then it was the turn of Kibungo Tutsis.

The message sent by both national and foreign observers was the same: no reaction. It was total indifference. The same attitude prevailed when general Roméo Dallaire asked for a stronger mandate from the United Nations, a mandate that would have allowed him to disarm militiamen: no reaction.

In the evening of April 6, 1994, after the attack on president Habyarimana's plane, barricades are put in place in less than an hour all over Kigali. The presidential guard and militiamen go into action. Tutsis are massacred in several neighbourhoods. The international community decides to lower the number of peacekeepers to 250 and all the foreigners leave Tutsis to die at the hand of their torturers. Militiamen read the following message in the international community's acts: if our presence disrupts your work we will go.

What happened during the Tutsis genocide in Rwanda shows how powerful an instrument hatred is. It can allow a human being wanting to destroy his brother to outperform without necessarily resorting to sophisticated means while achieving incredibly high results.

On this point, Mr. Chair, we are forced to believe that Rwanda's case is unique. According to different sources, the Rwandese genocide claimed between 800,000 and 1.5 million lives. But what we often forget to mention is that 95% of those lives were lost before the end of April, that is virtually within three weeks.

It is even more astounding to see that the vast majority of victims were killed with the most primitive arms, reminiscent of those use by prehistoric men: clubs, sharp objects, machetes, spears, hoes, pickaxes and hammers.

However, Tutsis who could afford it could sometimes buy a more human death. The price for a shot in the heart or the head was 50 Rwandese francs, the equivalent of 250 Canadian dollars. It was negotiable.

We were made to witness dehumanizing scenes that go beyond imagination. Mothers were raped with their daughters by seropositive individuals. Babies had their head crushed on a wall or were mashed alive in mortars. Entire families were locked in a house that was then set on fire. Old people unable to walk were left alive amongst the dead bodies of their children and grand-children. Hutu men killed their Tutsi wives; children born to a Tutsi mother and a Hutu father asked for their own mother to be put to death.

As Rwandese Canadians, we admit that the atrocities our people fell victim to were committed beneath other skies, against other human beings, during other genocides. We recognize that each genocide is unique. We also know that the motives behind and preconditions to killing frenzy are on the other hand highly identical and that each genocide has a very serious lesson to teach us as Canadians.

It is for that reason, Mr. Chair, that the Rwandese Canadian community wishes to honour all victims of genocides as their suffering is ours just like our suffering is theirs. It is with all that in mind, Mr. Chair, that the Rwandese Canadian community would like to express their total and unconditional support for the establishment of an impartial and inclusive Canadian museum of genocide, be it in its mandate or governance, a museum with a unique name, a museum where we will all be able to keep the memory of our dear departed alive. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Batshinduka.

I would like to clarify a point that seems important to me. At the beginning of your presentation, like other witnesses we heard yesterday, you alluded to the Canadian government commitment toward a new museum.

• 0945

I wish to make clear that the Canadian government made no such commitment. Museums are independent agencies,

[English]

arm's-length corporations.

[Translation]

The Canadian Museum of Civilization had proposed an exhibit on the Holocaust to commemorate genocides. Since then Mr. Assadourian tabled a private bill. Like I have already explained, we must report to the House of Commons and we have no decision-making authority. The Canadian government has not made any decision in the matter yet. I want it to be clear for all of us that it is an idea that came from the museum.

[English]

I want to be sure we're all clear on this point.

[Translation]

I now want to yield the floor

[English]

to the Council of the Muslim Community of Canada, represented by Mr. Ahmed Motiar.

Mr. Ahmed Motiar (Associate, Council of the Muslim Community of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm representing the Council of the Muslim Community of Canada, in short CMCC. Coming from South Africa, where I was involved in the anti-apartheid struggle all my life, I believe I bring to this committee a very unique and very relevant experience, which this committee will find offers interesting parallels, and therefore will hopefully avoid those mistakes of South Africa that contributed so much towards the promoting of hatred instead of goodwill and harmony.

In South Africa we had the Voortrekker Monument, which may be best compared to the Holocaust museum. It focused on the exclusive experience, the pain, and the tragedy of one group of people, namely the Dutch Afrikaner people. While not in any way undermining the pain of the Afrikaner people, because of the exclusive nature of the Voortrekker Monument, it created an “us versus them” situation. This was very divisive and exacerbated the ill will between races by entrenching unforgiving attitudes. This was the sad tragedy of South Africa.

Therefore the Council of the Muslim Community of Canada applauds the establishment of an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize crimes against humanity, hopefully of all groups of people equally, but we also have some concerns.

On the positive side, this exhibit or museum will provide an educational vehicle. It will create awareness that the atrocities are not isolated incidents, because I think it will help people to realize that they stem from hatred, from bigotry, and from racism—evils that, if they are allowed to fester, can lead to horrible injustices against our fellow men.

Given the multicultural makeup of Canadian society, this bill is a step in the right direction. Some of the features of our society have helped members of diverse communities in Canada. It is a strength in Canada that these diverse communities can live in harmony and at peace with each other. This has come about because of two points. One, there is a policy of inclusiveness that offers every group equal participation, regardless of race, colour, religion, or creed. Second, we are strongly opposed to exclusiveness, because it promotes division and it promotes hatred. These are the features that have made Canada the envy of the world.

• 0950

CMCC therefore is very pleased that the Recognition of Crimes Against Humanity Act, Bill C-244, will ensure inclusiveness by recognizing the pain of victims of all genocides of all groups. It will ensure equitableness whereby we do not have a hierarchy of genocide. It's true each group feels their own genocide is most important, but fair play and justice requires, from a moral point of view, that we do not place one group's tragedy above another, or for that matter marginalize the pain of some groups while we recognize the pain of others. This bill will ensure validation. At the practical level, this means providing all groups equal say in the governance of the museum, equal say in the mandate of the museum, and a say in the name of the museum.

By incorporating the principles I just cited a moment ago, this bill upholds, very importantly, the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights—and it is important to remember this—which does not single out any one group for special funding on the basis of race, religion, or creed. Also, it honours the Canadian tradition of inclusiveness and opposes exclusiveness, which promotes racism.

Here we find there is a consensus among all the groups except one, who are in favour of an inclusive, stand-alone genocide museum or exhibit, as is proposed, that is equitable and inclusive. Only if this is done would the museum serve the needs of all Canadians and validate all groups by recognizing the tragedy and the pain of all groups equally.

Here is an important point that only an inclusive museum can achieve, primarily because it has the potential for starting the process of healing and reconciliation, which is important. Incorporating crimes against humanity in a single museum would help bring home the realization that all groups have at some point in history been either the victims of genocides or the perpetrators of genocides.

A museum that will house crimes against humanity would hasten healing, because it would bring home very clearly that every group in society has the inherent potential to easily descend to this very debasing behaviour of committing terrible crimes against their own fellow men.

I have no doubt in my mind that this bill, if it incorporates all crimes against humanity, will offer the best opportunity for society to begin the cathartic process whereby we can start the healing and hopefully end the hatred.

There can be no argument that only through healing can we have reconciliation, and only through reconciliation can we hope to stop yesterday's victims from becoming tomorrow's perpetrators. If we want any evidence of this, we need only look at the atrocities being committed at the present time in Africa, in Russia, in the Middle East, and in other places.

The CMCC supports this bill but feels we can do even better. With all due respect to the chairman, who said we only have place for an exhibit, I would ask this committee to take to Parliament and the committee they are going to be presenting to that because crimes against humanity seem to be continuing unabated even as we are debating this bill, a mere exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization will not fulfil the educational function this museum is supposed to—namely, to prevent future atrocities by building those qualities of tolerance and justice that instil in our future generations such a total abhorrence for this kind of evil that hopefully we can prevent such genocide.

• 0955

In conclusion, if this committee is committed to justice, then the choice before it is very clear. Taking into consideration that the Canadian Charter of Rights does not permit the singling out of any one group for special funding on the basis of religion, race, or creed, and considering that this committee has only one of two choices—to have an exclusive museum, which is the model of apartheid South Africa, or to have an inclusive museum, a stand-alone genocide museum that includes everyone and honours the Canadian tradition of inclusiveness and opposes exclusiveness primarily because it promotes racism, the very evil that gives rise to crimes against humanity and that such a museum is supposed to be designed to prevent—anything less than an inclusive, stand-alone genocide museum would only promote animosity, hatred, bigotry, and more racism.

As you are honourable people, I trust that your decision will be based on equity and justice, a justice that is not only done but that is also seen to be done. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Motiar.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Yesterday the members agreed to hear Mr. Aris Babikian of the Armenian National Committee of Canada. I'll give him the floor.

Mr. Aris Babikian (Representative, Armenian National Committee of Canada): Good morning, and my apologies for being late. I drove early today from Toronto to make it on time, but unfortunately I didn't know I would be stuck in Ottawa's traffic.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am a descendant of a survivor of a genocide, in particular the Armenian genocide. My grandfather lost most of his immediate family members. He lost seven brothers and sisters. The stories that he related to us are still vivid in our minds, and that's why I am are here today to present and to urge you to support this bill.

First of all, I would like to thank you for providing us the opportunity to share with you the Canadian Armenian community's insight and experience on this very important and noble concept of creating a federally funded memorial for the millions of victims of racism, hatred, intolerance, and man's inhumanity to man.

Why a museum? The creation of a Canadian memorial museum of tolerance will be a fitting tribute to Canada's international reputation as a model country for peaceful coexistence among its various ethnic groups.

As a nation, we Armenians experienced in 1915 the first genocide of the 20th century. We, the descendants of the victims, have carried the scars of that heinous crime for 85 years. Nearly a century after the horrific act of the attempted annihilation of our people, we are witnessing the last act of genocide, the denial and the rewriting of history.

The creation of a Canadian memorial museum of tolerance in our capital will be an effective symbol in combating revisionists. It will also be a progressive step in the reconciliation, healing, and closure process for the victims and their descendants. Such a memorial will help us to remember the past and to learn from it. By remembering the past, we can prevent other nations and races from experiencing similar horrors.

As Canadians, we have increased our involvement in peacekeeping missions in troubled spots around the world. Our soldiers help maintain the peace and prevent human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing. Sometimes our soldiers are not emotionally prepared for the horrific events they witness when rampant nationalism tears nations apart. We need to prepare our soldiers for what they may face overseas. The museum will be an important institution to psychologically prepare them.

As for the mission of the museum, a Canadian memorial museum of tolerance will be a national institution for documentation, study, and interpretation of the history of man's inhumanity to man. It will serve as this country's memorial to the millions of people who have fallen victim to these tragic events in the past century.

The museum's primary mission will be to advance and disseminate knowledge about these unprecedented tragedies, to preserve the memory of those who suffered, and to encourage visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by these events as well as their own responsibility as citizens of democracy to ensure that such events will not be repeated.

• 1000

The museum will broaden public understanding of violent consequences of intolerance. It will exercise its mandate by initiating multifaceted programs such as exhibitions, public events, research and publication, the collecting and preservation of material evidence, art and artifacts relating to these events, annual commemorations known as days of remembrance, distribution of educational materials and teacher resources, and a variety of public programming designed to enhance understanding of these events and related issues, including those of contemporary significance.

The next issue is establishment and governance of the museum. The operation of such a museum should have an arm's-length relationship with the government. It should be run independently, without fear of political interference or geopolitical or economic consideration.

The museum should have two components. The first should be a permanent exhibit of all genocide that conforms to the United Nations international convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The second should be about cases of ethnic cleansing and mass killings that may not fall under the United Nations definition of genocide. In such cases, it would be appropriate to provide rotating exhibits so that lessons can be learned from these cases also.

The decision on the inclusion of a genocide should be left to the panel of genocide and Holocaust scholars, with input from the victim groups. An ad hoc committee should be established to work with the heritage committee, the minister, the victim groups, and scholars to establish consensus among various proposals and ideas. To promote this unique concept, the project should be a joint venture by the public and private sectors.

Once the museum is established, there should be an advisory group comprised of scholars, experts, and victim groups, who would assist the staff on a permanent basis. The victim groups should also be actively involved by providing volunteers, financial contributions, and other assistance.

Finally, the creation of such a museum should not replace any other remembrance museum already in place.

In conclusion, a Canadian memorial museum of tolerance will be a place of sombre reflection, a place to consider the implications of genocide, a place to foster understanding for the history of numerous communities within the multicultural framework of Canada. The story of crimes against humanity is too important to be bound only in parochial ethnic memory. It is necessary to include the lessons of these crimes in the official canon that shapes Canadians' sense of themselves.

On behalf of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished in 1915, we appeal to the committee to remain steadfast in its commitment to the establishment of a Canadian memorial museum of tolerance. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will leave the conclusion to Thekla Lit. You have the floor.

Ms. Thekla Lit (Co-Chair, ALPHA Canada (Association on Learning and Preserving the History of World War II in Asia)): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, and friends from other ethnic organizations. I'm honoured to be invited to this meeting.

ALPHA Canada has chapters in Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. Our aim is to pursue peace, justice, and racial harmony. Our mission is to educate people on the crimes against humanity committed by Japanese imperial forces before and during World War II.

Historians estimate that 35 million people were victimized in Japan's war of aggression. Numerous of them were victims of crimes against humanity. Those events include the brutalities inflicted on the captured Canadian Hong Kong veterans sent to defend Hong Kong in 1941, the estimated 200,000 so-called “comfort women”, the estimated 300,000 victims of the Nanking massacre, the Bataan death march, the biological and chemical warfare experiments, including live dissection of living human beings. The list can go on.

We believe that unless mankind has learned from the tragic past, we are doomed to repeat it. More than half a century has passed, yet this wound of history has been left unattended and it keeps coming back to harm relations between people and nations in the post-war era. We look for the healing of this wound of history and for the reconciliation between the people of perpetrator nations and those of victimized nations.

• 1005

Starting from our first public event, Canada ALPHA has been working together with Korean, Dutch, Filipino, Jewish, and Japanese community groups. Working with the Japanese groups in Canada, the United States, and Japan is in line with our belief in conscientious global citizenship and our ultimate mission for justice, reconciliation, peace, and better humanity. We believe that by working concretely, efforts like ours can contribute to genuine and long-lasting racial harmony in our multicultural society.

As an example of our work, in 1998 a photo exhibition and forum on Japan's World War II biological and germ warfare units was jointly organized by our B.C. chapter and the Greater Vancouver Japanese Canadian Citizens Association Human Rights Committee. Part of the project is a glimpse of reconciliation. It was also supported by the Korean, Dutch, Filipino, and Jewish community organizations. It received the 1999 Interracial Award from the B.C. Ministry of Multiculturalism and Immigration. I have a booklet here. If you're interested, you can take a look.

Now I would like to share with you ALPHA Canada's reflection on the establishment of an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the 20th century.

First, Canada is a multicultural nation. Like other Canadians, we Canadians of Asian heritage carry with us culture, traditions, and history that we can share with other Canadians. Naturally, just like other Canadians, Asian Canadians have their own history of suffering from racism and crimes against humanity. In the 20th century the crimes against humanity committed by the Japanese imperial forces inflicted horrendous pain and suffering on numerous victims all across Asia. Canada ALPHA believes Canadians should share and learn lessons of humanity from this atrocious chapter of history.

Mr. Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in his book Out of Control estimated that between 167 million and 175 million lives perished through politically motivated carnages in the 20th century. In Bosnia alone, it is estimated that 200,000 people were killed, with 750,000 missing. Millions became refugees, and some 36,000 Muslim women were raped. All of these remind us that people are still spurred to hate and kill each other by primitive motivations, including questions of ethnic, religious, racial, national, and regional identity.

The proposed exhibit on crimes against humanity can teach Canadians as well as foreign visitors about the dreadful experiences of people who had to go through atrocities like those, which are still going on around the world today. War, after all, is a human disaster, not a natural one, and people can prevent wars by sharing a history, a memory of such events. The exhibit on crimes against humanity will stimulate viewers to think critically about how human beings would best be able to avoid war and the destruction that the world can no longer afford in this nuclear age. Such an exhibit will make the past come to life by the ways in which it relates to the present and helps plan for the future.

Some members of Parliament showed concern about the threat of possible disagreements over historical issues blowing up into controversies. This is indeed a valid concern, but we believe it can be resolved or avoided if proper guiding principles are adopted in the making of the exhibits. However, this concern cannot be allowed to become Canada's reason for not setting up this exhibit. Canada, being a multicultural society and a nation recognized to support human rights and to foster peace, is uniquely placed to produce an exhibit on crimes against humanity in the 20th century.

The exhibit should not look at these historical events from the viewpoint of national or ethnic pride. Rather, it should be about Canada's attempts on the possibility of an historical understanding that transcends ethnic and national divisions. In practical terms, besides addressing the facts of the events, the exhibit should be based on an historical understanding anchored in a common ideal of humanity with emphasis on moral implications and the universal aspects of the events.

• 1010

An exhibit with this approach will be able to bridge gaps in historical understanding between different nations over historical issues of crimes against humanity. Such kinds of exhibits serve as attempts to bring about reconciliation and the building of mutual trust among different ethnics and nations. Canada ALPHA's work with different ethnic communities, including the Japanese-Canadian community and Japanese nationals, has proven that such an approach promotes mutual trust, harmony, justice, and active global citizenship.

On the concern of the wording of the now expired Bill C-224, which may lead to breaking the arm's-length relationship between Parliament and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, we believe our government can find ways to overcome this obstacle if our parliamentarians truly appreciate the spirit of the bill.

Anyway, the institutional purpose of that museum states:

As the national museum of human history, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is committed to fostering in all Canadians a sense of their common identity and their shared past. At the same time, it hopes to promote understanding between the various cultural groups that are part of Canadian society.

Therefore, it is within the mandate of the museum to host such exhibits to educate Canadians and the world for the betterment of humanity and the preservation of civilization. The fact that an exhibit on crimes against humanity is put under the same roof with exhibitions with other themes serves to enhance the sensitivity of visitors to the values of civilization, world peace, harmony, and global citizenship.

We appreciate that a great burden will be put on the museum staff for the production and maintenance of the proposed exhibit. However, I believe advocacy groups such as Canada ALPHA and others in this room today are ready and willing to contribute their expertise on individual historical events to help materialize such exhibits in accordance with the guiding principles as laid down by the museum.

We believe in equal treatment of all produced exhibition sets on each historical event. Each set can be displayed in the gallery on a rotational basis to reach out to all Canadians in a global community, or exhibition sets can have a travelling version, and they can also be put on the virtual museum of the Museum of Civilization.

Lastly, I would like to point out that a stand-alone museum on crimes against humanity in the 20th century has definitely lots of merit, versus that of an exhibit set in the Museum of Civilization. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the government will scrap the whole idea of establishing an exhibit on crimes against humanity just because of lacking capital funding for a stand-alone museum. Therefore, we ask those members of Parliament who proposed the idea, the good intention of a stand-alone museum, to ensure their good intention is not self-defeating.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now open up the floor to questions by members. What I would like to suggest, if members agree, is to use the same format we did yesterday. I have received a lot of requests. In fact, everybody wants to comment or question the witnesses. I was thinking that maybe we could each have a question or comment in rotation, and the witnesses would make notes and then cover the various points, which sometimes are similar anyway. If members agree to this, I think it will speed up the work. We have 45 minutes.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): I don't have any questions of the witnesses, but I have a one-minute statement. I don't know if other members...

The Chair: If members agree, we'll just do it in rotation. We'll certainly allow you time for your one-minute statement. Is that okay with the members?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. We'll just go in rotation. The witnesses can make notes and then cover the various points. We'll start with Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesss for being here today.

Again, I'd like to applaud our colleague Mr. Assadourian for bringing up this topic and his commitment to it.

There's no doubt that this exercise is a very positive one and that it certainly will continue. I know that Canadians want acknowledgement and redress of many issues in this country.

• 1015

I personally believe that definitions in the terms of reference will be the key to succeeding in this initiative. Today and yesterday we've heard numerous key words mentioned: genocide, crimes against humanity, atrocities, human tragedies. We need to be more specific and define exactly what we mean.

Even in terms of the timeframe, are we talking about the 20th century? Do we go back to before the 20th century? In fact, witnesses indicated that perhaps with changing history... Do we update it to reflect the current things that are happening in the country?

My question to you is this: Before we create an exhibit or build a building, what we need to do, perhaps, is to create another vehicle so that all the stakeholders are brought together, to ensure that decisions that are made are inclusive, equitable, and based on good research. That's my question.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): I would like to thank all the witnesses. Some of the people we heard this morning lived through a genocide and others told us what their families have gone through. I believe and I feel that it is extremely useful to know how you perceive these events, why you feel that way and why you think that it is important for Canada to have a means, be it a museum, an exhibit or something else, to make sure that the collective memory draws lessons from the past and avoids history repeating itself in the future or, at the very least, ensures that those responsible expect consequences.

Yesterday like today, our witnesses presented us different views on the creation of a museum or exhibit. I will ask you the same question because I also want to have your point of view. If, on the one hand, we agree on the educational value of a museum or exhibit and if we also agree on the fact that the goal is to make information accessible to as many people as possible, on the other hand, a museum that would be located in a city like Ottawa would not allow all Canadians to access that information.

I understood that some witnesses suggested that we use virtual facilities, including the Internet, to make some information accessible but my concern remains the same. If we are to invest efforts, energies and money into the creation of such a museum or exhibit, would it not be appropriate that it be accessible to as many people as possible? How could we get the best results out of the efforts we will invest?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

I will now just give the floor to people in the order they asked me: Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Mills, Mr. Assadourian, and Mr. Bélanger. If Mrs. Bulte and Mr. Shepherd want to comment afterwards or ask questions, by all means.

• 1020

We'll start with you, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just speaking to Dennis about this. One of the points that was made very clearly by Mr. Motiar and that I think it's important we recognize, and I think Ms. Lit made it as well... As we're sitting here speaking our minds—as diverse as they may be—in the safety of this country, genocide is taking place right now in different places within the world.

We talk about the need for this, and I certainly believe that when we look at countries like Canada, ignorance is the seed of tolerance for genocide. I know, speaking as a Canadian who went through my entire education here in Canada, that there was very little focus on genocide taking place throughout the world in the last century or, for that matter, in the last two or three centuries. There was very little access, very little involvement in the curriculum.

So my point is more along the lines of Mr. de Savoye's; that is, as we focus on the nation's capital—understanding the fact that this is certainly a place where many national museums are located—for a bricks-and-mortar exhibit, if I may, we do prejudice other regions within the country. Quite simply, geographically it's a very large country, and it becomes difficult for a middle-class family in Alberta to pay for five flights and accommodation to come to Ottawa and visit the museums. By that very fact we somewhat prejudice them for something that is so incredibly important.

As Mr. Mark said, I think it's critical that we research and collect accurate information on the genocide that's taking place. I'd be interested in your comments on this, that rather than moving swiftly towards the creation of a bricks-and-mortar structure in Ottawa, we look at your opinions on researching it, and at the inclusivity, looking at ways that we can make this information, whether it be words or articles or statements, available to Canadians all across the country, through a travelling exhibit, or a virtual one, or any number of different ways.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to salute my colleague, Sarkis Assadourian—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Hear, hear!

Mr. Dennis Mills: —for just a beautiful piece of legislation.

I also want to salute all of our witnesses today, Mr. Chairman. They reminded me, as I was listening to them... it was like eight disciples of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They reminded me of a speech in April 1971, when Prime Minister Trudeau stood on the floor of the House of Commons and introduced an act that was the multiculturalism policy. In the very first sentence in that speech, he said: “We are going to become a nation where no culture is less than or greater than another culture”.

A voice: Hear, hear!

Mr. Dennis Mills: He said: “We are going to become a nation where we encourage people to celebrate and maintain their culture of origin”.

Everything that all of you have said here today is building on that 29-year legacy of Canada being the greatest multicultural nation on the planet.

Sarkis, I will say that I'm going to commit any time you need to make sure that your vision of this becomes a reality.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the exhibit and where it's located, for the first round of this exhibit I think we should go back to that project we did a few years ago, Canada's Discovery Train, where we would first of all put the exhibit on a train and then just go from coast to coast with it. We can make sure that every part of the country sees it, and when that train has finished travelling every region of the country, we can figure out where it should end up.

The Prime Minister is talking about values. I think this falls right within what the Prime Minister has been talking about in the last two months.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Assadourian, then Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the witnesses to this second session.

• 1025

We had a very good session yesterday. It was very constructive, very forward-looking. I appreciate the support you've given me for the last 18 months. It has been quite a difficult road. We had some disappointment, but I think we are almost at the end. We are almost united, with one or two exceptions—one and a half exceptions, actually.

My question has to do with with the point made by Aris Babikian that he supports the concept of the museum or he now supports Bill C-224, but he does not want to oppose the previous process that was in track. I'm confused as to what the situation is. Maybe Aris Babikian can take a few minutes to explain to me and to this committee what he supports. Is he in favour of two museums, or one museum, inclusive, as everybody else has been asking for? At this point, I am quite confused. I don't know what the situation is.

On the other point, I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Ahmed Motiar came from South Africa. He gave us a perfect example of apartheid, how apartheid functioned in South Africa and how it came to an end.

I was here in this House when Nelson Mandela was here. It was a very emotional moment for all of us, especially for me. When I shook hands with him I said “You're my hero”.

In regard to what you told us about the South African museum only being for one group, with the exclusion of all others, that is not the way Canada is going to go. As far as I'm concerned, that is not the Canadian way. That is not my way. That is not our way. Either we're all Canadian, equally, or we are not. You can't be one or one and a half Canadian.

I really appreciate everybody's submissions here. I thank you for the support, and I look forward to talking with you again. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

First, I totally support the notion that whatever we or the Government of Canada end up doing, if anything, it has to be all-inclusive. It cannot be otherwise. If we accept that as a first principle we must adhere to, it might influence what we can do, because we've heard some views that may not fit in that first principle.

That's why I want to congratulate Madame Skrypuch for her document, and I'd like to make sure that colleagues read it, because she offers an alternative that I find fascinating. I find it quite realistic in terms of its achievability. She has called it The Canadian Book of the Dead. But what's behind that concept, if I've read it properly, is the establishment of an independent foundation with a research and publishing budget, with a mandate to do what we've talked about.

You may recall that yesterday I was grasping at this notion that if the final objective of what we're trying to do, what our colleague has tried to do, is to help engender reconciliation and a greater awareness and understanding so that these kinds of things will not happen again and people like us will stand up when we see them happening, then perhaps there is no need of a physical building per se, down the road, but there certainly is a need for education, for research, and for the promulgation of what we've learned. I think the alternative put forward by Madame is a rather interesting one, and I would urge our colleagues to consider it seriously.

If you will allow me a comment also, I am a member of Parliament from the Ottawa area, and I take great exception to those who might think having sites that Canadians can come and visit in their capital—there's only one capital city of a country—is a prejudice, or prejudices other parts of the country. I take great exception to that, and I would like that to be noted.

Thank you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It has been noted. We agree with you.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte or Mr. Shepherd, do you have any comments or questions?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming today. As Ms. Skrypuch said, it's important that we hear each others' stories, and I think that's what we started. With some of the stories we heard from Mr. Asfour, we're starting to tell those stories. A lot of times, one of the important things about being Canadian and finding things that are uniquely Canadian is ensuring that we find ways to tell each other our stories.

• 1030

Canada is as diverse in its culture as it is in the richness of its landscapes, and I think it's wonderful that we're finally at this point. With my own eastern European background, I certainly know those stories. I and my family have stories as well.

I think it's wonderful that you have come here. Again, I want to thank Mr. Assadourian for his hard work. I know he has done a very effective lobbying job—and by the way, I have replied to every single card I have received. I know many communities are very supportive, and I thank you all for coming.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd, is there anything you would like to say?

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I too am very happy that you came, and I'm very supportive of Mr. Assadourian's process here.

In spite of my friend Mr. Bélanger, I wonder if the object of the exercise is awareness. I think that's what we're debating a little bit, whether the best way to achieve those results is a permanent exhibit here in Ottawa or some other kind of a forum in which you can reach more people in Canada. I'm sure there are some statistics over in Statistics Canada that would show us how many people actually have the opportunity to come to Ottawa. We should certainly promote more of our capital among our other nationals, but the reality is they don't all make it here. So you may well look at some of the other alternatives that have been suggested to get out into the communities and the main streets of this country. That's my only observation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I hope you've retained the various questions and comments of the members. I would ask you to comment in turn in the same order in which you spoke.

We'll start with Mr. Czolij, please.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: As for the definitions and terms of reference to which Mr. Mark alluded, I believe we have a very important document that could guide us in the Recognition of Crimes Against Humanity Act, Bill C-479, where, in subsection 2.(2), there's a definition of crimes against humanity as defined by the United Nations. These terms and definitions could be looked at by scholars and historians, victim groups, and Canadian individuals, and I have faith in the strength of our scholars, victim groups, and Canadian individuals to come up with a definition and with terms of reference that would satisfy us all.

I take this opportunity to salute Mr. Assadourian for his wonderful work and his guidance on this very important issue.

As for the educational tool, although I agree that a travelling exhibit from coast to coast would be an interesting idea, I also believe a permanent museum in our capital is extremely important in order for Canada to demonstrate world leadership in peacekeeping and in speaking out on topics, on all issues of injustice in the world, to demonstrate not only to Canadians in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C., but to the whole international community that Canada does not tolerate hatred, that Canada condemns all forms of genocide.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Asfour.

Mr. John Asfour: I'm interested in the educational part of it, and not having an institution of education of that sort would prove that we are so smug that we are against knowing what is going on in the outside world, what is going on in the rest of the world.

• 1035

An institution of education can take the form of a permanent exhibit, and that's what I recommend, a permanent exhibit in Ottawa out of which can come forms of education. I don't see what is wrong, for instance, in having a publication out of that museum that would be taught in school. This is Ottawa's golden opportunity to get into the classroom, educate small kids, show them what is going on in the rest of the world. We don't do much of this, sir.

We have the opportunity to do it in the classroom. We have the opportunity to do it on the Internet. It wouldn't take much out of our time and our effort to take that museum across Canada time and again, show it to people and bring it to them back to Ottawa forever and ever, and whenever they want to see it.

I see it as the greatest educational tool to show our tolerance, to show our interest in and deploring of hatred, deploring of crimes against humanity, deploring of mass killing, and the love for peace and tranquillity in this world. We don't do much of this, sir. I can't stress enough the element of educating our people, of telling them that history is built on atrocity, especially the twentieth century, and if we don't know what it going on and what has gone on in the twentieth century, crimes will be repeated again, and we don't have the vehicle and the instrument to prevent it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Skrypuch.

Ms. Marsha Skrypuch: I want to talk about the foundation idea, and I'm going to concentrate on that. But first I would like to thank Sarkis Assadourian for all his efforts.

Thank you so much, Sarkis.

I had the opportunity to meet Sarkis Assadourian a couple of years ago, and I still remember that wonderful lunch.

The idea of a foundation is to have a foundation that would be cheaper, a finite project that would be serious, accountable research that all communities could contribute to. It wouldn't have a permanent bureaucracy and it would be usable for everyone. This is a separate idea from a genocide museum or a wing that would talk about genocide. I still think that this is important, and I think that people should be encouraged to come to Ottawa, to the capital of the country. But aside from that, when you walk through a museum, it's a very shallow way of looking at things; you're accosted by images and you may not really even understand what you're seeing.

If we could have a Canadian book of the dead that was a scholarly report, so that people who are recognized accredited scholars... Anyone can self-publish and they can say these are the facts, and we all know what that is. That's just hate literature. But what I'm talking about is scholarly, academic people from all different races to be able to document what happened in their country or in other people's countries and put it together in a book that would be usable by everyone. It could also be simultaneously published on the Internet.

When I was doing research for my book on the Armenian genocide, I had great difficulty getting information. I have a new book coming out in the fall that's set during the Ukrainian famine. Again, it's hard to find information. So I think that in addition to a genocide museum or exhibit, a book that is done through a foundation, and is time-limited, perhaps eight years, with good funding and academic credentials, would be definitely something to go for.

I do have these outlined. Anyone who doesn't have this, please let me know and I'll give it to you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Batshinduka.

Mr. Richard Batshinduka: I think the idea of having an institution where Canada would have the means to educate our children on human tragedy wherever it takes place in the world is a fantastic one. I also think that Canada is capable of investing efforts in disseminating information either on the Internet or in all sorts of publications so that our children know that even if they live in a country which is a haven of peace in our troubled world, it is not the same elsewhere especially if some of these children are descendants of parents who came from those trouble spots.

• 1040

Even if Canada is a haven of peace, what guarantee does our future hold if we don't invest right now in our children's education on peace preservation by showing them the horrors that others experienced? This is my position.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Batshinduka.

[English]

Mr. Motiar.

Mr. Ahmed Motiar: I would like to respond to the gentleman who raised the question about genocide not being included in the curriculum during his school life. It's not even included at the present moment, and I think there is a serious effort not to include it.

I am going this evening to a meeting—that's why I have to fly over—where the board had declared a Holocaust week. I said this is not appropriate, because it only recognizes the tragedy of one group; we should be all-inclusive and have a genocide week. It seemed people were not accepting of that. They thought I was demeaning the Holocaust, and that wasn't the case. They could not understand the racism of it and I had to give them an illustration from my South African experience, which I'll now describe, if I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman.

In South Africa, during apartheid days, when there was a mine disaster where 56 miners were killed, the newspaper headline the following day stated “Six miners killed”, and gave the history and the family of the six miners in detail on page two. And in the last paragraph on the last line, it also said “There were also 50 additional black miners killed”. That was clearly racist. They understood it was racist.

I said “How different is this...” I took the figure 56 deliberately, because whether there were 72 or 35, it doesn't matter. I said “How different is that from the 50 million who died in the Second World War?” We marginalized them. We defaced them. We don't recognize them; we only recognize the six million. I said “All life is important. We should recognize the 56 miners.” And suddenly they saw the point.

They have now moved the question to a race relations committee, where we're going to debate tonight whether we should have a genocide week or a Holocaust week. The Jewish Congress representatives are very opposed to that, and it hurts me, because we are not marginalizing their pain. All we are saying is please recognize the pain of others as well; otherwise, it becomes racist.

This committee has an obligation, because you have the authority, to ensure that the schools start incorporating genocide in their curriculum. And we could do so very economically if we had documentary studies professionally done whereby every school or every board can get a copy and they can make copies of it, of all the genocides, including the Holocaust. It could be done in equal binders, so that everybody gets a fair chance. The schools will respond, hopefully, and once the children respond, we can change attitudes.

The Chair: Mr. Babikian. And there was a specific question put to you by Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in this issue for the past three years. I know the issue is very divisive, and some of our guest speakers have mentioned that. We should not think that because it is divisive we should drop the whole idea.

I think that all of us here, yesterday and today, have presented different approaches, different ideas. That's why in our presentation earlier I mentioned that this should not be the end of the road. We should form an ad hoc committee where we will include all of these various presentations, take them, study them, have scholars who are experts on the issues of Holocaust and genocide. In Canada we have internationally renowned scholars, Professor Serbyn being one of them, and William Schabas, Frank Chalk, and Katherine Bischoping. You name it. There are so many of them that with the good intentions we can come together, all of us, and have some kind of institution where everyone will be happy with it. This issue should not be looked at as a competition between various projects or ideas.

• 1045

We are mature enough people who went through genocide in the 20th century, human rights abuses, and mass killings. We are mature enough. To us the idea is paramount to any other issue. We in Canada have been working and cooperating with each other on various issues. I think we can find a sensible resolution to this issue through the Canadian way of compromising with each other and cooperating with each other. That's how we can find a solution to this issue.

We should not be discouraged because there were contradictory propositions and ideas presented here yesterday and today. On the contrary, these should be challenging to us. We should get together. We should bring all these groups together with the experts and the scholars and come to a common ground and build this museum.

I think Ottawa should be the location, for reasons many other speakers previously mentioned, which I do not want to repeat. I think Mr. Mark mentioned the reasons for a genocide museum, or a Canadian tolerance museum, as we call it in our proposition. I will mention some of them.

First of all, the world is getting smaller and smaller. We are not living isolated in North America, with the rest of the world not existing for us. Whatever happens anywhere in the world affects us here in Canada. We have seen that human rights abuses and genocide are the most recurring events that have taken place from 1915 all the way to the end of 20th century.

Marsha mentioned earlier that in 1939, when Hitler was planning the invasion of Poland, his generals were concerned about his plan and asked him, “What do you think the public opinion, the international community, will say?” His famous quote was, “Who remembers the Armenians today?” So we should not lead any other despot or dictator to use such an attitude and such phrases again and implement genocide toward another race or nation.

The Chair: Mr. Babikian, you're not making another presentation, are you?

Mr. Aris Babikian: No.

The other important reason for Canadians why we should have a genocide museum is I spoke with some people at the Royal Military College in Kingston, and they told me that when the Canadian peacekeepers go overseas and come back, they are completely emotionally destroyed. They are not prepared for what they experience and see over there.

Such a museum would be an ideal tool to prepare, not only soldiers, but our future generations, the business people, the diplomats, and all other people, to learn from what's happening around the world and see what happened in the past, so they are prepared for the future.

The Chair: I think we'll leave it at that. There are two others who want to speak. Just in fairness to the others, I would like to give the floor to Mrs. Lit.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you very much.

Ms. Thekla Lit: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question of the timeframe for the exhibits, I think Mr. Assadourian has rightly pointed out in his proposed bill that it should be about crimes against humanity perpetrated in the 20th century. As Ms. Wendy Lill pointed out at the parliamentary debate on this bill, the 20th century has been the most barbaric in history. If we had unlimited resources, of course it would be good to go back as far as possible, but I'm sure we have limited resources. So if the exhibit included the 20th century crimes against humanity, it would be very appropriate.

The other point I would like to respond to is about where the museum should be located or whether a permanent museum should be built, versus a travelling and virtual museum.

• 1050

I would say that the travelling and virtual museum should only be the second part. A permanent exhibit in a museum is very important, because a museum is not only for education, but it is also a centre for memorials, research, and documentation. We need to have a permanent place for that.

If saying that having it in Ottawa is having a prejudice against other cities in Canada... Unless we don't have a place for that... Otherwise we could place it in Toronto, Vancouver, or elsewhere. You would have the same argument. I hope this will not become an obstacle for us. I would say that having the museum in Ottawa has a very important symbolic meaning, because Ottawa is our capital.

Mr. Assadourian proposed that we should have exhibits in the Museum of Civilization. It's a very appropriate suggestion, because it's already there, and we can have exhibits in the Museum of Civilization. It's not only a place for Canadian citizens to go to visit. I would say that most foreigners coming to Ottawa will visit the Museum of Civilization.

I would propose that this permanent exhibit be placed in the Museum of Civilization. It would be very appropriate. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Serbyn, we'll let you conclude.

Professor Roman Serbyn (Chair, Ukrainian Canadian Congress Subcommittee on Genocide Museum): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think most of the points have already been covered, but I would like to add something to this discussion.

First I would like to pay homage to two pioneer communities that made this possible, including this meeting. The first is the Jewish community. If it had not been for the Jewish community... This is recognized by all scholars. Professor Malia, the eminent scholar, and Courtois and so on recognize that the Jewish community, by insisting on having their genocide recognized by the world, has cleared the way for others. This is very important.

Secondly, in the Canadian context, we must remember that Canada is a universe in microcosm. We have all the communities from across the whole universe here together, and we're cooperating, we're living together. This is an example.

In this context, the Armenian community must also be recognized. Mr. Assadourian brought this bill forward. In Montreal, the Armenian community has set up a monument to all genocide. This is a pioneer, this is a model for others, this is unique, this is the first time this has happened. That's why a Canadian museum of genocide would be a follow-up to this kind of idea.

Let me finish on this note. The Jewish community—which was so preoccupied, and rightly so, in having their tragedy recognized by the world and also facing it themselves, because it was a traumatic experience for them—have established themselves. They are secure now, and now they're going further. We have proof of this.

Let me just quote a recent... In Great Britain, the British government has decided that in 2001, January 27 shall be marked as Holocaust Day in the U.K. As a follow-up to this, in an annual general meeting of the Reform Synagogue of Great Britain, a resolution has been passed. Listen to this carefully, please:

We suggest that January 27 be marked for the Jewish community not only by remembering the Jewish experience but also by learning about and mourning for all those who were victims of twentieth century genocides and persecutions of minorities.

This is enlarging the scope.

If you look at the four reasons for a Canadian museum of genocide that I've made available, you will see Teena Hendelman, who is the president of the Canadian Tribute to Human Rights in Ottawa. She also says: “Even the Shoah could be a part of such a museum”—this is an inclusive museum—“to stress that `Never again' could there be such a systematized elimination of a people.

This I think is very important. We should not put this as a conflict between one community and the others. Sooner or later, we're all going toward the same goal, which is a Canadian museum of genocide.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming here and making your views very clear to us. We appreciate your coming. We appreciate your input and participation. Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.