HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 7, 2000

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to consider an order of reference from the House of Commons of November 30, 1999, to study and report to the House on Bill C-224,

[Translation]

An Act to establish by the beginning of the twenty-first century an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity, as defined by the United Nations, that have been perpetrated during the twentieth century.

[English]

I should explain to the members that in the order of reference from the House, Ms. Wendy Lill, a member of this committee, specifically asked the Speaker this:

Mr. Speaker, when you say the subject matter being the crimes against humanity act, I understood the subject matter of the bill to be an exhibit of crimes against humanity. I need clarification on what exactly we are asking the committee to deal with.

The Speaker said:

With respect, we will put the question and members will have the option to say either yes or no, but it is not appropriate to debate it any more. By unanimous consent the order will be discharged and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for review and report by June 15, 2000.

This was agreed to.

So our mandate is a broad one: to review the general substance of Bill C-224 and to report to the House in the way we see fit.

To give members and our witnesses a background of what we feel the committee is about, we should of course note that the 20th century was marred by thousands of incidents and examples of crimes against humanity, leading to the abuse and death of many millions of people. We also note that there are far too many examples of humans' inhumanity to other humans.

This being the case, how can we as a peaceful society contribute to harmony amongst humans and reverse the tide? How should our committee suggest that these atrocities be made relevant to Canadians as a whole, particularly to our children and grandchildren?

While a full comprehension of the history of humans' capacity for inhumanity is necessary in teaching respect for differences and for human rights of others, what is the best way to teach this lesson? How can we use these particular hearings and our recommendations to the House of Commons and government to promote reconciliation in Canada, amongst Canadian communities?

• 1535

Many Canadians fled their countries of origin because they had been, or feared they would become, the victims of crimes against humanity. Reconciliation between these individuals and their tormentors may not be possible in their own lifetime, but what of their descendants, the Canadian-born children and grandchildren? What advice can the committee give to the House of Commons and government that would help avoid making children and adults alike feel victimized by atrocities that may have taken place many generations ago—victimized either by association with a community whose suffering is depicted or by association with a community that is stigmatized as a perpetrator of the tragedy?

It is a fact that the Canada of today represents almost all of the world's major races, religions, and ethnic and international groups. What can the committee recommend that will encourage and promote peace, understanding, and harmony among them? Would an exhibit be little more than a graphic depiction and description of these horrific crimes? Might it be more instructive to examine ways to set out the need to respect human rights, to illustrate the international movement to promote respect for and to protect these rights, using examples of crimes against humanity to explain the origins and moral imperative of such a movement?

I see those as being the questions we as a committee should address, but of course we are not restricted to these. I just gave this as a background of the way I saw our deliberations unfolding. Of course the committee is free to decide for itself how it wants to view the whole subject.

Importantly, we need to listen and to hear, and today we have very important representatives of various communities here. Before I introduce them, however, I have to present to the committee a letter.

[Translation]

A letter will be handed out to you. This is a letter that I received a few days ago and I must provide you with a copy because it is officially addressed to the committee. It has just been translated and you will be given a copy. The letter has to do with Bill C-224 and was written by the Armenian National Federation of Canada.

[English]

It's addressed to me:

Further to my telephone conversation of today with your assistant...I am writing to express my organization's disappointment regarding your committee's refusal to allow us to make a presentation during the June 7 and 8 hearings on the creation of a Genocide Museum in Ottawa.

As part of a nation which experienced the First Genocide of the Twentieth Century, I believe that my organization's input on this issue can make a valuable contribution to the creation of the Museum.

As the only national umbrella organization for the Canadian Armenian Community and member of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, we have been actively involved, in the last few years, in promoting and advocating the creation of such a Museum as long as this project does not replace any other remembrance museum already in progress.

Furthermore, last summer we discussed the merits and benefits of the creation of the Museum with the Hon. Sheila Copps. At that meeting, the Minister expressed her appreciation of our input on this issue and urged us to continue our dialogue, consultation and advocacy to develop this noble idea. The Minister also told us that she would count on us in the future to help her promote the creation of a “Reconciliation Museum” in Ottawa.

It is ironic that after we had invested so much energy on this issue, suddenly, in the eleventh hour, our organization has been left out of the process. I'd like to urge you to reconsider your decision and let the committee and the public benefit from our expertise and commitment.

It is signed sincerely by Mr. Aris Babikian, president.

• 1540

I should explain that the lists were discussed. We looked at the various lists and eventually made decisions according to the advice we received and also the time that was allocated. If members feel this organization should be invited, then we will find the time. I wanted to put it to you, as the request had been officially made to me.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Chair, I would like to put forward a motion. It's not with regard to this letter, so I'm sorry if I've jumped the gun and somebody has something to say regarding the letter.

The Chair: Oh, I see; you're giving us a notice of motion.

Mrs. Wendy Lill: Yes, but if there's anything that has to be said before this, I'll wait.

The Chair: Fine. Perhaps we can deal with this letter first, and then by all means, Mrs. Lill, go ahead.

Does anyone have any objections to this organization being invited if time can be found? No? Then I'll ask the clerk to find some time.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

I would like to give a notice of motion. I understand we don't have quorum here, but I would like to put forward a motion. I have it translated in English and French. I can read it now, if you like.

The motion I put forward reads:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage convene a meeting before June 23, 2000; and that the purpose of this meeting be to review recent announcements at the CBC relating to local programming, and to allow the Committee to review these announcements in light of the January 6th 2000, licence renewal decision granted by the CRTC.

And that the appropriate witnesses be invited to this meeting, specifically Robert Rabinovitch, President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and Françoise Bertrand, Chairperson of the Canadian Radio Television Commission.

I would like that to be debated tomorrow, if possible.

The Chair: Normand, do we need 24 hours' notice?

The clerk advises me that it's a little late. We can debate it on Thursday... Or, no, it's 48 hours' notice, so we'll debate it on Tuesday of next week. Okay?

Ms. Wendy Lill: All right.

The Chair: Let's proceed to the witnesses. I'm pleased to welcome today several important organizations and their representatives.

First of all, we have Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, the member of Parliament who was responsible for introducing Bill C-224 to the House. Mr. Assadourian is an MP for Brampton Centre in Ontario.

From the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Canada Inc., we have Mr. Daniel Boyadjian and Mr. Barry Khojajian.

From the Centre for Peace in the Balkans, we have Mr. Stevan Ivancevic, president.

[Translation]

We will also hear from Mr. James Kafieh, who is the Executive Secretary for the group called Canadians for a Genocide Museum.

[English]

As well, from the Canadian Jewish Congress, we have Mr. Nate Leipciger, chair of the Holocaust Remembrance Committee, and Mr. Jack Silverstone, the executive vice-president and general counsel.

Finally, from B'nai Brith Canada, we have Mr. Sheldon Howard, director of government relations.

We have two hours before us, so if each representative would present their case in roughly seven to ten minutes, we would appreciate it. We want to allow the greatest time possible to the members to question the witnesses.

We'll start with you, Mr. Assadourian.

• 1545

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, this is my first opportunity to talk to members of Parliament in the forum of a committee. I was a witness for a committee hearing in my previous life, but this is the very first time I come as a member of Parliament. I thank you for this opportunity.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this process began back in May 1998 when the Senate had a hearing on the subject of the War Museum consequent to the Holocaust gallery. In their final report called Guardian History, May 1998, the 12th recommendation said that they should build a Holocaust museum and/or genocide museum.

So from this idea I came up with the idea of having a private member's bill in the House of Commons, which was called then Bill C-479. It called for the creation of an exhibit in the Museum of Civilization at the end of the 20th century to commemorate the slaughter and murder of almost 95 million innocent citizens of this world in the 20th century.

I'm glad to say the very first time I introduced the bill I had enormous support from Canadians from coast to coast from various organizations. The outpouring of support was overwhelming.

I never received any such support for any of my other political initiatives over the last six and a half years as a member of Parliament. This support was outstanding.

I'd like to read one paragraph from a letter I received from John Thompson, director of the MacKenzie Institute, which I think summarizes the sentiments of many Canadians. He says, in part, and I quote:

There are a number of strong opinions on this issue. But if we fail to do justice to the memories of victims of any one particular episode, it is tantamount to denying that any exist. Either all are remembered, or none deserve to be.

I have to say that I and many Canadians wholeheartedly agree with this cause, with this principle that humanity as a whole has suffered more than we deserved to suffer in the last century. If you're going to pick and choose the victims of genocide or crimes against humanity, that's tantamount to discrimination.

It appeared again in an article entitled, “Letter from Canada”. The idea of having two separate museums or institutions or exhibits or anything, one for group A, one for group B, is totally insulting to me as a person. I said in this that it would be discriminating among victims who were killed because of discrimination in the first place.

Each and every genocide is unique. We have to treat them all equally—not the same, but equally.

What happened to the Armenians may not be the same as what happened to the Chinese. What happened to the Chinese is certainly not the same as what happened to the Jewish people or what happened to Cambodia or what happened to Africa. We have to make sure they all receive equal treatment, not the same treatment, but equal treatment. That is the concept I'd like to push forward. That is the concept I'd like this committee to understand.

Denying for one group a portion of the history they suffered is tantamount to discrimination, which I don't think is the Canadian way. I don't think this is our way. I don't think we condone discrimination for those genocide survivors or even for those who died, because basically that's why they died. So that's the principle of the bill.

I want to go back to the two reasons why I did not use the word “genocide”—I used “crimes against humanity”—and why I did not ask the government to have a free-standing museum. Of course, we all know as a backbencher I cannot ask government to spend money. It has to be done within their budget.

Secondly, when you talk about genocide, of course, “genocide” is the UN definition to which we subscribe. Unfortunately, many past incidences like the Chinese, with 35 million slaughtered, are not defined as genocide by our definition in Canada.

The 12 million Ukrainian family victims are victims of genocide. Genocide is usually reserved for the Holocaust, Rwanda, and 49%, 50%, depending on which government official we believe, for the Armenian case. That will leave lots of other people upset, which I don't think is fair. It is not appropriate to do this.

• 1550

So that's where I'm coming from, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure you have lots of questions. I would be happy to answer any questions any members of Parliament would have.

Thank you very much.

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

I turn the floor to the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Canada. Would one of you speak?

Mr. Daniel Boyadjian (Spokesperson, Armenian General Benevolent Union of Canada Inc.): Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank you and your committee for giving us this opportunity. Also, we would like to thank Mr. Assadourian for his initiative.

Mr. Chairman, Barry Khojajian and myself would like to address the subject matter at hand as spokesmen for the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Canada, representing a large and vital sector of the Armenian community in Canada. The AGBU, abbreviated, since its inception in 1906 as a world organization, has been a moderate but determined voice in pursuit of assistance to needy Armenians in Armenia and abroad. As such, what you will hear today from us will be reasonable and fair.

I would like to invite my colleague, Barry Khojajian, to address the subject matter at hand in detail.

Mr. Barry Khojajian (Vice-President, Armenian General Benevolent Union of Canada Inc.): Mr. Chairman, I would pose three questions and answer them while I address the issue at hand.

Question one, why does Canada need an all-inclusive museum for victims of crimes against humanity in the 20th century?

Point one, the 20th century saw the world become a global village. In this village Canada became a home and a refuge for survivors from genocide in many parts of the world: Armenians, Jews, Rwandans, etc. Survivors and descendants of survivors from the world's genocides formed an important element in the population of Canada at the end of the 20th century. Survivors and their descendants attained important roles in Canadian society, revealing the triumph of the human spirit against adversity. Canada attained full sovereignty in the early 20th century and proceeded to establish and project itself as a tolerant, generous, and humanitarian society towards all regions of the world by the end of the century.

Question two, why would Armenian Canadians like to see the establishment of such a museum?

Point one, it will represent the 20th century heritage of Canadians of Armenian origin. It will portray the essential beginnings of Armenian immigration to Canada. It will portray Canada's humanitarian role in the 1920s in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide. It will explain how Canada, through its various individuals and organizations, extended massive help to the so-called starving Armenians as portrayed in the world media of the day.

It would show impressively how Canada sponsored several hundred Armenian orphans' arrival—the Georgetown boys, as in Georgetown, Ontario—to Canada in the 1920s, which became the core of the future Armenian community.

It could exhibit how Canada one more time led an active part in a world of tragedies, and the process added another element to its society mix, enriching itself and humanity.

Question three is especially appropriate, Mr. Chairman, as you received another submission from another Armenian organization, which calls itself the Armenian National Federation. We are as national as they are, and I'm sure they are as benevolent as we are.

Question three, why does the Armenian General Benevolent Union speak on this issue on behalf of Armenian Canadians?

AGBU as a worldwide organization was founded in 1906 by prominent Diaspora Armenians. As a matter of fact, they were prominent in the opening of the Suez Canal, but that's an aside. They were a vehicle for the disbursal of funds to the impoverished farmers of the Armenian heartland to educate them in modern agriculture and provide them with the tools to improve their daily lives. With the genocide of 1915 to 1923, the Armenian heartland was depopulated of Armenians. As a result, the AGBU was forced to change direction, and it became the main vehicle for the survival and education of the orphans and victims of Armenia in the 20th century.

To this day, AGBU acts faithfully in its role of helping destitute Armenians in Armenia and abroad and it is a major recipient of trusts from charitable individuals.

Mr. Chairman, we have the following three recommendations for your consideration.

• 1555

Recommendation one is that the Government of Canada establish an all-inclusive and stand-alone museum in Ottawa to exhibit crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated during the 20th century.

Recommendation two is that the Canadian museum encompass only crimes against humanity in the 20th century that form part of the heritage of the constituent elements of its population.

Recommendation three is that the museum portray how Canada, in the process, evolved in the 20th century to a sovereign diverse and humanitarian nation.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

Is there a representative here from the Centre for Peace in the Balkans? Mr. Ivancevic or somebody else from the centre?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: They may have gone to the previous room. Perhaps you can check there.

The Chair: No, they would notify them.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

The Chair: I will now give the mike to the Canadians for a Genocide Museum, Mr. James Kafieh, the executive secretary.

Mr. James Kafieh (Executive Secretary, Canadians for a Genocide Museum): Thank you.

I am James Kafieh, the executive secretary of Canadians for a Genocide Museum. On behalf of our chairman, John Gregorovich, myself, as well as all our members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to your committee.

Canadians for a Genocide Museum is an organization that's dedicated to the pursuit of equity and inclusiveness in education and commemoration of genocide in Canada. We have 33 members. For your convenience, as part of our submission we've enclosed a list of our member organizations. Many of them are national organizations in their own right. They represent some 21 Canadian ethnocultural identities, and the communities they represent in Canada number in the millions.

Part of our presentation will make reference to items that are available in only one of the official languages, and for this reason I will make them available after the meeting. Those who wish to take them will be able to do so.

In summary, there are four points we'd like to make. One is that Bill C-224 is an excellent first step to further education on genocide in Canada, but it doesn't go far enough.

Second, what Canadians really need is a Canadian genocide museum that's equitable and inclusive in its mandate, governance, and name.

Third, there is widespread support for such an institution. This support is manifested through the expressions of ordinary Canadians, professionals in related fields, and parliamentarians themselves.

We would also add a fourth item: that there is an international climate that lends itself right now to the establishment of such an institution.

Specifically with regard to Bill C-224, we want to point out that we don't think it is perfect, but we do think it is excellent. We think it is an excellent initiative in terms of what it tries to do. It manoeuvred through very difficult obstacles to get to the floor of Parliament, and ultimately to bring us to this meeting here, where we're in a position to make critical recommendations.

It is superior to recent failed initiatives to deal with the issue of genocide, in that its key aspect is equitable and inclusive. It tries to deal with cases of genocide in context rather than in isolation of one another.

At Canadians for a Genocide Museum, we would point out to you that genocide is neither new nor rare. To help bring the point home, we've attached to our presentation a genocide worksheet, which basically runs through a small sampling of genocides through history, bringing us to the present. Again, it's just a sampling. We don't believe there is such a thing as a hierarchy of genocides or human suffering. At CGM we believe all cases of genocide, large or small, have extremely valuable lessons for humanity.

We believe the whole process of equity and inclusiveness in education on genocide, or commemoration of genocide, is taking hold in Canada. On October 5, 1998, the Armenian Canadian community dedicated a monument in Montreal to all the victims of genocide in the 20th century. On November 27, 1999, the Ukrainian Canadian community in Toronto held an ecumenical commemoration on the 66th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine. As part of that they produced this document, which is only available unilingually. Aside from a short brief on the Ukrainian suffering, this document continues to talk about other cases of suffering of people who are now part of Canada's social fabric.

• 1600

This is extremely important and raises all kinds of opportunities. Because we're not looking at human suffering or genocide in isolation, it gives us an opportunity, as Canadians, to experience a transformative benefit.

We have had a chance, as Canadians for a Genocide Museum, to work with school boards. One of the things we've found in our interaction with school boards is they have not found the materials they needed, except for perhaps one case of genocide, where the material has been proliferated widely. But the other cases that are of equal importance don't have this material available to them.

We believe one shortcoming of Bill 224 is that although it will give an excellent exhibit, it will not proliferate material throughout the country. For this reason, we believe the real need is for a Canadian genocide museum. When we talk about that, we mean it will have to be equitable and inclusive, so that no disproportionate control or profile is given to any one community. We think it's important that we look at a hybrid formula of a museum.

Specifically, we're looking for an institution focused on research and publication, combined with a museological aspect. There would be lower cost involved for the government, and at the same time we would have a more versatile ability to respond to the needs of Canadians. We should bear in mind that increasingly museums are going online anyway. They are becoming virtual. The key element in the museum has to be the quality of research that's being done.

Many of you have seen some of the work we've done in Canadians for a Genocide Museum to demonstrate the widespread support among Canadians for an inclusive genocide museum. You remember the cards, I'm sure. You probably received enough of them. They refer to supporting Bill C-479, the early name of Bill C-224. Of course, some of our other members in the Ukrainian and Chinese communities have produced other cards. Some of these are available to you, if you wish to see them afterwards, but they're only available unilingually.

To give you an idea of the provincial climate, in terms of equity and inclusiveness, the provincial legislature, through a private member's bill, has introduced Bill 38, which is an act to proclaim genocide memorial week in Ontario. Again, this is a response to Canadians for a Genocide Museum's wishes. We certainly support it overwhelmingly. We think it's a marvellous opportunity to raise awareness of the issue of genocide in Canada, but certainly in Ontario.

As Mr. Assadourian has mentioned, the climate's been opened up now for Parliament to take leadership on this same subject. The amount of support he has received, in terms of both the speed at which he was able to get signatures to further his private member's bill and the unanimous consent of Parliament to keep the subject alive by referring it to your committee, indicates the widespread support in Parliament for the subject matter we're discussing today.

We note that all the parties seem to be on-side. Peter Goldring from Edmonton East, in the debate on November 30, indicated he had his own motion, M-18, to establish a stand-alone permanent world genocide museum. We also note that Mark Muise from West Nova spoke about the deportation of Acadians. It is extremely important to note that if we pursue the project in an inclusive way, it's very much a Canadian story, as much as any other kind of story.

Mr. Muise spoke about the forgotten victims—the Gypsies, the Ukrainians, the Cambodians. We need to have this kind of awareness. As we're entering a more global society, we have to remember, as he put it, that knowledge and awareness of genocide would allow Canadians to become more supportive in the effort to try to put an end to these atrocities.

Ms. Debien from Laval East pointed out that she supported the bill, but in principle, because of the Museums Act, the bill really became problematic, in terms of proceeding any further.

The same view was shared by Wendy Lill. She first pointed out the critical importance of educating our children about genocide, and that human rights abuses were part of Canada's history as well. She referred to the slave trade in Halifax 200 years ago. She pointed to the treatment of our first nations from coast to coast and the extermination of the Beothuk in Newfoundland.

• 1605

She went on to say that although she couldn't support the bill as it was worded because it violated her understanding of the Museums Act, she indicated very clearly why not, since you have the support of the minister, who explicitly stated her support. Ms. Sheila Copps stated her support less than two weeks before the November 30 meeting and debate on the floor of Parliament.

We believe Ms. Lill raises the right question. Why doesn't the standing committee in fact ask the logical question since Mr. Assadourian couldn't do it? Let the standing committee recommend to Parliament and to Ms. Copps the formation of such an institution.

Mr. Lincoln, your own words on that day were extremely important in furthering the debate as well. You made specific reference to Canada's role of leadership internationally. By pursuing this issue in a balanced, equitable, and inclusive way, we can do exactly that.

I'd like to conclude by indicating to you that based on the transcript and video of the debate of November 30, there really is a consensus position in favour of an inclusive and equitable genocide museum. You have widespread support from Canadians, professionals inside the museum sector, academics, and parliamentarians, both individually and collectively.

In closing, we ask that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend to the minister and to Parliament the establishment of a full, stand-alone Canadian institution dedicated to equitable and inclusive education on genocide in Canada, with a focus on research and the production of materials suitable for use in Canadian classrooms, as well as a museological aspect. Canada has an opportunity to attain international leadership in this area, and in this quest we think it's appropriate for us to begin here to raise humanity a little bit higher.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kafieh. Your remarks are very pertinent.

I will now turn it over to a very important organization, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Mr. Nate Leipciger, who is the chair of the Holocaust Remembrance Committee; and Mr. Eric Vernon, who replaces Mr. Jack Silverstone, I understand. Mr. Leipciger.

Mr. Nate Leipciger (Chair, Holocaust Remembrance Committee, Canadian Jewish Congress): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. I have the dubious distinction of being a Holocaust survivor. In addition to being the chair of the national Holocaust Remembrance Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress, I'm also a representative to the International Council of the Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, where I've been a sitting member for the last 10 years, which deals specifically with the memory of the Holocaust and the museum in Poland. It's a state museum.

I'm also deeply involved in Holocaust education, and I have been for the last 30 years. I'm co-founder of the Holocaust museum of Toronto. I have spoken extensively to many groups and individuals and especially to schools. By the way, the museum in Toronto attracts 30,000 school children. Well, they're not really children. Some of them are almost young adults. We have been disseminating the idea of cooperation, anti-racism, and the commemoration of all the victims of various crimes.

Coincidentally, yesterday the Imperial War Museum in London opened up the Holocaust exhibit as part of its museum, a situation that was supposed to happen in Canada a few years ago when the War Museum in Ottawa was being enlarged. At that time it was suggested that the Holocaust museum should be a separate entity. It is the position of the Canadian Jewish Congress that the Holocaust museum should be a separate entity, and I will outline reasons that should be so.

• 1610

I think we know that the Canadian Jewish Congress has been active in human rights issues for many years, since 1919. In Canada it represents about 360,000 people from one end of the country to the other. The CJC has always articulated the perspective of the Jewish community on a variety of issues of national and international scope and significance, including anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, intolerance, racism, hate on the Internet, and policies dealing with equity and social justice.

On January 27 of this year, the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp by the Soviet Union in 1945, there was an international conference in Stockholm titled the International Forum on the Holocaust. At that time, 46 states, including Canada and the Vatican, made representations. I'd like to add that the forum came up with a declaration that all signatories to the declaration should be involved in Holocaust education, Holocaust research, and Holocaust commemoration. Canada was one of the signatories to that declaration.

It was the opinion of a large majority of those who attended, and substantiated by historians and social scientists, that the Holocaust is unique.

I'd like to examine the elements that make the Holocaust unique. First of all, the Holocaust extended over a very long period, nine years. The Holocaust really started in 1933 with the Nazis coming to power. It extended over a vast area, and it included the entire European continent. There was no country that was saved, except the four or five countries that were known as being neutral, and even for those there was a question of whether there wasn't collaboration of one form or another.

The Holocaust was not carried out for an economic reason or for economic gains. It was not carried out for territorial gains. It was not to subdue a civil revolt. It was not religiously motivated. It was not a reprisal for a belligerent or hostile populace. It was not to eliminate subversive elements of a society. It was not to take revenge for hostile acts the Jews may have perpetrated against the Nazis. These were not the main reasons the Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was perpetrated because of a theory of racial superiority of a certain people. Those people decided by themselves that they were going to be the Herrenrasse, the superior race, and that everybody else who did not fit their description of who falls within that race was going to be a second-class citizen or, as in the case of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others, just be eliminated from existence.

The first stage of the theory was the Jews. To be a victim only required simply to be born. There was no escape. You could not swear allegiance to the Nazis or change your religion. You could not agree with what they were doing. It didn't matter what your political or other ideas were. You were condemned to death by virtue of the fact that you were born a Jew. There was no escape from this. There was nowhere to go. There was no place to hide. The Holocaust was an unprecedented destruction of innocent lives of unimaginable magnitude and scope.

The destruction of the Jews, the Roma people, the homosexuals, the mentally challenged, etc., was only the first step in their ideology. The next step would be the enslavement of Poles and the Slavic nation.

• 1615

The experiments that were conducted on Jewish women were not to control the population growth of the Jews, because they were going to be eliminated. They were designed to control the population growth of the Slavic and Polish people in order that they might be enslaved.

The Holocaust was carried out at the cost of the war effort by the Nazis. They diverted trains and manpower to murder the Jews. That was their main and only priority as far as the Jews were concerned. The international community was also involved and contributed to the demise of the Jews by refusing to take any significant number of refugees. When 20 nations convened at Evian in France under the chairmanship of President Roosevelt, only one country, the Dominican Republic, took 20,000 refugees. The rest had no room for Jews.

The refusal to admit 900 Jews to the shores of Canada and to the shores of the United States and Cuba, on SS St. Louis, sent a very clear, unmistakable message to Hitler that nobody wanted, or cared, what happened to the Jews. The silence of the international community, the silence of the churches during the Holocaust, was deafening and contributed to the resolve of the Nazis to carry out their plans at all costs. All of these elements make the Holocaust unique.

What does the study of the Holocaust involve? It involves all aspects of human behaviour in all endeavours: in religion, in human rights, in philosophy, sociology, literature, art, and social sciences. In the darkest periods of that time, we must not forget that there were individuals who risked their lives to save Jews. They were the righteous among the nations, to which a memorial is erected in the State of Israel at Yad Vashem, where 3,500 names are displayed and so honoured. Those people risked not only their lives but the lives of their whole families to save Jews.

Two members of my family were hidden by Christians at a very difficult price. They had to share their food rations, which were sparse, and they had to hide them and satisfy all of their basic human needs. They did this for others. I don't know how many of us would be willing to risk our lives and to go to the extent that those righteous among the nations did in order to save Jewish lives.

We must also talk about the contribution the Canadian Armed Forces made to shorten the suffering of the Holocaust survivors. They liberated Westerbork in Holland. Canada has paid dearly for the destruction of the Hitlerite forces in order to win the war.

All genocide, all human tragic events, are of equal importance. There's no question about it. We do not want to go into a contest of whose tragedy was larger or who suffered more. This does not lead us anywhere. However, the Holocaust encompasses all genocide and all mass murders, wherever they happen and whenever they occur.

We propose a Holocaust and human rights museum that would focus on the Holocaust as such and would also include the question of human rights, whatever the political system or the leadership was. Human tragedies start with the abrogation of human rights, of minorities, of people of different religious or ethnic groups. Thus, by including the words “human rights”, we will mandate the inclusion of other tragedies and brutalization, such as the brutalization of the Polish people, the enslavement of the Slavic people, the slaughter of Serbs, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of Gypsies and the mentally disadvantaged, the killing of Russian prisoners of war, Ukrainian prisoners of war, and political activists.

• 1620

The foundation of the museum must be educational, education that will bring awareness of what human beings are capable of doing. It must make our young people aware to what extent and to what depth the Nazis went, and here we are talking about the Nazis rather than the Germans or any other people. Not all Germans were Nazis, and there were other people who belonged to the Nazi party. When we talk about an identifiable group that committed the Holocaust, it is the Nazi group.

We must also be very careful that we do not victimize or stigmatize other people or their grandchildren who are not guilty of any of the crimes of their parents or their grandparents. This must be part of what we make our students aware of in the educational program.

We must have research, because a museum that is a static body will not last very long. It has to be a living body that continually researches what happened in the Holocaust and in other incidents before and since in the areas of genocide and human atrocities. For example, in the Toronto museum we have been involved with very many other minority groups. In the last few years we have been involved with the Rwandan community. We sent representatives from our museum to deal with the trauma of the hundreds of thousands of children who were left as orphans in Rwanda as an aftermath of the Rwandan genocide.

When we talk about the Holocaust, we talk about the Armenians. We must always remember that Hitler was the one who asked, when the question of destroying the Jews came up, “Who remembers the Armenians?” That is a very important aspect of the Holocaust education.

We also have to remember that when we talk about the Holocaust, we must talk about all atrocities that were perpetrated against other people. That is part of the education that Holocaust education encompasses.

Now, why should we have the museum in Ottawa? The Parliament of Canada is in Ottawa. It is the seat of all law and of our civil liberties and our political structure. As such, we must include a moral involvement. We must make sure that the students and those who come to Ottawa not only learn about the political and legal system of Canada but also about the human rights and the moral issues that are involved in a multi-ethnic state.

We cannot talk about human rights without mentioning other atrocities, even those that were done on our shores. We must not forget that during the war some of the people in Canada were deported to other parts of Canada, removed unceremoniously from their homes, their property was confiscated, and they were sent to camps. They were not concentration camps, but they weren't summer camps either. Therefore, we must include all of those. I think the Holocaust museum would have within its scope all of those elements. As I've said, in my many years of going to various schools and educating young people about the Holocaust, all of the other elements were included.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Howard, could you speak on behalf of B'nai Brith?

Mr. Sheldon Howard (Director, Government Relations, B'nai Brith Canada): Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity on behalf of B'nai Brith Canada, our league for human rights and our institute for international affairs. A couple of my colleagues are here with me. Tom Gussman is a member of our national board of governors and Daniel Bentley is an institute member and a very active volunteer.

• 1625

I'd like to start by saying I'm very grateful for this opportunity. Like many others here, I believe now is the time to act. I believe there is an unprecedented readiness in Canada for a museum dedicated to the tragic legacy of the 20th century. The ever-growing number of those who would deny that legacy makes acting now that much more important.

The focus of my presentation will be twofold. The first will answer the question what? That is, what B'nai Brith Canada's vision is for the exhibit or the museum we're all here to discuss. The second part is why?

We believe we have an important and alternative vision for the exhibit in question. Ours is different, because while it too focuses on the Holocaust, it doesn't stop there. It uses the Holocaust as a central theme, as a springboard, if you like, for a discussion about genocide, about crimes against humanity, and about the horrors of this century.

I'll speak more precisely about the nuts and bolts of the exhibit, as we see it, a little later. Perhaps, however, it's easier to start with the second question, why? The answer is very simple: education. The answer is so that the crimes against humanity witnessed in the past 100 years, the pinnacle of which was the Holocaust, will never, ever happen again.

At B'nai Brith Canada we see the possibility of this museum as an indispensable tool for education. We do not see it as a repository for the artifacts of genocide. It must be a resource centre, with all the bells and whistles afforded us by modern technology so that we can pass on to all Canadians the truth about the Holocaust and the truth about other crimes against humanity in recent history. Where the deniers of the Holocaust and the deniers of truth are sinister and diabolical, we must be creative and strong. Only education can repel their cynical and unceasing efforts to besmirch the memories of those who perished in the Holocaust, to taint the collective memory of those who survived, and to obscure and obfuscate the facts of history.

The museum, the way B'nai Brith Canada sees it, would be inclusive so as to reflect the spirit of our multicultural Canadian identity. But it would also be exacting in its depiction of history. What do I mean by exacting? I mean, and we've heard this already but it bears repeating, the Holocaust was not just another example of state-sponsored killing in the 20th century. It was unique. Now, that uniqueness is not something the Jewish community wears as a badge of honour, but nonetheless it is a fact that must be honoured, honoured without in any way detracting from other genocides perpetrated in the 20th century.

The eminent Jewish philosopher, Emil Fackenheim, makes the following points in his book To Mend the World as to why the Holocaust was unique. They are as compelling as they are undeniable. One:

The “Final Solution” was designed to exterminate every single Jewish man, woman and child. The only Jews who would have conceivably survived had Hitler been victorious were those who somehow escaped discovery by the Nazis.

Two:

Jewish birth (actually mere evidence of “Jewish blood”) was sufficient to warrant [execution].

Fackenheim notes that this distinguished Jews from Poles and Russians who were killed because Nazis believed there were just too many of them. With the exception of Gypsies, Jews were the only people killed simply for the crime of existing.

The extermination of the Jews had no political or economic justification.

This is point three:

It was not a means to any end; it was an end in itself. The killing of Jews was not considered just a part of the war effort, but equal to it; thus, resources that could have been used in the war were diverted instead to the program of extermination.

Four:

The people who carried out the “Final Solution” were, [for the most part], average citizens. Fackenheim calls them “ordinary job holders with an extraordinary job.”

He describes them as:

“the tone-setters”, as “ordinary idealists, except that their ideals were torture and murder.”

They'd murder by day and go home to read Schiller and listen to Beethoven by night.

That there are other examples of genocide in human history is also a fact, but whichever one of them you choose, it will likely not contain more than one of the characteristics Fackenheim describes. Once again, this uniqueness is not a point of pride in the Jewish community. It is both unbecoming and unnecessary to participate in a kind of morbid competition whose winner can claim to have suffered more than anyone else.

But in telling the story of the 20th century, it's important to get the story right. The exhibit B'nai Brith Canada envisions would be a vehicle Canadians could use to hear that story, and for those who think they already know it, to perhaps learn even more.

B'nai Brith's model for the museum places the Holocaust at the core of an educational continuum. It will focus on the nature of racism and totalitarianism and their ultimate links to genocide.

As I've said, we firmly believe the Holocaust should be the central case study from which to launch examination of other historical and contemporary atrocities. It is a powerful reminder of how extreme situations and the potential for disaster can spring from seemingly tame, modest beginnings in seemingly civilized countries. The Nazi campaign against the Jews starkly demonstrates how within two decades, an imperfect, western-style democracy could transform into a totalitarian state with a genocidal mission.

• 1630

Some may still question why the Holocaust should be selected as the primary case study for a Canadian museum. There are three main reasons.

First, the Holocaust is the most completely documented genocide of the century, so from a practical perspective, the foundations exist to support the study of other atrocities. Second, the lessons of the Holocaust are particularly pertinent here in Canada since we live in a western, industrialized democracy that shares many of the cultural traditions and values of pre-war Germany. Third, the Holocaust experience illustrates the step-by-step map that leads to genocide: from pervasive social bias to legalized exclusion; from state-sanctioned removal of rights to brutal dehumanization; from ethnic cleansing to, finally, the systematic, industrialized mass murder of the “final solution” as an open and protected government policy.

The Holocaust also embodies two basic tenets that must be the core of anti-racist education. It shows that the consequences of racism are seldom limited to one group of victims. Many people were caught up in the fury of the Nazi outrage. In addition, there is no logic or rationale to racism. The campaign against the Jews did not spring from any competing territorial, cultural, or ethnic disputes. The Jews of Germany, in fact, were staunchly loyal citizens of the country, fully integrated into society.

In terms of relevance to today's climate, the Holocaust contains all the elements of modern human rights abuse, from the initial prejudice that often goes unnoticed, along the slippery path that can lead to state-sponsored atrocity. For good or ill, it has become the yardstick against which other atrocities are measured.

The world's reaction to the Nazis' “final solution” gave impetus to the establishment of the international human rights system, which has led recently to the creation of an international court, an effort in which Canada played a leading role. The connection is palpable and can be used in a wider educational context. We can learn from human rights abuses only if we understand how it could happen to us, here and now.

The museum could provide an environment for learning about the many acts of racism and atrocity around the world this century, many of which parallel the various stages leading up to the Holocaust. A natural extension of this approach would be an in-depth study of popular racism, as well as the social and systemic discrimination prevalent throughout the world.

B'nai Brith Canada thus sees this model for a museum as being inclusive of the experience of many ethnic groups. It would also build a bridge between the lessons of the past and today's challenges. Seen in this way, using the Holocaust as a central reference point should not be seen as undermining the experiences of other ethnic groups. There are universal lessons to be learned from this human catastrophe, lessons that are relevant to all Canadians, both young and old. Having the museum revolve around this motif does not preclude dealing with other atrocities; rather, it inspires a call for that type of comparison.

On one final point, an important question has perhaps been left out of the equation. What are the needs of the average Canadian who has no familial or cultural link to extreme experiences of suffering and sees no personal relevance in memorializing another group's pain?

Now that we're in the year 2000, there is indeed a critical need to preserve and remember the painful memories of the past, but it must be done in a way that will anchor a vision of tolerance and the universal abhorrence of atrocity firmly in the national consciousness. Memorialization alone cannot be effective without emphasizing the education of our youth and future generations, who must be made to understand that democracy is fragile. We must truly stand on guard for it. B'nai Brith Canada envisions that this is a lesson the museum can teach generations of Canadians for many years to come.

I thank you for your time and attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Howard.

Just before we open the meeting to questions, I would like to welcome the Centre for Peace in the Balkans, represented by Mrs. Svetlana Cakarevic—Dr. Cakarevic. Thanks very much. The floor is yours. You have about seven to 10 minutes to present your case.

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic (Representative, Centre for Peace in the Balkans): Thank you.

Humanity can hope to build a kinder, more compassionate world by learning from the lessons of the past. As mankind becomes bound together by technology, an awareness and appreciation of history is fundamental to the security of the future.

Canada has stood tall as a world leader by legislating the Multiculturalism Act, whereby Canadians of all backgrounds have learned to appreciate and respect all persons regardless of their race, ethnic origin, or religion.

On the transfer of memory, our four Canadian organizations—the Association of Serbian Women, the Centre for Peace in the Balkans, the Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society, and the Serbian National Shield Society—support the establishment of an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization and/or a genocide museum to record the genocides of the 20th century, because history has been written by the victors, and it's important to speak for the silenced voices of the victims. To omit the agony of a victimized nation only ensures the crimes are concealed and the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

• 1635

The history of smaller nations is important in the continuity of history. The extensive efforts of the Jewish people to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to educate the world should stand as an example to all. The genocide of nations is often accompanied by cultural genocide, which erases the monuments and traces of the nation's existence.

Some say the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. Among the horrors the world witnessed was the extermination of Romanians, Jews, Rwandans, East Timorese, Kurds, Gypsies—and the list goes on. The devastation inflicted by invading armies in both world wars is also recorded in history.

The much maligned Serbian people lost millions of lives through the 20th century. Because their suffering has remained relatively unknown, today it is dismissed as both insignificant and unwarranted. In the past 10 years, the Serbs have been told repeatedly to forget the past. If our uninformed world had understood the questions of the Balkan history and preserved the memory of the events of the past, it would not have been so quick to judge the Serbian people or to participate in the tragedy that unfolded.

Woodrow Wilson said no nation is fit to sit in judgment of any other nation. There lies the lesson of the past: the need to preserve the memory for the security and peace of the future.

On World War I and the Serbs: In both world wars, the Serb nation fought on the side of the Allies. Facing the invasion of the Austrian-Hungarian armies, the Serbian people lost 27% of their population, the highest ratio in all of Europe. Dr. Archibald Rice, the Swiss physician, testified at the Versailles conference about the devastation brought on the Serbian nation by their invaders.

On World War II and the forgotten genocide of Serbs: In 1941, an independent state of Croatia was established as a satellite of Hitler's Third Reich. Its minister of religion and education publicly announced his government's new policy toward the 2.2 million Serb minority: we shall kill one-third, expel one-third, and forcibly convert one-third. One region estimated that 75% of the Jewish and almost 100% of the Gypsy minorities died.

Although the exact number of Serbian victims will never be known, reliable sources such as Simon Wiesenthal, Nora Levin, and the Defence and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy estimate a total of 600,000 to over one million Serbs were killed in Hitler's independent state of Croatia, which covered Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and parts of Serbia. It included a huge Jasenovac death camp, often referred to as the Auschwitz of the Balkans. A memorial and museum at Jasenovac were destroyed at midnight in the mid-1990s by the Croatian forces. To erase its memory is an effort to erase the crime committed there. It is second to an assassination of the dead.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina the Croatian Oustachi Nazis were assisted by the Muslim Nazi divisions, which also liquidated Serbs. In Kosovo, under fascist authority, the Albanians eliminated thousands of Serbs. In occupied Serbia, German and Hungarian forces in the north—

The Chair: Doctor, excuse me, don't go so fast because the translators—

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic: Oh God, I'm so sorry. I really have to apologize. I'm so nervous, you wouldn't believe it.

The Chair: Don't worry. We're pretty friendly people.

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic: Sure, okay, I'll try my best. I apologize.

Why is the genocide of Serbs covered up?

The responsibility for the healing of war wounds rests with governments. Programs and memorials should be established to preserve the memory of the war crimes in order to prevent them in the future and to facilitate healing. Under the Croat-born Tito, post-war Communist Yugoslavia failed to do this. Yugoslavia did not institute healing among ethnic groups. At the United Nations, Tito did not table the genocide inflicted by the Croatian Oustachi Nazis and their Muslim and Albanian allies.

• 1640

Tito did not seek an apology or reparations for victims. In fact, he literally concealed the evidence for political purposes. There was no de-Nazification program. The criminal perpetrators escaped judgment, and most lived in relative comfort in the western world. We all know about the right channels and how many Nazis escaped through them. The three put on trial demonstrated no remorse for their actions.

The genocide of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies was not part of the Yugoslav school curriculum. That's not a topic of extensive scholarship in the west. Silence prevailed for 50 years.

The contemporary ramifications of silence and erasure: Because no healing took place and the memory was not preserved in post-world war Yugoslavia, the hostilities between descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims remained unresolved. Those hostilities were revived in 1990 when the new state of Croatia allowed the open revival of racist Nazi symbols and songs from World War II, renamed the streets and schools after Croatian Nazi leaders, welcomed the old Croatian Nazi officials into its government, and permitted the destruction of Jasenovac death camp, museum, and memorial.

Erasure of memory facilitates revisionism. The erasure or omission of memory facilitates the rewriting of history, the denial of crimes, and the destruction of cultural monuments of the victims. In this country, those who have attempted to deny the Holocaust have been challenged in the courts.

In the 1990s, revisionism permitted the writings of Croatian president Franjo Tudjman, who recently died, who diminished the numbers of Jewish victims of the Holocaust to one million. He also diminished the numbers of Serbian victims to 60,000. He apologized to the Jews and corrected the number. He never apologized to the Serbs, and the number continues to be used. Amid much objection concerning his revisionist theories, he still attended the opening of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.

The 1941 government policy of ethnically cleansing the Serbs from their ancestral homes in Croatia was completed in 1995 when about 300,000 Serbs were expelled in one weekend. Serbs suffered the same fate as the Jews and the others. Because their story is not widely known, the Serbs suffered a similar fate in the 1990s.

In the family of humanity, we all need to expand the inclusion of others; thus a permanent record of these crimes will ensure that future generations of Canadians will learn the painful lessons of the past. As a compassionate society, Canada can play a leading role of implementing what one Jewish thinker thought: forgetfulness is the root of exile; remembrance is the seed of redemption.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I think this was a very useful round table. Certainly you come from different perspectives as to the result you seek, but one theme that I could detect was very common to all of you—and I think one of the briefs set it out very well—was to build a bridge between the lessons of the past and today's challenges, and for this to be done in a way that will anchor a vision of tolerance and a universal abhorrence of atrocity firmly in the national consciousness.

I heard from each of you, or several of you, anyway, the need to place education and research as two central pieces of whatever we do in the future. I think this was the theme that came through from Mr. Leipciger, from Mr. Kafieh, from Mr. Khojajian, and also from you, Doctor. I think it's a good way for us to start the questions, and I will start with Mr. Mark.

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

First I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I'd like to applaud our colleague Mr. Assadourian for his commitment to this cause.

• 1645

There's no doubt that the definitions are going to be the key to where we go next. I was glad to hear our witnesses saying they would like to see a broad definition that would make it very inclusive on this whole theme of human tragedy.

That brings it really close to home for this country of Canada, which still has to be accountable for many of the human tragedies that have occurred here. Some have been enunciated by witnesses, like the internment of the Ukrainians, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923, the expulsion of the Acadians, and the Japanese internment.

There is, no doubt, renewed interest in this country regarding the whole subject of history, and I think there's even interest in the bleak moments of Canada's history. But before we get to the stage of constructing an actual building for this project, or an exhibit, perhaps we need to work through another stage: what process needs to be completed so that it's inclusive, so that it does good research, as some of the witnesses indicated, and also so that there's agreement or some kind of consensus coming from this process? My question is, do we need an agreed process for all the stakeholders to work it out, or would you like to see the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage make the decisions on their own?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: May I take that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Assadourian, and then we'll give a chance to the other witnesses.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

I don't think we have to revisit this issue, try to decide what is to be done, and let the members of Parliament or this committee know what people decide. At the end of the day, the committee itself would have to get together and make...not a decision but a recommendation to the House of Commons, because the motion was to report back to the House of Commons on or before June 15, but not to make a decision.

I think the decision will be made by the museum, or the government, or the heritage minister, on how to proceed with this. But I don't think I asked for the committee to make a decision, just a recommendation to the House.

Mr. Inky Mark: What kind of recommendation, for us to be definitive in terms of what should be constructed, or should the decision be to let all the stakeholders come to a final analysis or final decision on what should be done?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I don't think stakeholders' responsibility goes to making a decision on behalf of the government. The government will have to make a decision. The minister herself and the committee, based on the recommendation, will have to come back to the House saying, we think this is what should be done.

From what the chair said earlier, there's a broad consensus here that there should be one, and it should be inclusive. We'd all like to share the common experience that people suffered in the last century.

To me, Mr. Mark, museums are not like doughnut shops that you open on every corner of the street. It's one, and either you are in or you are out.

We have only one Museum of Civilization. We don't have another one in the country. There's one national museum of art in Ottawa. You can't build one museum for this purpose or that purpose, or this group or that group. That won't be a museum any more. So the concept of having one inclusive museum is the most important thing, and I think everybody around this table basically shares the same concern.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Eric J. Vernon (Director, Government Relations, Canadian Jewish Congress): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I respond to Mr. Mark, I want to clarify for the record that the Jewish population of Canada is 360,000 people.

I would like to remind this committee that there was a reference earlier to the initial plan for the revamped Canadian War Museum to include a Holocaust gallery. When that decision was revoked, the Canadian War Museum issued a press release, and I'd like to quote one paragraph from that.

The Holocaust story can best be told in a separate venue fully dedicated to it. The Corporation

—that is, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation—

will assist in the exploration of an alternative site for the eventual development of a stand-alone and independent Holocaust Museum. The Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation will continue to support the development of a Holocaust Museum.

From the perspective of the Canadian Jewish Congress, there is a commitment on the table to establish a stand-alone Holocaust museum, which we now prefer to refer to as a Holocaust and human rights museum, as Mr. Leipciger delineated earlier.

• 1650

So from our perspective, there is an offer on the table, the government has made a commitment through the museum, and our preference would be to have this committee recommend to the House of Commons that action be taken to fulfil this commitment.

The Chair: Mr. Kafieh.

Mr. James Kafieh: With regard to the recommendations, with the exception of what the Canadian Jewish Congress has indicated now, there was a broad consensus that we wanted a museum that did research and that published, and perhaps with some museological aspect of it, so there would be displays there.

It was very important for all the rest of us, with the exception of the Canadian Jewish Congress, that it be inclusive. I add the word “equitable” as well. I think anything that was less than equitable, that gave undue prominence to any one community's history, would be fundamentally unacceptable, certainly to the people who are represented by our 33 member organizations. We would point out it's not fair for any community to be reduced to a footnote in somebody else's museum, especially on so sensitive an issue as this.

All cases of genocide are unique. The Rwandan community is part of our organization as well. They point out that in a one hundred-day period, a million people were slaughtered—one hundred days. And they didn't need factories to do it. They did it with axes and machetes. That's unique, and that's important.

For some of the things I've heard here, I think it's not a question of whether they're fundamentally true, but I have to take exception to them, in that they're all unique. Many cases are at least as well documented as the Holocaust. We have recent examples in East Timor, in Rwanda, and in the Balkans, to name just three.

Many lessons are pertinent to us as Canadians, not just those that are rooted in the European model. To say Rwanda is less important because it's an African model is fundamentally demeaning of the event that took place there. It's very important for us to understand it's as wrong to do that as it is to dismiss the suffering in Europe at the end of the Second World War by saying, “Well, that's a European model. We're North Americans.”

We live in a global society. The key element I want to indicate is that a museum, to have our support, would have to be equitable and inclusive.

The Chair: I understand your point of view completely. You have made it clearly. But in fairness, so that it doesn't degenerate into a debate, which we don't want here, I would rather just look for ideas that are leading to a consensus.

I would say, from listening to Mr. Leipciger, I don't think he demeaned the contribution of others. He made his case that the Holocaust to him was a central piece, which he's perfectly entitled to make on behalf of his community and the Canadian Jewish Congress. But I didn't get the message that he was trying to in the process diminish the impact of other atrocities.

Mr. James Kafieh: I thank you for the clarification, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Kafieh, let's try to look for ideas that will join us together.

We are faced as a committee with a very difficult issue. It's not difficult for any of us to say and imagine that it's a sensitive issue. It can be very volatile. People feel very strongly about it.

I am lucky I was raised in a community where I didn't know what atrocities and genocide meant, but I can understand how people feel who have lived these experiences or who come from a community that has been displaced. I understand this tremendous depth of feeling people have and how it can so easily become the subject of a debate, because everyone sees it from a slightly different perspective, as it should be. We are all human beings; we see different things differently.

What I'm trying to do here—and it's not easy, and I hope you will help me in this short time we have before us—is find some lines of understanding and appreciation where everybody agrees that we want to use the past to draw lessons for the future and the future generations. We want this to join all the various communities that have known suffering and give lessons for the future through education and research. Maybe we can use this as a starting point.

• 1655

I take your point of view, and they have a different one, and fair enough.

Mr. Sheldon Howard: In trying to find a point of consensus, I think everyone agrees education is something we're all after and the museum should focus on education. In that process, I believe any educator or any teacher of history will tell you accuracy is important. As we both said, no one is in any way attempting to diminish the experience of any other community, but it's important for this museum to tell the story of the 20th century and the atrocities of the 20th century accurately.

I just want to make reference to a Stockholm declaration from earlier this year, the International Forum on the Holocaust, to which Canada is a signatory. It says:

The Holocaust...fundamentally challenged the foundations of civilization. The unprecedented character of the Holocaust will always hold universal meaning.

So these are concepts that are out there in the international community already. There's nothing really new about it. And I'd like to stress that it in no way diminishes the experience of other groups. By telling the story of the 20th century, the atrocities and the genocides that we're all too familiar with, it in no way takes anything away from anybody else.

The Chair: Mr. Howard, I think you've made your point quite clearly.

Doctor, you've asked me for time to speak. I would like to suggest something. We have a lot of questions, and time is running, so after you have made your intervention, I would like to ask the members if by any chance we could each put our questions forward and then maybe get the panel to respond to the various points, so that we can finish in time and give a chance to all of us to ask the questions.

Doctor.

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic: I actually have a question about the museum itself. Is the museum going to be a static or a dynamic institution? By that I mean, is it going to just represent the past holocausts, genocides, war crimes, and so on, or is it also going to include the present and ongoing events in the world's history? Will the museum committee have a chance to actually speak up for the current problems, the current genocides and human rights abuses, or is it going to be just a static place?

The Chair: Let me explain, Dr. Cakarevic. We have been assigned by the House of Commons the task of looking at Mr. Sarkis Assadourian's bill, which is a very short bill, reviewing it with you, and reporting to the House of Commons. We don't have any particular mandate saying it's going to be a museum; it's going to be this; it's going to be that. It will be a report that will take the form of what the committee wants it to be after listening to you. It could be broad themes.

Then, as Mr. Assadourian said, it will be up to the government to pick up that report and follow it from there, with consultation of the various groups.

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic: I would really recommend that it be a dynamic body, not just an educational body representing past crimes and past holocausts. It should be a dynamic body that should also—

The Chair: I think that's a given if you talk about education. It's a process that goes on.

So is it okay if we just do a round of questions from members, and the witnesses can make notes of the questions so that they can follow up on all of them?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Thank you for coming to speak to the committee today. I would also like to congratulate our colleague, Mr. Assadourian, who has steadfastly persisted in advancing a cause in which he rightly believes.

In listening to your presentations, I heard one word over and over again, a word that the human race had to invent for an unfathomable thing: the word "genocide". It is a word that speaks of sorrow, of pain and of memories. It is a word that was invented to ensure that society's memory does not forget its meaning.

• 1700

What you are proposing today is the creation of a museum that would have this very goal: to educate and to raise awareness, especially among young people, and to promote research and disseminate information. I am aware of what work a museum could do in these areas, but a museum is located in a specific place. I have learned that there is a holocaust museum in Toronto; I did not know this. Although I have visited Toronto on several occasions, I have never had the chance to visit this museum. Setting up a museum in a specific location does therefore not ensure that all members of the population will have access to the knowledge, the memories and the educational values that the museum promotes.

You have not told the committee why other solutions would be less attractive. I am thinking, for example, of a travelling museum, a virtual museum or even a research centre that would have satellite facilities located in all the provinces. In short, there are other solutions. Why do you suggest a museum, rather than other options? That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I will now give the floor to a colleague who might have others.

The Chair: I think that it is a very appropriate and very important question. I hope that you have noted it and will return to it.

[English]

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to our guest, Sarkis. I know he's spoken to me on many occasions about this and it's very dear and near to his heart. I thank him for the drive and tenacity he's shown.

What we're doing here today I think is very important. It was almost impossible to sit here and listen and not let your mind wander. It automatically happened, thinking back to what one has read or seen or heard of various war crimes and the sadness it creates. At least that's what I felt within me. As the chair has said, I think it's really important that all the various groups that have this as a driving theme work together so that we can commemorate, educate, and do research.

My question was in the line of my colleague's, Monsieur de Savoye. I was thinking that if we have this huge museum and we could have the educational and research aspect, would there be the possibility of having something online and through distance education, some of these other aspects in research and education? The bricks and mortar may be a bit smaller. Maybe this would be a way to get a bigger bang for the dollar, still accomplishing what we want and being more effective in the areas of research and education.

I'm just asking a general question and thinking out loud. Thank you.

The Chair: I will now pass on to Mr. Bonwick and then Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Before I raise an issue, I feel I should start off by saying, Mr. Leipciger, that your presence and words have had a profound impact on the entire committee. It's very difficult to capsulize in words the experience of genocide or holocaust, but when you have somebody sitting there, it brings it as close as it can possibly be for somebody of my age, who hopefully will never have to experience that in future years.

I must say that I agree with most of the statements that are being used. Three words that I've written down are research, recognize, and educate, not necessarily in that order. I think those are critically important words.

• 1705

I personally have certain reservations about a museum, a fixed museum in Ottawa. I think it's incumbent upon the government and upon society to research these things and to educate so that not only Canadians but people visiting Canada have an opportunity to learn from these atrocities of the past so that they don't happen again. But whether it's a stigma in my own mind, I find that as we locate museums, great institutions like the Museum of Civilization, arts, science, etc., in Ottawa, to a certain extent we prejudice other regions of the country. They don't have access to that at the same level as people within a two-hour drive of Ottawa.

I'm wondering if there's been any consideration given, or whether there would be any consideration given when we commence the research, whatever form it might take—creating an institute, a museum, or whatever—to commissioning a travelling exhibit. It spends three months in Halifax or six months in Quebec City or two months outside of Collingwood, wherever the location might be. Therefore, due to the size of the country, many more people, including those in rural areas, would have access to learning about these terrible things that have happened.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Bonwick.

Monsieur Bélanger, and then Mr. Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo what my colleagues are saying. The proposal that was submitted to us by the House, namely Bill C-224, is not concerned with a museum, but with an exhibit in a museum.

I will admit that I personally am not ready to go one step further and discuss creating a museum. In the first place, it is not what the House asked us to do. In the second place, we must understand our colleague's purpose. I will explain how I understand it and, if I am mistaken, I hope I will be corrected.

Our colleague's intention was to create an institution, or rather an exhibit in a museum, so that people could learn about certain tragic events of the twentieth century. I personally feel that we should not limit ourselves to the twentieth century. Many things happened before that time. In Canada, in 1755, we had the deportation of the Acadians, and I would like that to be included in this exercise.

The intent of the exercise was to tell people about the events that took place, but that was not the ultimate goal. My colleague's ultimate goal, if I understand correctly, was that we should draw lessons from this in order to promote reconciliation wherever possible and to encourage Canadians not to repeat these mistakes, to rise up to defend human rights whenever they are violated, and so on. The idea was therefore to create a tool that could be used to promote the well-being of the Canadian people.

I think we should stop getting hung up on the notion of a museum and go on to other things. I have the impression that we are going to be hung up on this idea of a museum for a long time. There are people who want one for a given reason and others who want one for another reason. What everyone agrees on is the idea of inclusiveness, that we should collectively learn to behave better toward one another. That is what I would like us to focus on, instead of establishing a museum in Ottawa or somewhere else. That is not what is important, in my opinion. What is important is that we learn more about the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated during and before the twentieth century.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Although I wasn't here, I was at a good-news announcement with regard to Toronto and the Union Station, the fixed link to Pearson Airport. I must say that although I wasn't here, I found the tail end of the discussion very interesting.

It's been said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. As one who taught history for 20 years, particularly Canadian history, I know that you always have to look at things in context. I'm always afraid when we put 1990 values on something that happened in 1900 or 1920, because I find that is not very helpful. I agree with the principle of what's being proposed; the problem is the mechanics. Even in the short time I was here I could see where the mechanics would be a problem.

• 1710

The aim I would think of any exhibit—and we've gone from the word in the bill which is “exhibit” to “a free-standing structure” now. Regardless of whether it's an exhibit or a free-standing structure, the question of course is, what will be displayed? Who will determine what will be displayed? And that's where lots of wrangling would of course occur.

We do not want, in my view, Mr. Chairman, a politicized exhibit or a politicized structure, whatever it happens to be. Those of you who have not read Granatstein's book Who killed Canadian history? should read it. It is extremely useful, I think, as a book that understands what has happened to our own history in this country, and often we can't even agree about things that have happened here.

But I think for future generations what the exhibit should be doing, in my view, would be to look forward rather than backward. I would hope we would be able to take lessons as a light for future generations. But if we are going to be bogged down, Mr. Chairman, by the mechanics of what's in there... We heard a comment about equity, and I can understand that would be very important, but at the end of the day the bill simply says “exhibit”, and if you really want to provide understanding and education it may be an exhibit that is movable across the country and not fixed here.

As one who did not support the exhibit in the National War Museum because I think it is entirely separate and I think it is important that it's separate, I think it is important that all communities have an opportunity to share an understanding in communities whether they be large or small.

Not everyone has the privilege to come to the nation's capital. In deference to my colleague here who of course loves to see museums here, and I think it's great to have lots of national museums in Ottawa, including a sports museum, I support it. But I think at the end of the day what we need to do is simply to recommend to the House, if we believe the principle is a good one and if we think this in fact is something that has merit... You know, it may be that even that may be contentious—a blue-ribbon panel to examine the type of exhibit in terms of the definition that the UN states for crimes against humanity. That is I think the crux of what my colleague, Mr. Assadourian, is talking about.

So I think what we have to do is determine whether we can agree on the principle. If we can agree on the principle, then what is it that this exhibit should tell Canadians today and in the future?

The Chair: I would like to just give a chance to all the witnesses who want to, to say their piece. We'll start with Dr. Cakarevic. Those of you who want to speak will do so and those who want to pass, that's fine, too. Please speak briefly, because we want to give a chance to all of you.

Dr. Svetlana Cakarevic: I really do not know. I like the idea of having a museum. I like the idea also of a travelling exhibition, even of having themes when it comes with the museum. There are a lot of issues, and I think the major principle is that, as Mr. Wilfert said, we do have to agree on what the crimes against humanity are. We do not want a politicized version of it. We do not want to change the definition any time it doesn't fit the profile.

We need to have exactly the standard definition of what the crimes against humanity and genocide are. We should push for a working definition of it. Whether it uses the UN chapter or whether it's defined by the Canadian Parliament or whoever it is, it should be exactly specified what are the crimes against humanity. If we do resolve ourselves, we will finally include the mass murder killings in the wars against humanity. In a sense, they are as well.

• 1715

That's my point. I think it will be really important to have a working definition of what crimes against humanity are and what genocide is, what constitutes genocide. It should not be changeable depending on the circumstances. It should be the same for everybody, whoever they are. I think that's the major breaking point. That's the common ground on which all of us are walking. We have to have a standard set of rules by which all of us should behave and should be judged.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Eric Vernon: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to respond to some of the points that were raised by the committee, I think there was consensus from the panel that Mr. Assadourian's bill provided a catalyst for this discussion. Although the subject matter was limited on paper to an exhibit in the Museum of Civilization, I think there was consensus from the panel here that was insufficient if we were looking at this exercise as a means of providing and promoting education and sensitization.

On the point of a travelling exhibit, again that would be a useful thing to do. In fact, again, I would point out to this committee that the Museum of Civilization is already on record as having commissioned a travelling exhibit on the Holocaust, which was designed to be up and running within the next year or two, to go across the country, and we hoped to have a permanent home when it came back to Ottawa.

As for why we need a museum and why we need one in Ottawa, my response is this. I think a museum would be a centrepiece for the promotion of education and sensitization. If you have an exhibit, it's temporary. If it travels, it's over when it comes back. But a museum would stand there for all time as an indication of the national will to deal with these issues, to promote harmony, and to learn the lessons of the past and apply them to human rights in the present and in the future.

It was mentioned earlier that there is a Holocaust museum in Toronto. There is also one in Montreal. There is also one in Winnipeg. There is also one in Vancouver. But these are community-run institutions. They are facilities that are managed by the local community, for the community and for all who come. It would say something very different if the Government of Canada established a Holocaust and human rights museum in Canada's national capital.

This is certainly not unprecedented. There are museums to the Holocaust in virtually all capitals of the world. I would urge all of you to go down to the one in Washington. In fact, Congress has taken two groups of MPs down there to have a look at it. The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles is outstanding. As Nate mentioned, just yesterday Her Majesty the Queen opened up the new Holocaust exhibit of the Imperial War Museum. There is a large Holocaust and education centre due to open up in the heart of Berlin in the next couple of years.

There is an international momentum for the memorialization of the Holocaust as the centrepiece of understanding human rights and promoting human rights. I think it would be important for Canada to have such a facility in its national capital. Understandably not everybody can get here. But on the other hand there are thousands of visitors who come to Ottawa every year.

The experience of Washington tells us this would be a very important facility for people who are based here in Ottawa as well. We know for certain that the museum in Washington is visited by high-ranking members of the military, the diplomatic corps, and all politicians who are serving in Washington.

So the precedents are there. The examples are there. We think it's somewhat anomalous that Canada does not have a similar kind of facility.

The Chair: Briefly, Mr. Leipciger.

Mr. Nate Leipciger: Yes. Any educational facility must have a home base. This does not preclude a travelling exhibition. But the home base is where the research would be carried out, where the information that is being collected and examined would be deposited. We not only need a museum, but we also need archives and preservation of the exhibits, different museological people who are working to maintain the artifacts that are present.

• 1720

Having said that, there is no museum that can survive for very long or be very meaningful unless it is involved in very extensive education. Today we are dealing with a new generation of young people. I go to schools and talk to the young people about the Holocaust and about all the other atrocities that are being committed or have been committed in the intervening years since or before the Holocaust. It is very apparent to me that those young people are very knowledgeable. We cannot talk at them; we must talk to them.

Not only must we talk to them, we must give them an opportunity to do their own independent research. There's no better method that I know of than to have a virtual museum where the student can go to a computer, select the information he wants, and assimilate it in the way he wants in order to do the project, either for school or for his own edification.

So we cannot have a static museum, but we must have a home base. Time is of very big essence. I'm one of the younger survivors. I went to Auschwitz a the age of 13. I was liberated from a camp near Dachau at the age of 15. I almost died after the war because I was very sick and emaciated. All of these images that happened to me in six years are very firmly entrenched in my brain. They're very vivid. I can still communicate to the young people.

Yesterday I spoke to about 60 children from a separate school, a private school that had 11-year-old children there. We could identify with each other because when the war broke out I was 11. We could discuss what it means to be in a war, what it means to be bombed, etc.

So we have a timeframe. We should do something while we still have survivors with us who can talk to our students and create a rapport between them and the students, to make it part of the living history. Because, like Mr. Wilfert said, there's nothing that is as dead as dead history, but this is living history. We have an opportunity to do that.

We have an opportunity to transmit not only the Holocaust messages but universal messages. All of the lessons that we've learned in the Holocaust are universal messages. They deal with how you deal with your friend when your friend is being stigmatized as being somebody else. How do you deal with the peer pressure? How do you behave if everybody else says “out with the Jews” or “don't talk to the Jews” or “don't talk to the Gypsies” or “don't talk to the Ukrainians” or “don't talk to the Serbians”? All of those messages must be brought to bear when you're talking about history and education.

We have all of those universal messages. The Holocaust was not an isolated situation, where it happened over a short period of time. All elements of the human society, of the Nazi society, were involved: doctors, professors, architects, engineers, chemists, chemical factories, and banks. Banks not only in Germany but also throughout Europe were involved in laundering gold from teeth and stuff like that. The morality of all of that is involved. So these are the universal messages that I feel have to be presented.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sheldon Howard: Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief.

The Chair: Yes, please, because we want to give you a chance to—

Mr. Sheldon Howard: I would just like to reiterate that as far as I'm concerned, as far as B'nai Brith is concerned, we think there should be a permanent museum. It is very important that there be a permanent place on the landscape of Canada's capital city, a permanent place memorializing and educating people about the Holocaust and the atrocities of the 20th century.

We believe that whatever problem it presents... The permanence and the inaccessibility presented by having it here in Ottawa are the same for any museum or any exhibit or anything that we do here in Ottawa. The same question of inaccessibility exists, but this is important. There should be a place that people can come to. The technology of today makes whatever we have there more accessible. It should be as interactive and as modern as we can make it. It should change as technology progresses and that makes it accessible to a lot more people.

I would also just like to say briefly that I agree very much on the issue of looking forward, that the focus of the display should be about looking forward, about educating for the future, but I think most would agree that it's difficult to look forward without first looking back and understanding how we got here, understanding what happened.

• 1725

Lastly, as for a definition of genocide, which was dealt with earlier, I don't believe, when you look at the Holocaust, there is any issue at all about whether or not that satisfies any definition of genocide that you can think of. It certainly does. That's why I believe it should achieve a sort of central character and be the central theme of this museum, because every other genocide will be compared to it, and it satisfies any definition of genocide.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, I'll let you conclude.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

The Chair: I'll go on to Mr. Boyadjian or Mr. Khojajian.

Mr. Daniel Boyadjian: I'll defer to my colleague.

Mr. Barry Khojajian: I'll be very brief.

I think we favour a permanent home for a museum in Ottawa. Just as with the Parliament Buildings here, young people can come from all over the country to visit it, to see it. Practically and cost-wise, it will be next to impossible to keep on moving it all over the country.

I do agree with our fellow Canadians of the Jewish faith that the Holocaust was unique in many ways, especially the way the Jewish community, on a world scale, reacted to it. I think we all are taking their example, that you need international vigilance so that the deniers do not get the upper hand.

From the point of view of the Armenian people, as far as we're concerned, the Armenian genocide was a settled issue 80 years ago, but as you can see now, there have been a lot of challenges because Armenians did not have a Diaspora the way other people had. We thought it was an accepted fact, but today there are challenges.

Of course, memories fade. Suddenly, second- and third-generation Armenians have to fight for the victims that their grandfathers were.

I think I agree that research and education is important. Part of that education should be what denial can do psychologically to the victims and their descendants.

I'm not a survivor. I wasn't born there. But my father was. As a matter of fact, for eight or nine years he was in the Turkish and Ottoman armies, so he saw the genocide from both sides. I learned a lot from him.

I know the research is a very, very explosive issue. I don't know what research is going to accomplish, but my view is that among other tragedies, including the Serbian, with which I'm very familiar—they won two wars and lost two peaces—Canada's role vis-à-vis those tragedies should be highlighted in that museum. That's why I pointed out the fact that the core of Armenian immigration was an aftermath of the Armenian genocide, and Canada's help in that issue should be highlighted.

Canada has been in the forefront of humanitarian activities in the 20th century. That also should be emphasized in that museum. That's the reason this country has welcomed so many different people. They have all come here by leaving behind tragedies—after the First World War, after the Second World War, or whatever.

I arrived in this country as a student, and without realizing it I ended up living in the Jewish section of Toronto. Practically every other room in my building was taken by survivors from the Jewish Holocaust. That was my first exposure to the Jewish people. I had never met a Jew before.

I feel very sympathetic to their tragedies. Armenians feel very sympathetic to everybody's tragedy because we lost a country. The Jews won a country after the genocide.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Kafieh.

Mr. James Kafieh: To address these issues in a general way, some of you will be happy to know that Canadians for a Genocide Museum recommended the study of a location outside of Ottawa. We're not stuck to that possibility, but we think there are serious advantages in terms of locating a facility outside Ottawa.

Overall, we think the location is a secondary issue, because whether the vast majority of Canadians will not come to Ottawa to see it, the impact will be on the ability of this institution to have credible educational travelling exhibits, or, more importantly, I think, in terms of its virtual capability—i.e., electronic transmission of information on the Internet. Many museums are heading in that direction, as I'd indicated earlier, and I think this is something that should be considered.

• 1730

I think this is something that should be considered, because what really matters to me is how the expertise and research in the museum translates into our classrooms across this country. Are we providing teachers with educational materials on a range of case studies so that they can compare and contrast case studies in context?

This is really the essence of the project, for me. It's not simply one of bricks and mortar, and to hang a sign on the outside wall. If it's going to have any transformative impact for Canadians, it has to translate into our classrooms.

I would suggest that it's important, because a large part of this will be research, or a large part of it will be virtual, that we don't spend a lot of time discussing floor plans. We don't need to spend a lot of time discussing, for example, profile. I would suggest that, very simply, it's important that the institution, because of its importance to Canadians who have been subject to genocide or are simply aware of it and concerned about it, and because of its importance with regard to remembrance and memories of all Canadians, when it finally does get built, is equitable and inclusive in terms of its mandate, its governance, and its name.

The Chair: Members, that's a 15-minute bell for the vote.

Mr. Assadourian, I'll let you conclude before we break.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'll make it very brief, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to take this opportunity to thank again the heritage committee and the witnesses who joined us today to express their points of view. I think it was a very, very useful exercise.

I want to reiterate the point I made earlier, that whatever we do, whatever shape this will take, it must be inclusive and must be one. I want to emphasize “one” because it was mentioned earlier that there will be lots of tourists coming here who will be looking for this exhibit, museum, or whatever the case may be, whatever name it's going to have, and they'll say, “Look, there's one here for X, Y, and Z”, only to be told, “By the way, there's another one for the rest of the alphabet.” I think it would be very, very insulting for the rest of the alphabet to be away from the first alphabet, whatever the first alphabet may be.

So if you're going to suggest that we should have one museum for Armenian victims of genocide and another one for the rest of them, I would be the first to oppose it. I think we are all in this together. We're all human beings. We all suffer the same way, some more, some less, and some in different ways, but the fact is, in the last century there were 95 million victims of crimes against humanity.

My colleague, Eric, makes a very good point that the Holocaust is known all over the world. There's documentation and everything. I fully agree. I went to Auschwitz myself. I saw it. I went to Poland myself. I've seen lots and lots of places where there were atrocities. I saw places where people were shot by the thousands. I saw the ovens they were burned in. But I never knew about the Chinese, that so many million people died, until I started the investigation. Maybe this should be a forum to let others know what happened to other people as well, not only to the Armenians, or the Ukrainians, or the Arabs, or the Jews, or whatever the case may be. It's very important to get this to the level where people can make intelligent decisions, have intelligent discussions, and learn from the past.

On August 22, 1939, I believe, Adolph Hitler said, in answer to his SS unit, “Who remembers, after all, the Armenian genocide?”, and said nobody would remember his. Well, I'm glad you remember what he did to the Jewish population in Europe.

So let's remember not only the Armenians but also the rest of them, the total of 95 million, Mr. Chairman. We cannot ignore the 95 million who paid with their lives during the last century for us to live in a free society.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: We would like to thank you all very very much for coming and presenting before us today. We appreciate your input very, very much. Thank you for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.