Debates of Dec. 11th, 1997

Committees Of The House

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by 15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.50 p.m., provided that no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House after the hour of 5.35 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever fought this hard before to speak in the House of Commons but it is a pleasure to rise to speak today during the debate on the prebudget report issued recently by the finance committee.

While the finance committee was very successful in hearing from groups like the Business Council on National Issues and in hearing from many social activists across the country, I really believe that where the finance committee failed was in hearing from the 70% or 80% of Canadians who are in the middle of those two groups.

I will make my point by reading from a letter. I do not think we will find the views expressed in that letter reflected anywhere in the finance committee report. This letter was originally sent to the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin who recognized its importance immediately:

I am writing in regard to the increase in CPP. I am a housewife with two small children.

My husband works 12 hour days, six or seven days a week. Even with all the hours my husband works we are only making ends meet. We cannot afford an increase in CPP. This increase only means my husband has to work even harder. Which means we will see even less of him. How is this good for my two children? How is this good for our marriage?

The government borrows or should I say steals from the CPP fund and then increases it because they can't pay it back. Why do we have to pay for a dishonest government?

They preach about how they want to save our children. They preach about broken marriages. Then they turn around and screw us again. Couples stress about money and it does affect the children. It does affect the marriage. How can afford to put my children in swimming lessons or baseball when any extra money we have the government takes? My oldest son is five and has said to me “Why can't I Mommy? We can't afford it, right?” This is from a 5 year old. All his friends at school get hot lunches on Fridays but he doesn't. How are we supposed to dish out another $100 a month? I can't work because of all the hours my husband works. Why should I have to? I want to raise my children not a daycare.

My husband is 34 and I convinced him to finally vote this year. We had many an argument about it. He said why should he bother voting when nothing ever changes. A lot of people feel this way. I am beginning to think he is right.

I have rent, house insurance, truck insurance, life insurance, hydro, gas, phone, food, truck payments. These are basic bills. As for fun, what's that? Will CPP even be there when my husband retires? I doubt it.

I have a friend who at 28 is having to declare bankruptcy. She has three children. I know that it could be us. Kids are in trouble today more than ever because parents aren't there. They have to work harder and longer so the kids are on their own. The future looks bleaker.

Something has to be done about this CPP. Canada is on its way to ruin the way I see it.

It is signed Margaret Snell of Quesnel, British Columbia.

I want to argue that people like Margaret Snell simply were not represented before the finance committee. People like Margaret Snell did not have their views represented in the government's report on the prebudget hearings. It is not only Margaret Snell. I believe that there are hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of Canadians who feel exactly the same way as Margaret Snell feels.

What should the government do when it hears letters like the one I just read from Margaret Snell or the one which my leader read yesterday from Kim Hicks of Sackville, New Brunswick? If the government had the sense that God gave the goose, the first thing it would do is secure the future of people like Margaret Snell, Kim Hicks and other people who are suffering by first taking the debt situation seriously.

The other day the chairman of the finance committee rose in his place to speak about what the finance committee heard. I know that my hon. friend will acknowledge that we heard representative after representative come before the committee to say that the debt is a real problem and that we should do something about it. In fact, the government report even says that it is a problem.

What was the recommendation? The recommendation was to continue with the promise made during the election campaign, which is to allocate 50% of the surplus for more spending. It is absolutely incredible.

We know that when major polls are conducted across the country Canadians say that debt is an incredible problem. We have to deal with the debt. As my leader pointed out yesterday, when people have a little tax relief, what do they do with it? They pay down their personal debt. Of course they do. It is common sense.

What does the government do? It has a huge agenda to start spending again, but does it have any plan on what to do with the debt?

The government suggests that maybe it will reduce the debt to 50% or 60% of GDP by some point in the future. What exactly does that mean? It did not commit to putting a single dollar toward the debt in absolute terms. The government suggests that maybe if the economy grows fast enough the debt will look smaller as a percentage of our economy.

The very first thing the government should do is borne out by polls, letters and telephone calls which we received. The very first thing the government should do is secure the future of people like Margaret Snell, Kim Hicks and hundreds of thousands of other people by starting to pay down the debt. The government should have a serious plan to pay down the debt.

The second point I want to make is that the government should find a way to secure the future prosperity of Canadians. The way to do that is very obvious. After having read Margaret Snell's letter and after having heard Kim Hicks' letter, it should be obvious to the government as well. It needs to start reducing taxes.

We have a tax burden in this country which is absolutely staggering. In the last four years, since the government came to power, Canadians have seen their disposable incomes drop like a stone. We know that since the government came to power disposable income for the average family in this country has fallen by over $3,000.

Why it that? It is because taxes continue to mount.

My friends across the way stand every day and say they have cut taxes. If people across the country really believe that the government has cut taxes, I have a bridge that I would like to sell them.

People do not believe that. I do not believe that. We know that government revenues have gone up $25 billion in the last few years. We also know that the government has introduced 37 tax increases. We know that because income tax is not indexed for inflation, effectively there is an inflation tax in place which brings in just under a billion dollars in new revenues every year because people are pushed up into a higher tax bracket. We know all of those things. So how in the world can the government find the courage to say that somehow it has reduced taxes? Frankly, I do not think anybody believes it.

We know that in Canada today we have personal income taxes that compared to our G-7 trading partners are 54% higher. I do not believe for a moment that the government members across the way in their heart of hearts feel and can even persuasively argue that the government really has reduced taxes. I do not think Canadians are buying that at all.

I want to go over a couple of things which were said by my leader yesterday when he said we provided some tax relief for a family in New Brunswick. When that family in New Brunswick had a chance to spend that money, what did they spend it on? They paid off some personal debt. They set aside about a third of the money. Then they spent some on essentials like medical needs and groceries.

Canadians know better than this government what their priorities are. They should have the chance to direct where that money goes, to keep it in their pockets in the first place. That is why the Reform Party has been at the forefront of advocating lower taxes for all Canadians so that we can start to give Canadians the real hope that they need, the real hope that they have been deprived of over the last 10 years under successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Reform Party's finance critic for that speech.

As usual, using a very personalized example of how taxes, debt and deficits impact on a family and on an individual makes it much more meaningful than a long list of statistics. What the member has shown us today is a fine example, or maybe a very poor example, of what happens when governments dip into the pockets of Canadians. The old joke is that it was so cold last winter we actually saw the finance minister with his hands in his own pockets for a change.

Canadians understand. They do not buy this idea that taxes have plateaued, that the light at the end of the tunnel is anything other than an oncoming tax train.

I would like the member to talk specifically about user fees and the hidden taxes that the government keeps denying it has increased. He mentioned several of them, for instance bracket creep. Who is the biggest bracket creep in Canada. There is the issue of these hidden taxes whether they be tariffs or other things we do not see when we pick up the groceries.

In addition there are user fees. I wonder if the finance critic could talk to us about that problem. It is another hidden tax that is eating away at a family's ability to look after itself and has contributed to that $3,000 drop in income the average Canadian has sustained in the last three or four years.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because my time is running out.

In the last 10 years user fees have increased by about 100% in Canada. User fees effectively are a tax not only on corporations, businesses and all kinds of organizations that use government services, but it is a tax in many cases on individuals, people who use campgrounds and that kind of thing. There is no question the government has set about to raise extra revenues that way and because these things do not pass through Parliament, it does amount to taxation without representation.

I will say one word on the issue of bracket creep. Recently we got a letter from a lady in Abbotsford, British Columbia who was having trouble making it on $16,000 a year. She pays quite a bit of income tax, even only making $16,000 a year. In fact she had to mortgage her mobile home in order to pay the $800 tax bill she owed the government.

I simply want to make the point to my friends around the House today that tax relief is a viable way to help a lot of Canadians, people at the low end of the income scale. In the spirit of Christmas, I urge people to consider this today and to think that perhaps there are ways to help people other than initiating a new program.

I want to thank my colleagues around the House for agreeing to let me speak today. I also want to wish them a very Merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous New Year. I know we disagree in this place, very often quite vehemently on various things but I think we all agree that we all want to help Canadians. I want to express my best wishes to all my friends in the House today.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of giving to the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939, the status of veterans under the federal legislation and making them eligible for veterans' pensions and benefits.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks there have been discussions among the various parties. I would seek unanimous consent to call it one hour of completed debate after representatives from all the political parties represented here tonight who wish to speak to this motion have had a chance to speak.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Would the hon. member please repeat what he just said in order that the members are well informed about what they will be agreeing or disagreeing to.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties. I think you will find unanimous consent that after a representative from each of the political parties has spoken to this motion that we will call it a full hour of debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Carried.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you to my colleagues for agreeing to seeing that this first hour of debate will continue after hearing from the various political parties on Motion No. 75.

The motion has been put and the general intent has been indicated. Basically, it is to find an avenue to recognize those men and women who were part of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.

Who were these people? In response, the Mac-Paps as they were often referred to, were a unit of some 1,300 volunteer soldiers from all parts of Canada who banded together to go abroad to fight the enemies of democracy, the fascist powers of Europe.

It was 1936 when the Spanish Civil War began, when the forces of Franco overthrew Spain's democratically elected republican government. With the help of support from Nazi Germany and from fascist Italy, the Spanish Civil War was under way.

People from Canada became aware of this conflict. They became aware of the threat of fascism and the rise of Nazi Germany. They felt that this was the beginning of what was to be an eventual major conflict in the free world, a conflict of free democratic voices against those of fascism.

The call went out. Volunteers from coast to coast in Canada joined after information rallies and so on and left Canada. They left their families, left their jobs, left their communities to fight in a foreign country against what they felt was a threat to freedom and a threat to democracy.

It was 1936. At the time the government of the day passed legislation called the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1936. This act made volunteers who fought in foreign wars criminals. One would have to know Canadian history to acknowledge that at the time there were many people within the Government of Canada who were somewhat sympathetic in particular to the rise of Hitler in Germany.

The history books will reveal that many political leaders in Canada thought the rise of fascism was quite fashionable and quite acceptable. As a matter of fact, in many of the major cities of Canada fascism was very popular. It was not uncommon to find fascist organizations organizing fascist meetings with a great deal of popular support throughout the country.

The Foreign Enlistment Act was passed in 1936 which made it illegal for volunteers to fight on the side of democracy and freedom in the Spanish Civil War. In spite of that, 1,300 people volunteered to go. They felt they had to defy their government in an effort to stand up for justice and what was right in this world.

It is fair to say now with the benefit of hindsight that the Spanish Civil War in many ways was the dress rehearsal for the second world war. It was an early test of the resolve of the free world to make a stand against those forces wishing to crush democracy. We know now in retrospect that certainly was the case. The forces of fascism throughout Europe rose up shortly thereafter and it was just a matter of time before Canadians were involved in fighting fascism in a variety of ways and on a variety of fronts.

We read these days about the conflict, about the incredible heroism, the unbelievable personal sacrifices Canadians made when they went to fight in this war. They often fought with outmoded weapons and in some cases fought with no weapons at all. They were fighting against the Luftwaffe. The Nazi Luftwaffe would sweep over Franco's Spain and bomb the units that were fighting on behalf of the republic. Mussolini sent his naval forces and so on to bombard the cities and bombard the trenches where the freedom fighters were fighting.

It was an incredibly bloody conflict. It was in 1936 and it is fair to say it was before any sort of modern medical application was available on the fronts of war.

Interestingly enough, one of the Canadians who distinguished himself, and there were many Canadians, was Dr. Norman Bethune. He revolutionized battlefield blood transfusions which saved the lives of countless of his fellow volunteers and ever since, future generations of soldiers fighting in war. It was then that Norman Bethune almost became a legend in his own time. He travelled from coast to coast to raise support for the republican forces, to raise finances and to encourage people to enlist. He almost became a cult figure among those people who were fighting for freedom and democracy.

The casualty rate was staggering. The suffering was unbelievable. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons are well aware of the nature of those battles. They are documented in a number of ways. A number of my colleagues are scholars in this area so I will not elaborate at this point. I know we will hear others talk about the casualties of the Spanish Civil War and the recognition that one-quarter of all of the Canadian volunteers were killed or presumed dead by 1939.

One of the darker sides of the issue was that when many of the Mac-Paps who survived the Spanish Civil War and later sought to enlist in our armed forces to continue the fight against fascism in Europe and elsewhere, they were turned away for being politically unreliable individuals. They were identified by government and by the RCMP as being suspect. Their heroic contributions were overwhelmed by the fact that they actually experienced outright discrimination when they returned home to Canada.

The people who prized freedom and democracy acknowledged their contribution and acknowledge that these folks were fighting for the things that have made our country great. Nevertheless they were treated terribly by those in power and influence at the time. They were subjected to police surveillance because of their suspected political connections and political aspirations.

Today in Canada there is only a handful of these survivors left. Remember that this was in 1936. They were young people at the time. Some were not necessarily that young. Almost all of them have passed away regretful that their contribution to the fight against fascism was never acknowledged, recognized or appreciated in a formal way by the Government of Canada and by other levels of government.

Not long ago a memorial was erected at Queen's Park in Toronto on the lawns of parliament in recognition of their contribution. As we speak, funds are being raised in the city of Vancouver to erect a statue to acknowledge the contribution these individuals made in the fight against fascism and the rise of Nazi Germany.

We have not done anything as a federal presence. As a country we have not acknowledged the fact that these folks made a contribution that we have later acknowledged and became involved directly, the conflict now known as the second world war.

My motion is seconded by a number of colleagues from various political parties. It simply asks that the matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House for study. Whether it is to give full veterans benefits to the survivors, of which there are probably not more than 40; whether it is to recognize the contribution these individuals made or some other form of recognition and support at this twilight time in their lives, we are open to whatever initiative would be appropriate.

Rather than seal off this issue with a negative speech today, we should at least keep it open and keep a dialogue happening between ourselves as political parties and as elected representatives to find some acceptable way to recognize the tremendous sacrifices and the tremendous contribution made by the individuals called the Mac-Paps against the rise of Nazism.

We owe it to these individuals. There are probably no more than 40 left in all of Canada. Therefore the cost is infinitesimal. I think it would be appropriate to seek some method of saying thanks to the people who led the way in our Canadian fight against fascism and their fight for freedom and democracy.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to debate this motion. I probably find myself in the position of many members of the House; that is to say I have mixed feelings about it. This is the type of initiative that many members, regardless of political persuasion, can have some sympathy with.

On the surface, Motion No. 75 would seem to have merit. After all, who cannot be sympathetic with the notion of offering some care and comfort to a small group of elderly Canadians who in their youth laid their lives on the line to fight fascism in Europe. It would surely be an act of generosity for caring Canadians. After all what harm could it do?

I wish life were as simple as that: make a decision to call these men veterans, put them on benefits, and that is the end of it. Of course that would not be the end of the issue. It would be the beginning.

The motion calls for the government to consider the advisability of giving these man, the Mac-Paps, veterans status. I assume it follows that the sponsoring member would wish this consideration to lead to such a designation. Unfortunately the motion and its implication is really a non-starter from the beginning.

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs studied the issue a decade ago and in its final report stated:

It is the committee's view that while the presentation may portray these issues in black and white, when all facts are looked at in perspective the situation is by no means as clear cut as those who appeared before us wished us to believe.

It is not a clear cut issue at all. My first difficulty is the tendency to revisit history and through today's sensibilities try to apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side and who fought on the wrong side.

Although the tide of history would not allow us to say that the Mac-Paps fought on the right side, the fact of the matter is that they took up arms on their own volition. Canada was not at war with Spain. We had laws on the books prohibiting our citizens from fighting in foreign wars.

The fact is that there were Canadians who fought on the other side. What about them? We had and continue to have no veterans benefits for those who volunteered to fight on foreign shores under a flag that was not their own. Yet the motion would have us consider that this group of fighting men, out of all other Canadians who have fought in wars under foreign flags, deserve the same status as veterans who fought under Canada's banner.

At the end of the day we are left to conclude that acceptance of the motion implies and would require Canada to pay veterans benefits to any person who participates in any foreign conflict because he or she sincerely believes he or she is doing the right thing. Lest members think that I exaggerate the possibilities, I suggest that granting of veterans benefits to one group of men who fought for what they believed to be a just cause would open the floodgates for many other groups.

If the hon. member's motion did come to pass, are there other unintended consequences? What would it cost? I am sure there are less than 100 Mac-Paps left. Perhaps less. One might think the cost would be minimal.

I do not know what the exact figures are, but to grant them the same veterans benefits as their Canadian counterparts would not be cheap. They could be eligible for disability benefits, war veterans allowances, comprehensive medical care and a subsidized long term residential care. Would we make these benefits retroactive? If so, retroactive to when? Which dependants would be eligible for what benefits? I do not know what the final price tag would be but it could be a lot steeper than we would guess at first glance.

This does not even begin to touch the horrendous administrative implications. Since the Mac-Paps did not serve in Canadian forces there are no personnel or medical files for them. It would, therefore, be impossible to verify whether any disability claims were war service related. In fact, it would be practically impossible to verify whether any particular individual even served with the Mac-Paps, given that the Canadian government kept no registry of the volunteers. Nor would any of the unit's official records likely have survived the defeat in Spain.

If therefore the proposed motion were adopted and led to veteran status for the Mac-Paps, extremely generous presumptive rules would have to be included in the legislation to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to accept the flimsiest of evidence in any claim.

Canada recognizes as its veterans those who served Canada or its allies in a war in which Canada was a combatant. That is how it has always been and that is how it should remain. To widen eligibility to those who fought for other nations, in other uniforms, would not be fair to those Canadian veterans who served their country and to those who continue to do so.

To open the benefits to special cases has terribly serious and detrimental consequences, not only at home but abroad where we portray ourselves as an independent and neutral nation. It would suggest that we are not neutral and that Canadians can fight for any nation and return home to receive Canadian benefits.

The case for voting in the affirmative on the motion does not hold up. As the standing committee stated 10 years ago:

It is without regard to the rights or wrongs of the action of those Canadians who are veterans of the Spanish Civil War. They cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians who served in the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation. Consequently, there can be no thought of treating them in the same manner by making them eligible for benefits under veterans legislation.

The standing committee's recognition of this fact remains no less true today than it did when it issued its report in 1987. Therefore the motion cannot pass reasonable scrutiny. It should not be passed.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my duty as the loyal opposition critic for veterans affairs. It is an honour for me to address the motion before the House. I begin by thanking the hon. member for Kamloops for moving the motion.

It is essential for us to remember our history. As we have heard so often, those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it. As parliamentarians we have a special duty to ensure that the past informs the present and helps to shape the future.

I take this opportunity to celebrate the memory of those Canadians who fought in Spain in the 1930s. They took part in a pivotal part of our history. I believe it is appropriate that we recognize their valour and ensure their memory as part of our history, but I cannot agree with the motion put forward for the simple reason that it would not be appropriate for the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion to have the status of Canadian war veterans.

Canada was not a combatant in the Spanish Civil War. Indeed the Liberal government of the day enacted legislation to make participation on either side an offence. With the 20:20 hindsight provided by almost 60 years, we may object to this and feel that it was unfair. However this does not change the fact that these brave men were not members of a Canadian official force.

We need not think too long or too hard to see what a difficult precedent could be set by such an action. At any time there are unfortunately dozens of declared and undeclared wars being fought around the world. More than almost any other people, Canadians recognize the importance of world events in their lives. As a multicultural country, most of us have connections to some part of the world where conflicts occur.

I would not in any way want to encourage Canadians to feel that they have some sanction to take part in the conflicts in places such as Afghanistan, Algeria or Angola, or to promote violence in places like Ireland.

We need only to think back a few years to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Canada has strong and vital communities of people of Serbian and Croatian heritage. We certainly did not sanction any reflection of ethnic tensions here. We value our role as a sanctuary of peace and democracy. We gave generously to charities that sought to help the victims of the war. As always, Canada played a central role in the international effort of the United Nations in trying to prevent conflict and protect civilians in Croatia and Bosnia.

I hope we are more enlightened today than in 1936. Canada is deeply involved in the work of the United Nations peacekeeping forces that have played an important role in avoiding conflict in the Middle east, Cyprus, Croatia and Bosnia to name a few. Even today we insist that those Canadians who want to help should do so through the proper channels of the United Nations. In matters of war we do not freelance.

As the opposition critic for veterans affairs, I am proud to play a role in remembering the sacrifices of the veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. This past November I participated as a member of the delegation of veterans, young people, military and government representatives that travelled to France and Belgium. We attended the ceremony and remembrance at the Newfoundland Beaumont-Hamel Memorial to commemorate the war dead of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. We also attended the Ceremony of Remembrance at the Vimy Memorial.

The ceremonies were very moving and emotional and I would be proud to participate in efforts to ensure the memory of the Mac-Paps is part of this heritage. Our level of knowledge about the first and second world wars is fairly good. Places and names such as Vimy, Flanders and Dieppe resonate in the Canadian mind. But Canadians played a role in other international conflicts going back as far as the Boer War in South Africa. These efforts are not as prominent in our history books.

The hon. member for Kamloops has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on one of the pivotal points of the 20th century and the part played in it by Canadians. The Spanish Civil War has a special place in the art and literature of the western world as well as the history. Anyone who has read Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls or Orwell's Homage to the Catalonia has an idea of the passion that motivated these Canadians to take part in fighting the forces of fascism.

For many people on the left of the political spectrum, such as the hon. member for Kamloops, there is a romantic element in the principled fight against overwhelming odds. This same spirit prevailed in 1936 when 1,239 men went to Spain with the full knowledge that they were bucking the system and going against the wishes of the government of the day.

What is not so well remembered is what is documented in the second half of Homage to Catalonia where the communists, anarchists and socialists turned on each other and destroyed any chance they had to effectively oppose Franco's nationalists. The dream of international communism was betrayed by Stalin and others. Orwell and many other veterans of the International Brigades felt betrayed and only a few short years later Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy used the techniques they developed in Spain like the divebombing of the Basque town of Guernica in the second world war.

I am sure all members of this House support the important work of our veterans organizations in educating young Canadians about their past and about the horrors of war and about the stories of their parents, grandparents and great grandparents. This is a role that has been played by the veterans of the Mackenzie—Papineau Brigade.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for veterans affairs, I am pleased to rise today to support my hon. colleague from Kamloops in asking that the members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion be recognized as veterans.

The MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, named after the leaders of the 1837 rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada, was made up of 1,300 Canadian volunteers who served in the international brigades to support the Republican government against the authority of fascist dictator General Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939.

In spite of their sacrifices and their individual heroism, Canadian veterans of the international brigades are still not recognized as war veterans. As a result, they have never been eligible for veterans' benefits and, more importantly, their merit in defending the freedom and democracy that we, in Canada, enjoy and benefit from today was never recognized.

The purpose of this motion is therefore to ask that official recognition be given to the courage of the men and women who did not wait for the government's formal approval to fight for our fundamental freedoms and against the horrors of fascism. These Canadians went to Spain, where they risked their lives alongside other brave people from around the world to fight for freedom and democracy.

Unfortunately, the Spanish Republican forces and the international brigades, including the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, did not win that fight, but history tells us that the Spanish war was the prelude to the downfall of fascism at the end of World War II in Europe. It seems appropriate that these fighters and their willingness to fight for justice and democracy be recognized.

Dare we ask? Why did Canada not accept to provide assistance to Spain at the time? Why did it pass the Foreign Enlistment Act on April 10, 1937, one year after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War? Why did Maurice Duplessis, on March 24, 1937, pass an act to protect the province against communistic propaganda, better known as the “Padlock Act”? Why this discrimination toward our soldiers when they came back? Why give the status of veterans to those who fought in the Vietnam war, but not those who did so in Spain?

I will try to answer these questions from a historical perspective. It may be that, at the time, Canada was a British colony and England, like France, feared a second world war. It may be because the battalion's name was MacKenzie-Papineau, in memory of the 1837 rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada. As we know, these patriots yearned for freedom and democracy, something which may not have pleased Canadian royalists.

Around 1835, Louis-Joseph Papineau, member of the Patriote Party, wanted a democratic and bilingual country open to free trade with the United States, a country where Church and State would be independent. At the time, each group had its own parliament. Members of parliament in both Upper and Lower Canada were elected, but they did not have any executive power. This power was exercised by the governor, who was appointed by London. This is the main reason why these rebellions took place. Quebec was hit first. Villages were burned, hundreds of people killed, 1,000 arrested, 108 tried, 60 deported, and 12 hanged. The authorities could have hit Upper Canada first, because the rebellions were just the same but, when it comes to reprimanding, history tells us that it takes place in Quebec.

The federal Foreign Enlistment Act and Duplessis' Padlock Act were, to a large extent, adopted in response to requests from the clergy and the right wing. It was also to keep the Canadian right happy when these veterans returned home that they were subjected to job discrimination and RCMP surveillance, and turned down when they tried to enlist at the beginning of World War II.

Finally, I do not understand why Canada recognizes veterans of the war in Vietnam but not the war in Spain. We had no more business being in Vietnam than we did in Spain.

I followed with great interest the deliberations of the standing committee on veterans affairs in 1986 regarding the participation of Canadians in the Spanish Civil War, and the testimony shows that the sole interest of the veterans who appeared before the committee was to stop the progress of fascism and to defend the oppressed. History proved them right. The war in Spain was the prelude to World War II and the end of two dictators, Hitler and Mussolini.

These civil wars between the forces of the right and the Spanish Popular Front government began with clashes over economic and social structure. The landowning class, often noblemen, dominated a country that was essentially agricultural, poor and lacking in social programs. This upper class relied on a clergy that was very rich and, on the whole, very conservative. It also relied on an army whose many officers came from its ranks.

The people were primarily farmers, an underpaid agricultural proletariat, miners or factory workers, and engaged in several violent struggles to fight unemployment and low wages.

On two occasions, the working class had managed to assume democratic power and to implement social, military, ecclesiastical and agrarian reform, early release from the army, the separation of Church and State, some degree of autonomy for Catalonia, and universal education. I should point out as well that this was a time of heavy ideological struggles between communists, fascists and liberalists just about everywhere, but in Europe in particular. In 1934, those reforms were abolished after the right assumed power, but when the left returned in 1936 and these programs were resumed, the right went into action and the civil war ensued.

During that war, according to the statistics, 52 countries in the world were involved in recruiting 40,000 people for the Spanish cause despite the non-intervention agreement.

In short, history proves that these veterans fought for freedom and democracy. This civil war was a class struggle between the landowners, the army and the clergy on the one side, and the people, the proletariat, on the other. It was also an international ideological struggle between communism, fascism and liberalism. It was the prelude to the Second World War and to the downfall of fascism and its dictators. The Mackenzie—Papineau Battalion wanted to share that yearning for freedom and democracy.

For these reasons, I am calling on the government to recognize the sincere contribution of these veterans who enlisted in order to defend freedom and democracy, and to award to surviving Canadian veterans or their widows the benefits to which they would have been entitled if they had been regular members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the item is dropped to the bottom of the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, on November 17, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the measures she intended to take to fight the extremely serious problem of the arrival in Canada of a number of war criminals, people who are guilty of crimes in their country and who have applied under Canadian law for refugee status.

The issue is of concern, because according to an internal study by Randy Gordon in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we learned that, since his first report in February 1997, the total number of cases of all kinds had increased. He reported that the total was now over 300 cases, and including the new files to be considered soon for refugee status, the total would no doubt increase significantly in 1997-98. According to Mr. Gordon, if only 1% of the 38,000 new claims pending processing involved war crimes, the total number of files to process would almost double in very short order.

You must know that in Canada there are nearly 300 people who are guilty or could be considered guilty by the war crimes refugee status commission. There is one thing of considerable concern. Internationally, Canada has the reputation of giving a special welcome to war criminals. In saying that, I know the government is just as concerned as I am about this situation.

I know the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship is not pleased to discover that we are a preferred haven for war criminals. However, for more than 20 years we have known that all sorts of mechanisms have permitted war criminals to come to Canada. Despite all, we must acknowledge that little has been done.

You will recall that, in 1985, there was a commission of inquiry, the Deschênes commission, which looked particularly at Nazi war criminals. It suggested a number of courses of action, including amending the Criminal Code, passing tighter measures on extradition and, of course, the main measure of ensuring that, when someone applied, it would be possible to identify whether they were guilty of war crimes. The moment an individual was identified as a war criminal, without the need for an exhaustive investigation as is presently the case, expulsion and deportation measures were to be taken.

What I hope in raising this question is to offer the government and the Minister of Immigration and Immigration my full support, my participation and my energy so that we may work together, outside party lines, because we all know there can be no justice. We will be able to send a clear message around the world that Canada will not tolerate war criminals on its soil. A clear message will thoroughly discourage regimes guilty of such crimes.

I close by saying that currently under the Immigration Act, specifically subsection 19(1)—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, Canada is constantly making progress in how it treats those who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, but a lot remains to be done.

The government's approach to such criminals has always been grounded in our commitment to ensure that justice is done and that Canada does not become a safe haven for war criminals and for those who have committed crimes against humanity now or in the future.

Canada is seen as a world leader in the detection and removal of modern war criminals and has removed more modern war criminals than any other western country.

For example, 72 persons have been removed from Canada during the past few years. In addition, hundreds have been excluded by the Immigration and Refugee Board from accessing the refugee determination system.

We have prevented many from obtaining visas to enter Canada. We are proud of this accomplishment and we are working hard to build on this success.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, has taken measures to improve its ability to address the problem of war criminals. For example, CIC, regions have identified various co-ordinators to track modern war criminal cases and ensure they are dealt with expeditiously.

CIC continually looks for ways to enhance its ability to deal with enforcement issues. CIC works closely with its partners such as the Department of Justice, the RCMP and CSIS to ensure that information is shared and acted upon.

Protecting the safety and security of the Canadian public will always be a top priority for the department. This is one thing we will never compromise on.

I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his interest in this issue.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am told I will be the last speaker in the House for 1997. If so, I am very proud and honoured to end the proceedings for 1997. As my mother used to say, “the important thing is not to always talk, but to have the last word”.

On December 4, I asked the minister of Transport a clear question on the transportation by train of goods to northern cities such as Fermont and Shefferville. To my surprise, the reply was, to say the least, off track.

I asked about rail transportation and the Minister of Transport told me about the condition of Canada's highways. Of course, the rest of his reply did not make sense. The minister said the provincial government was responsible for setting priorities to meet the collective needs of remote communities. Yet, I was addressing the proper level of government, since I was asking about rail transportation.

Finally, when I asked the minister about what measures he intended to take in the future, he told me that the federal government has been involved in assisting the provinces since 1919 in highway construction, which is utterly useless and irrelevant. All this shows that the minister never took an interest in the claims made by the chamber of commerce of Sept-Îles, which were communicated to him personally more than a month ago. This is a flagrant lack of interest in helping the people of Manicouagan and getting things back to normal.

Admittedly, the Minister of Transport realized his error. In a letter dated December 9, he apologized for not replying to my question and for having given an inaccurate answer. He assures me that officials from his department will look into my allegations and report back.

I could understand that he gave the wrong answer to my question, but I cannot forgive him, on behalf of the North Shore Quebeckers I represent, for not replying promptly to representatives of the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce. I will therefore reiterate the facts, in the interests of advancing our cause.

On November 5, in other words a little more than a month ago, the Sept-Îles chamber of commerce requested the assistance of the Minister of Transport in its efforts to ensure the survival of the merchants in the region. It condemned the increase in rail freight charges.

It was shown, for instance, that it will now cost $154 to ship 35 cases of milk from Sept-Îles to Schefferville, rather than $52.

Since the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway handed the freight monopoly over to the private sector, rates have more than doubled. The federal government has an obligation to ensure that companies receiving subsidies meet their obligations. How can the government tolerate this, and not act when it knows that IOC is pocketing money for passenger traffic while allowing freight charges to skyrocket.

As the member for Manicouagan, I demand that the government step in to re-establish fair freight rates on the Sept-Îles—Labrador City route.

I would like to reassure people, whether they are from Fermont or Schefferville, that they will be able to obtain food as economically as possible.

To the people in my riding of Manicouagan, and to all Quebeckers, my warmest wishes for 1998. We will be boarding a train headed for the year 2000. It is normal for a self-respecting people to have a country.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in 1996 the Canada Transportation Act, CTA, entered into law. One of the main objectives of this bill was to help revitalize the rail sector by eliminating unnecessary economic regulation and to rely more on commercial arrangements between railways and their customers. Under the CTA, subsidies for uneconomic branch lines and non-VIA Rail passenger services were eliminated. This included the subsidy for the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway.

Although the government eliminated the statutory subsidies for non-VIA passenger services, a commitment was made to ensue reasonable passenger rail service to remote communities such as Schefferville. As a result the government entered into contractual arrangements with three railways, including the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, to continue to provide passenger rail service to remote communities.

The agreement specified minimum levels of passenger service such as the frequency of trains. They do not, however, cover all details of other operations since these are best left to the individual railways that provide the freight and passenger services.

Recently the hon. member for Manicouagan raised an issue with respect to a decision by the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway to change its merchandise storage service. Recognizing that the federal role is restricted to its contract with the QNS&L for passenger rail services, the Minister of Transport noted the concerns raised by the member and has asked officials from his department to look into this matter.

The minister has made a commitment to respond directly to the member as soon as more details are known. I would personally like to thank the member for Manicouagan for his interest. I lived in Schefferville for a number of years when it was a thriving mining town. One of my daughters was born there. I have travelled this particular railroad scores, not tens, scores of times both before Schefferville closed as a mining town and since. I know Sept-Iles, Manicouagan and the North Shore very well.

I congratulate the member on giving the last speech in the House before the break.

Je vous remercie.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.42 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 2, 1998 at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

Joyeux Noël à tous. Merry Christmas.

(The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.)