Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Kamloops calling on the government to extend veterans benefits to Canadians who served in the Spanish civil war, the surviving members of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion, also known as the Mac-Paps.
This is a motion which on the surface has some merits. It is one which many people have mixed feelings about. However, my first difficulty is a tendency to revisit history and try to apply retroactive judgments about who fought on the right side and who fought on the wrong side.
At the time Canada was not at war with Spain. We had laws prohibiting our citizens from fighting in this foreign war. This matter has been debated in the House before. In 1980 a motion similar to the motion presented by the member for Kamloops was presented by Bob Rae, the then member of Parliament for Broadview—Greenwood. The issue was also debated and discussed in great lengths in 1986 at the standing committee on veterans affairs.
The committee concluded that the losses incurred by the battalion are indeed to be mourned and the qualities, endurance and courage shown by the battalion are to be admired. These were brave individuals fighting for a cause they believed in and we should definitely not fault them for that.
The standing committee concluded, however, that these Canadians, the Mac-Paps, cannot be considered in the same light as Canadians who served in the wars in which Canada was involved as a nation. The committee also concluded that there can be no thought of treating them in the same manner by making them eligible for benefits under the veterans legislation.
Those men who went to Spain and waged war on the fascists are to be commended for their efforts. One can applaud their bravery in the face of a better manned and better equipped enemy. Spain has publicly thanked these men who joined the international brigade. However, the indisputable fact is that they were soldiers of conscience. They went on their own to fight the fascist aggression.
At the time of the Spanish civil war, Canada chose to be neutral and did not recognize the war. Canada was not at war. The Canadians who participated in the Spanish civil war did so on an individual basis. They let their conscience be their guide. These men went to Spain in defiance of the laws of Canada at the time. They fought on behalf of their own conscience, not on behalf of the people of the Government of Canada.
We recognize the sincerity behind this motion. This debate allows us the opportunity to once again say to these men that they are not criminals and what they did was what they honestly felt was right. No one can fault them for that.
They were courageous individuals. However, this House cannot say that the laws are wrong. We as a country did not support this war. We salute their bravery but simply cannot agree that men who fought in a war not sanctioned by Canada are entitled to benefits which are reserved for people who answered their own nation's call to arms.
We should think for a few moments about what it would mean internationally if this House recognized officially the fight of these volunteers.
Whether we want it or not, we would be approving the actions of other people who may want to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The government would create an extremely dangerous precedent by recognizing officially these volunteers as Canadian soldiers.
Where would we stop? How could we justify giving benefits to all Canadians who fight in other countries for what they consider to be just cause? I would not in any way want to encourage Canadians to feel that they would receive sanctions to take part in, let us say for the sake of argument, the conflicts and violence that are occurring in Ireland or Israel for that matter.
We believe it is appropriate that we recognize their valour and ensure their memory as a part of history. However, we do not feel that it is right to bestow the status of Canadian war veteran to members who were not part of the official Canadian force.
We in our party support the rule of law and do not view it as appropriate to advocate a position which would in effect legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This would set an untenable precedent.