Debates of May 12th, 1998

Division No. 156

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for the last time this evening. If the House agrees I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having failed to pass those last three motions, we have to vote no to this motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of this motion.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote yes.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yes to this motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill on DNA is a small step in the right direction and I will support it.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 157

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion.

Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak to this motion which I do not support. I wish to explain in some detail why I do not support it.

Some years ago I was in Washington to do some research in the archives. I found the archives were closed, that it was a public holiday and quite an unexpected public holiday. It turned out that it was Memorial Day.

I had nothing to do because I could not work so I walked down into the mall area. I found myself next to the Vietnam memorial. It was the first time I had ever seen the Vietnam memorial. As I said, it was on Memorial Day so quite a few veterans were standing around the memorial.

It has to be imagined. The monument to the Vietnam war in the United States is probably one of the most moving monuments built anywhere in the world. It is quite remarkable. It consists of a huge slab of black marble. A ramp goes down one end and up the other, and on it are engraved all the names of the people who died during the Vietnam war.

Many of the veterans were middle aged since the Vietnam war occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many people of my age were standing around the Vietnam memorial to pay homage to their fallen comrades. It was very moving. I was surprised to see little Canadian flags everywhere from one end of the memorial to the other. It was quite a shocking contrast to see the Canadian flags against the black.

I did not realize that Canadians had served in the Vietnam war. I was very surprised to find that out. I talked to some of the veterans there at the time who explained that they knew Canadians who fought with them in the rice paddies in Vietnam, Canadians who served with great courage. Some were killed and some were injured. Many of them believed in the cause the Americans were fighting for in Vietnam.

On further inquiry I found out that approximately 10,000 Canadians fought with the Americans in Vietnam. There was such a surge of support for the war among young people in Canada that the Americans set up a special recruitment system whereby Canadians could cross the border to get a letter of acceptance and then go back across the border to join up and serve in the forces.

Many Canadians who served in Vietnam did so because they thought they were fighting against communism. They believed that communism as we saw it in North Korea was a terrible force in the world and they wanted to save the world from it. True idealism brought those Canadians to actually risk their lives in that foreign war.

Canada does not recognize veterans who served in foreign armies. We can see the wisdom of that decision when we consider Vietnam. Those young Canadians who went over there to serve in the American forces in Vietnam believed they were doing the right thing. We now know subsequently that the war in Vietnam was not really a war of the United States fighting to save the free world and sparing it from communism. It was really the United States intervening in a civil war that involved a struggle for independence.

The Vietnamese had been under the heel, literally speaking, of the French, the Vichy French and even the Japanese during the second world war and post second world war. The Vietnamese are very proud people and were very determined to gain their independence.

The war in Vietnam, as we know, led to some very terrible atrocities. I think of My Lai in which Canadian soldiers were distressed by the fact that they could not see the enemy among the civilians so they killed the civilians. The Vietnam war was also a war in which the Americans resorted to chemical warfare in the form of defoliants and agent orange.

I think we would agree that Canada is probably very glad that it did not officially sanction the Canadians fighting in Vietnam because in fact despite their very best intentions they were fighting for a losing cause and a wrong cause. That is the most important issue.

This is one of the dangers when Canadians fight for other countries. They may indeed take up a cause that later is discovered to be a cause that Canada would not want to associate itself with.

The Vietnam war was from 1967 to 1973, the major portion of the war. If we flip back another 30 years we come to 1937 and the Spanish civil war. That war involved the forces of General Franco representing the state and backed by the fascists, backed by Germany and Mussolini but mainly by Nazi Germany, and the republican forces which were backed by the communist power of the day, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was instrumental in getting that war rolling because it had a philosophy until recent years of spreading international communism. The Soviet Union made a direct effort to keep the civil war going in Spain.

Part of the Soviet Union's campaign to support the republican side involved the formation of international brigades. These brigades comprised battalions and volunteers who were recruited from all over the world. One of those battalions was the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

Approximately 1,300 Canadians went over and joined the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and fought on the side of the republicans during the Spanish civil war. The Spanish civil war was a terrible war. It was a brutal war. Men, women and children were killed. It was a war that is echoed by the civil war that is now occurring in Algeria.

It was a different world in 1937. As the young men from Canada went over to serve in the republican forces they could not see inside the Soviet Union. They only knew the Soviet Union as a country that was supporting workers and they thought it was a grand new experiment. They thought it was going to free the people, and so with the greatest good spirit they went over to serve in the republican forces.

One of the most famous persons at that time was Norman Bethune who served in the Spanish civil war, not in the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion but by giving medical aid to the republican troops.

We now know in retrospect that far from fighting for democracy, as the member from Kamloops said, they were fighting on the side of the republicans who were supported by the worst dictatorship in the world. The dictator was Stalin. After the war we discovered that this was a communist rule, a dictatorship that would kill millions of people, millions of people in Ukraine and millions of its own people, the Russians.

We have to remember that Norman Bethune went on to China, served in the Chinese forces and became famous there. However China became a dictatorship under Mao and it was one of the cruelest dictatorships in modern time. These people killed millions and they were every bit as bad as Hitler.

We have the dilemma that these people in good spirit and good heart went over to support a cause that Canada and all the world in retrospect realize was actually supporting a cause that was perfectly reprehensible and we would not want to have Canada associated with it.

We have the dilemma that the member for Kamloops wants to acknowledge the courage and contribution to history, the contribution in spirit of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion 60 years ago. He is right in his intention but wrong in the execution.

Canada can never take the chance of supporting foreign wars in which the outcome or result may indicate a political entity that is completely unacceptable to Canada.

I will conclude by making a suggestion to the member for Kamloops. In the United States the Canadian Vietnam veterans are recognized and compensated by the United States because of their service in the Vietnam war. I suggest very strongly to the member that he make representations to the Embassy of Spain to see if he can get Spain to make a similar recognition of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and to get compensation from where it really ought to come and that is Spain.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for a very enlightening and well researched speech. He made some very good points which I agree with.

I do not agree with the basic premise that the Mac-Paps were going across on some kind of a flawed premise that they were doing something noble and honourable and then found out they were actually pawns or were being used by a larger power.

When the group went over to fight fascism they were right. A couple of years later the Canadian government agreed and declared war. That group recognized the fear of fascism in Europe earlier and chose to take up arms. If the group can be criticized for being aligned with the communists by working with the republic of Spain then so can any of the allies as we joined forces in the second world war to do what we thought was right, which was to smash fascism.

The purpose of the motion as it was worded was to investigate ways to grant some form of recognition to these noble and heroic Canadians. It did not limit us to any particular course of action although first and foremost the goal was to have these people declared and treated as veterans with the full status that veterans enjoy. There are other options which I think we should be talking about today as well.

In my own research on this subject I was very interested to note that the Mac-Paps were named after Mackenzie and Papineau who led the 1837 Rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada. In fact the year the Mac-Paps were formed, 1937, would have been the 100th anniversary of that uprising. I presume that is how the name was chosen.

The member who spoke on behalf of the government was correct. My research shows that 1,300 volunteer soldiers banded together from all parts of Canada to go abroad. Approximately half of them came home. Not all of them died. Some were missing in action. Some actually settled in Europe and did not choose to return to Canada.

The point I would like to dwell on is that ordinary Canadians have to be diligent just as those young Canadians were diligent. When the extreme right wing raises its ugly head, ordinary working Canadians have to be aware of the risk and the threat to democracy as well as the threat to the treasured institutions we value and which make our country great.

I would like to think that is what those people did. In the 1930s those young people were watching the newsreels in their local movie houses and saw the jackboot storming across Europe, the rise of fascism. Canadians travelled overseas to see firsthand what it was like. Tommy Douglas was one in the mid-1930s to visit Europe to see whether it was true. He wanted to find out if the rise of Hitler and the rise of fascism was as threatening as they were hearing. People read about it in the newspapers and came to the very logical conclusion that fascism was the greatest threat they faced.

Rather than talk about it and rather than wait for the government to act, because the Canadian government could have been quicker in getting on board to smash Hitler and smash fascism, that group of people saw fit to put their own lives aside, leave their homes and loved ones and hike off to Europe unsanctioned in a formal way by the Canadian government.

We gave them thanks by making them outlaws. We threatened them with two years jail time for having the temerity to get involved in the battle. It was a battle which we knew at that time to be just and right because within 18 months we were in the same boat as a country leading the fight as one of the early countries in the great struggle of World War II.

These young men and women realized the danger. Instead of being criticized and threatened with legal action they should be recognized and championed and given the full status and full rights other veterans enjoy. They gave their youth for the fight for democracy against fascism.

A parallel can be drawn today in the need for us to be vigilant as pockets of the extreme right wing surface again across Canada. Even within political parties in Canada the right wing is rising up in circumstances similar to what we saw in the 1930s. Many parallels can be drawn. Fascism in Europe really grew out of a period of very poor economic times, tight fiscal policy, high unemployment, and general dissatisfaction. That is when working people and otherwise decent people seem to seek out these extreme alternatives.

Regarding the rise of fascism in Germany, when Eichmann was interviewed in his prison cell he was asked what did he think Adolf Hitler would be remembered for most. His answer was the great way that he solved the unemployment problem. He said nothing about the killing of six million Jews. It was the great way that he solved the unemployment problem. They were really desperate for some kind of relief in the miserable lives they were living.

We saw the recent rise in right wing populism coming out of a period of tight money and economic fiscal policy. The Bank of Canada was trying to fight inflation with high interest rates and screwed it up. It resulted in truly desperate times for a lot of people, especially where I live in western Canada. They sought out extreme right wing solutions. This is what led to the rise of the new right wing populism. As I say we have to be ever on guard and ever vigilant because looking toward those kinds of options brings us all down and threatens the institutions that make Canada great.

The Spanish civil war in many ways acted as a dress rehearsal for the second world war. When Canada saw the international brigades mobilizing, taking action and doing what was necessary, it probably served to inspire Canadian leaders and other world leaders to become motivated and get active.

We are aware that it was not just Franco they were fighting. The Spanish fascists were being backed heavily by Mussolini and by Hitler. They were pouring money in.

This courageous rather ragtag group went over there on dimes and nickels. They passed the hat around to pay their way over. They were poorly armed. We can imagine how much courage it took to go into that kind of armed conflict against some of the greatest world powers of the time. That should be recognized.

Norman Bethune's name was mentioned. He was certainly one of the more famous persons to go over during that period. He was an honourable and noble man. He dedicated his life to elevating the standards of the poor. In health care he broke new ground in terms of transfusion techniques some of which actually was learned on the battlefield in the heat of battle doing triage.

The only valid criticism I have heard against Motion No. 75 is if we do it for this group, how many other groups are we going to have to recognize in some way and apologize for? Nobody is asking for apologies. We are just asking for some serious second consideration in this case. We are looking at a situation where we believe there should be some kind of recognition. If people cannot see fit to grant the full veteran status that we are asking for, then surely they can do two things.

One was made reference to by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In a letter about this recently he came back reminding us that an order in council was passed at the time making it a criminal offence for Canadians to serve on either side of the Spanish civil war. No charges were actually laid but technically these people committed a crime against Canada by going to fight the fascists on our behalf. The very first and foremost thing we should be doing is striking that, eliminating that stigma which these 40 or so living Canadian veterans of the Spanish civil war still have to wear.

The other thing we can do, and I think there is interest in this and in fact we have some interest on the government benches, is to put up a monument to the Mac-Paps on the grounds outside the House of Commons. That would be a popular move. It would be the very least we could do.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate this evening is on Motion No. 75, that in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of giving members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought with the 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.

The wording of this motion is a little strange in that it says consider the advisability. We can consider anything. I wonder whether a motion that is worded quite so tentatively is going to get much of a result. In any event, that is the motion before us.

Here is a little background on the Spanish civil war. The Liberal member opposite who spoke earlier gave some excellent background as well. As he said the Spanish civil war was a savage conflict. It took more than half a million lives. That was long before the days of modern weapons and modern technology. It was noted as a war of terrible atrocities and also some very dramatic acts of heroism.

Historian Hugh Thomas noted that politically the war was a hodgepodge of monarchists, fascists, anarchists, liberals, Trotskyites, communists and others seeking to use the war to advance their particular programs. Thomas has done a very definitive work on the Spanish civil war. It is very interesting reading if anyone is interested in getting more background.

The Soviet Union supported the republic but it was careful not to do so directly. What it did was set up an organization to purchase arms and transport them by covert means to assist the Spanish communist forces.

The communist leader in France, Maurice Thorez, suggested that aid be given to the republic in the form of volunteers raised internationally by foreign communist parties. They would be organized by the Comintern, Communist International, and would be led by foreign communists exiled from their own countries and living in Russia.

The international brigades were seen to have great propaganda value for the communists and were seen as a possible nucleus of an international red army. Such an organization could be the chief recipient of any Soviet aid in Spain and ensure that Soviet arms would be secure in the hands of reliable party members.

It might be interesting to note that before Soviet weapons were actually used on Spanish soil, the entire Spanish gold reserve had been dispatched to Russia as security for payment. Russia was not just altruistic in this wonderful battle against fascism.

Most of the ablest leaders in the Comintern were employed in raising volunteers for the international brigades, for example, Joseph Broz who became Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia, and Enrico Togliatti from Italy who later became leader of the Italian communist party.

Historian Thomas tells us that about 60% of the volunteers were communists. Another 20% became communists during their experiences in Spain. Most were young men and members of the working class. A high percentage were unemployed. Many of the Europeans had the experience of street fighting against the fascists in Berlin, Paris and London.

Some of these men were adventurers. Some were hard line communists. Many were idealists, as other speakers have mentioned.

The personal motivations for joining the cause varied widely. It has been suggested that somehow these were visionaries who happened to see the evils of fascism before everybody else did. Unfortunately, they did not see the evils of the extreme left wing which was also raising its ugly head at the same time and they were seconded into that cause which proved equally perilous and brutal for many people in the world.

About a third died in the action in Spain. Several suffered political or professional ostracism because of their Spanish experiences. Many of the eastern Europeans who participated in the campaign were executed in the purges of eastern Europe in 1949.

With respect to the Canadian experience, approximately 1,500 Canadians served the republican cause during the Spanish civil war. They served in several military formations and the unofficial section became to be called the Mackenzie-Papineau section in honour of William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Joseph Papineau who were leaders of the failed 1837 rebellion against the British ruling classes in Upper and Lower Canada.

The Mac-Paps eventually became a separate battalion, but fewer than a third were Canadians. Most were Americans, as were their first commander and their first political commissar. Both of these men were killed in fighting along the Ebro River.

Mark Zuehlke, in a recent book, says that the group sent a cable to Prime Minister King, who was of course the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie. The cable read:

We implore you from the depths of our hearts to do everything possible to help Spanish democracy. In so doing you are serving your own interests. We are here for the duration until fascism is defeated.

King never replied, but I think the cable is an indication of how idealistic the people who sent it were. Unfortunately the cause they served turned out to be equally as brutal and oppressive as the fascist cause.

The reason that the Canadians who served in the Mac-Pap battalion were not thought well of and not respected in Canada was simply because they broke the law.

There had been the non-intervention agreement of 1936, supported by all the major European powers as well as Canada, which was in full accord with the agreement. What happened was that the countries agreed on what Churchill called “an absolutely rigid neutrality”.

The Liberal government in Canada in the mid and late 1930s did not want to get involved in any international problems and, in fact, would not support some of the rather tentative measures that were put forward by the League of Nations at that time, a pretty toothless organization such as it was, of which Canada was not a strong member.

That being said, Prime Minister King had little sympathy for the republican cause and considered communism a great threat at home and abroad.

Canada revised the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1937 to give legal force to its policy of non-intervention. Travel to Spain and its territories was forbidden. Those who went to Spain to serve on either side of the war from Canada did so in defiance of their government and at their own risk.

That is the basis upon which these individuals were not only not accorded the respect and gratitude due to those who fought on behalf of their country but were in some cases prosecuted because they had broken the law.

Whether the law was right or wrong is not the issue. I think there are a lot of laws passed in this House that some people in the House do not agree with. However, that is not a reason for simply breaking them. We need to respect the rule of law.

That is the position of the Royal Canadian Legion. The legion studied this issue and stated:

It was an offence under Canadian law at the time to fight on any side during that war.

The legion was referring, of course, to the Spanish civil war.

It continued:

The legion supports the rule of law and does not view it as appropriate to advocate a position at this late date which would in effect legitimize that which was illegal at the time. This could set an untenable precedent.

There were many idealistic and heroic acts during the Spanish civil war. We know about the skill, courage and sacrifice of Dr. Norman Bethune, and the dedication of Jean Watts of Toronto and Florence Pike of Falkland, the only two Canadian women to have served in the International Brigades. We know about the wounds suffered by playwright Ted Allan and the hundreds who served and died. It is fitting that these individuals be remembered by their friends, supporters and communities for their idealism and sacrifice, and some have been thus honoured.

Regrettably, it is not appropriate to grant them the status of Canadian veterans. Consequently, in view of all the many factors to be considered, I cannot support this motion.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Kamloops, regarding recognition of veterans of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.

I, too, like the member for Châteauguay, would like to see the Canadian government finally recognize members of this battalion as full-fledged veterans.

Despite the battle they waged against fascism, a battle that now seems avant-garde, these soldiers of freedom are still not yet recognized as real veterans.

Canada also took part in the fight against fascism in Europe, a few years after the Mac-Paps fought in Spain, and I therefore think that it is necessary, imperative really, that the Mac-Paps be recognized as real freedom fighters.

The devotion of these men and women was complete and it was primarily governments that waged an all-out battle against fascism in Europe. Some 1,300 Canadians joined about 10,000 French, 3,000 Americans, and Czechs, Yugoslavs and British citizens for the sole purpose of stopping fascism in its tracks in Madrid.

Today we know that these freedom fighters were too thin on the ground and did not have the back-up they needed, because not long after their return to Canada, all of Europe was battling fascism, and did so until the bitter end.

The fascists, having triumphed in Spain and already wielding power in Germany and Italy, set their sights on all of Europe, bolstered by their victory over the international brigades and the Spanish republicans.

The international brigades, including the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion, fought bravely on the front lines and we must recognize the nobility of their contribution.

I must remind this House that the Spanish civil war was not like any other war past or future. All wars are unique, iniquitous actually. However, this one marked in a most particular way the involvement of civilians in an armed political conflict, in spite of the inaction of their government, in fact in spite of its orders to the contrary. They were labourers, teachers, journalists, and intellectuals, who left their occupations behind in order to engage in a battle for the defence of freedom.

The Spanish civil war is far more than a mere civil conflict, a simple internal matter within Spain, as the governments of the day claimed it was. This conflict will remain the symbol of the commitment of men and women from all over the world to safeguarding freedom.

The legacy of that civil war is precisely that international commitment to preserve freedom. There were few professional soldiers in the ranks of the Spanish republican forces; most were people who believed in freedom and were prepared to sacrifice themselves to preserve it.

The Spanish civil war is also and perhaps particularly so the commitment by intellectuals to the very essence of a political conflict. It was first the Spanish intellectuals who refused to give in to the military coup. The Frederico Garcia Lorcas, the Pablo Picassos and the Joan Miros fought for liberty. Ernest Hemingway, André Malraux and George Orwell traded pen for gun.

Was the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion not also led by someone who lived by the pen rather than the gun? What else but the simple belief that our most precious possession needed defending at all cost would cause Edward-Cecil Smith to leave his paper in favour of the trenches?

It was the ardent defenders of freedom who went to fight alongside the Spanish whose government, the government they had just freely chosen, had been toppled by the military. It was these people whose courage, convictions and determination tested the mettle of the Condor legion sent especially by Hitler in support of the new strong men of Europe and the weapons and military tactics that would soon rout all the armies of Europe.

It was these defenders of liberty who understood long before governments the stakes involved in this little war, the stakes involved for the future of Europe and for the protection of freedom. This is the commitment to freedom we are being asked to recognize by giving the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion the status of veterans.

Canada must act now, before it is too late to do so. Is Canada, with the United States, not on the short list of countries refusing to recognize the involvement of their citizens in this war? The list may be short, but in my opinion there are still too many names on it—Canada's in particular.

Some oppose this motion for reasons of cost or potential administrative problems. Others because they fear it might encourage our fellow citizens to become involved in any sort of conflict. We must not forget our history and we must remember that, as parliamentarians, we make decisions that soon will come under the scrutiny of historians.

Let us therefore assume our responsibilities and recognize the great valour in the commitment of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today in the House to speak in support of my colleague's motion, M-75, regarding the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

I have had personal experience with members of the Mac-Paps who have worked so courageously to bring forward this issue. I would like to congratulate the member for Kamloops for bringing forward this motion to provide understanding and education about this issue and to bring forward to Canadians the wrong that was done to the 1,300 volunteers who very bravely went to fight fascism before it was understood even by the Canadian government at the time.

When we read the history of the Mac-Paps we see the courage that these men and women had and the dedication they displayed in fighting fascism. The fact that they were then vilified and castigated by not just the Canadian government but by the RCMP and by society generally is something that is a real black mark in the history of Canada.

I think what this motion does is bring this issue back to the Canadian people, to say that we must give recognition to this noble and heroic group of Canadians who were willing to stand up to be counted, to make a personal sacrifice, to go to another country because they believed so strongly in defending democracy not only in Canada but also abroad.

One of the real tragedies of this situation is that when many of these brave Canadians tried to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces during the second world war, they were denied and told they were politically unreliable, these Canadians who had made this commitment.

This is a motion where members of this House can remember the history here. It allows us to give recognition to what is regrettably a very small group of remaining veterans. There are about 40 members of the Mac-Paps who are still alive. It is important that we remember what they did. It is important that we right a wrong in history. It is important that all parties and all members of this House stand up and give recognition to the work and the commitment the Mac-Paps have made.

I ask other members of the House to put aside partisan politics, to put aside what may have happened back in 1936 and to say that these Canadians must be recognized. What better place to do that than in the House of Commons. There are members of the community, members of their families, their children and their grandchildren who are watching this debate. They are watching to see what we do in the House of Commons to give acknowledgement to the sacrifice these people have made, many of whom have now died.

I call on members of the House to do the honourable and right thing, to recognize the Mac-Paps and to see what we can do to grant some form of recognition to this truly heroic and courageous group of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I advise the House that if the hon. member for Kamloops speaks now he will close the debate.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to say a few closing words in this debate on Motion No. 75, an effort to give appropriate recognition to the MacKenzie-Papineau brigade.

It is fair to say that Canada has shown leadership in the past by acknowledging past wrongs and issuing apologies. In some cases we have provided financial compensation. I refer particularly to the Japanese Canadians who were treated so inappropriately during the second world war. There was an apology and compensation was provided, similarly for first nations peoples humiliated in residential schools. There was an appropriate apology and an indirect form of compensation was indicated. We have seen nations apologize and acknowledge the past wrongs of the Holocaust, apartheid in South Africa, and one could go on and on.

It says an awful lot about a country that can admit it has made errors. Previous governments had debates around some of these issues but they made inappropriate decisions. They were in error. They made mistakes. It takes a great deal of courage for a person to admit to making mistakes and then to move on. It takes some courage for a government and a parliament to say we made a mistake to those who volunteered to fight fascism even before we as a country did.

I appeal to my colleagues from all sides of the House when they vote on this motion to set aside minor problems which have been identified and issues that would make the implementation of this acknowledgement difficult. Do the right thing. For the handful of veterans who are living today in Canada, do the right thing and indicate that we appreciate the fact that they led the way to combating fascism for our country and in the world.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, May 25, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the reply given on March 26, 1998, by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to my question on employment insurance.

I had asked why the federal government was refusing to use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the unemployed from coast to coast. Right now, fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI benefits. This is all the more serious when one realizes that the surplus in the employment insurance fund is up around $15 billion.

Why is this government allowing the surplus in the employment insurance fund to mount up when people throughout the country are suffering because of the changes to EI eligibility criteria? It is often forgotten where this surplus comes from. It comes from the workers and employers of this country who pay EI premiums.

As the program's name indicates, this is insurance for the difficult times when one loses one's job. Everyone hopes not to have to turn to this insurance, but the nature of work being what it is today, it is sometimes unavoidable.

Does this government not acknowledge that more than 60% of unemployed people do not qualify for insurance? They are not entitled to their own money. Not because the government lacks money, either, as there is a surplus of $15 billion in the fund. It is hard to understand why the government refuses to act on this serious matter.

Yesterday, the National Council on Welfare announced that child poverty was at its highest in 17 years. Their report emphasized the direct link between increased poverty and the changes in employment insurance.

In the northeastern part of my province of New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is 23%. One person in four is trying to find a job, and finding nothing. There are thousands of families living in poverty.

It was even announced yesterday that the unemployment rate in New Brunswick was around the 13% mark. Often, the hon. members over there do not believe me when I say that people are suffering because of the changes to employment insurance. This National Council on Welfare report confirms this, in black and white.

The time to do something is now. This government must start working for the people of this country and must address the subjects of concern to all Canadians, such as the elimination of poverty, job creation, and a health system that meets everyone's needs.

Let us start on this right now by reviewing the employment insurance eligibility criteria. Canadians have suffered enough. With $15 billion, we can put contribution rates back to 60% and cover 70% of workers.

I did some calculations earlier. A person working 420 hours in a fish plant or who has a low paying seasonal job with a minimum salary of $7.50 an hour, for example, will receive $3,150 divided by 14 and multiplied by 55, the percentage under employment insurance. He will get $123.75 a week. Nobody can live on that. All the same, with the considerable surplus that is in the employment insurance fund, this is unacceptable.

What is the government waiting for? Do the Liberals want the poverty rate to climb? Let us change the employment insurance criteria in order to remedy—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade has the floor.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to job creation and economic growth and it is making considerable progress on that front. Evident from a steadily declining unemployment rate, we intend to see this downward trend continue. The EI premium rate must ensure that there is sufficient revenue each business cycle to pay EI costs at relatively stable rates.

The current surplus makes prudent provision against rate hikes in the event of unforeseen economic and global changes. It also allows the government to address unemployment where it is most severe. For example, similar in concept to the 1997 and 1998 new hires program, the 1998 budget gives employers who hire more young Canadians in 1999 and 2000 an EI premium holiday.

We must also remember that just three years ago the federal government's deficit was $42 billion. At that time the government looked at all aspects of the fiscal situation and there is no denying that EI surpluses played a role in restoring fiscal health. This was not done in isolation, however, and complemented other difficult decisions.

EI premium rates have been declining since 1994. This year's decrease from $2.90 to $2.70 will save Canadians $1.4 billion in 1998 and premiums will continue to decline as the fiscal situation permits.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, opposition to the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, has been massive and is still growing.

It is not just the citizens of Canada who are realizing that the MAI is a very bad deal. Also our provincial governments are beginning to realize what a bad deal it is in terms of provincial jurisdiction.

In March of this year I asked a question of the Prime Minister, expressing increasing concern that, for example, in my province of British Columbia government initiatives like the jobs and timber accord and legislation to protect young people from the exploitation of tobacco companies are threatened by the MAI.

The response I received from the government was pathetic. What I was told by the government is: “There is nothing in the negotiations that would threaten the ability of Canada to function and operate its own house”.

Canadians know and understand differently. More and more Canadians are understanding that the fundamental impact of the MAI will be to undermine our democratic institutions and to undermine the ability of elected governments to set public policy in the public interest.

In British Columbia the provincial government is so concerned about the impact of the MAI that an all-party committee to undertake public consultation has been struck. The mandate of the special committee is to inquire into and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the MAI through broad public consultation.

Members of the committee will be appointed shortly and the committee is expected to report to the provincial legislature in British Columbia in the coming year.

In speaking to this issue in B.C. the minister responsible, Mr. Farnworth, said make no mistake, the MAI is not dead. While he expressed optimism that the MAI treaty was not signed in Paris when it was anticipated, he does point out, and I and many other Canadians would concur, it is imperative that we take advantage of this delay to continue to press the federal government to have full public debate and hearings and finally to stop this deal from going through.

The minister for employment and investment, Mr. Farnworth, from British Columbia has written to the Minister for International Trade calling on the federal government to hold hearings in all regions of the country and has advised the federal minister not to assume that the MAI will automatically cover provincial measures.

Canadians want to know why the Liberals are so afraid to debate this issue of the MAI. I have been involved in a number of debates in my own riding and in Vancouver where not one Liberal would show up to the debate.

We are calling on the government today to be honest about the MAI, to tell Canadians why it is that it is pushing it through. We want to say to the government that the opposition is increasing. There will be such opposition that we believe the deal will not go through.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, economic isolationists all over the world are opposed to agreements like the MAI. There are those who believe that one can build a wall around the country and operate its economic system within that wall and in so doing bring prosperity, good health and happiness to all its people.

That was tried at the beginning of 1917 in the Soviet Union. At the point of the collapse of that regime, the financial state was so severe that the country is still in the throes of going through a serious catharsis in terms of recovery.

Canada has learned in recent years that our economy is certainly dependent on international interaction and international trade. Forty per cent of the jobs created in this country are created because Canada exports. Agreements are absolutely essential.

We learned a long time ago that Canada works best if there are rules. We are not a large country that can simply operate in the jungle. We have investors in other countries who are small businessmen. They cannot go over there with batteries of lawyers to engage in litigation. It is much more satisfactory if we have the rules set up and we understand where we are going. As a result Canada is prospering.

Canada will continue to prosper as long as we continue to reach out and interact with all nations of the world.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on a matter of equity for all Canadian farmers.

On February 19 and on subsequent occasions in the House I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food why he has not extended disaster relief to farmers in the Peace River region of British Columbia and Alberta who do not qualify under the disaster financial assistance arrangements.

These farmers have endured two devastating years of crop losses due to excess moisture. These arrangements are known as the DFAA. Farmers in the maritimes who suffered last summer under the worst draught in a decade have also been denied disaster relief by the federal government.

Throughout the past two years we have seen special disaster relief programs set up outside the DFAA on four different occasions. The precedent has been set. The federal government has shown that compassion and compensation are available outside the DFAA criteria.

For the Saguenay and the Red River floods special subsidiary programs were established outside the DFAA for farmers suffering losses. More recently the federal government shelled out an extra $50 million again outside the DFAA for part time Quebec farmers with losses resulting from this January's ice storm. Then again in March the minister of agriculture proudly proclaimed an additional $20 million in federal funds outside the DFAA for part time Ontario farmers with losses from the ice storm. These were farmers who do not qualify and did not qualify under the regular DFAA rules.

Let me point out that in each of these four cases farmers were deserving of the special arrangements that were made to get them through the devastation caused by these disasters. What is difficult to understand, however, is that the government will not apply the same rules and compassion to all disaster besieged farmers. They have done it not once, not twice or three times but four times.

The federal government has indicated that when the DFAA is not sufficient, when it does not adequately provide financial disaster relief to farmers, the rules can be changed and special programs can be established.

For Peace River and maritime farmers the DFAA is insufficient to meet their needs. The minister of agriculture has stated in the House that these farmers have been treated exactly the same for coverage as farmers in other areas. This is simply not true. Until Peace River and maritime farmers receive the same kind of subsidiary assistance programs as their counterparts have in the Saguenay region, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, this injustice will continue.

These are the simple facts. In trying to justify his inequitable treatment of these farmers the minister has also indicated to the House that special subsidiary programs have not been put in place, particularly in Alberta and B.C., simply because those provinces have not asked for it. He made this ridiculous excuse even though the $50 million special subsidiary Quebec program was established unilaterally by the federal government without the co-operation of the Quebec government.

I was pleased to see recently that the Alberta minister of agriculture, the hon. Ed Stelmach, called his bluff. He formally asked the federal agricultural minister that a special subsidiary program be established for Alberta farmers in the Peace River region.

I have just learned that Minister Stelmach's request has been denied. I am unaware of what excuse the minister of agriculture used other than maybe his compassion does not exist west of Manitoba.

The truth is that the government is making up the rules as it goes along. If it is to design special subsidiary programs to address Quebec and Ontario farmers who do not qualify under the regular DFAA rules, it should change the criteria for western and eastern farmers as well.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we realize that farmers in northern Alberta and British Columbia have experienced two wet seasons in a row and have suffered significant production and income loss.

We are also aware of the drought condition that impacted on parts of the maritimes and Ontario in 1997. However assistance under the standing federal-provincial disaster financial assistance arrangement does not apply to the situations cited by the hon. member because it does not cover income losses. It deals with reconstruction and does not provide assistance where insurance is available, particularly crop insurance.

The extension of DFAA assistance to Quebec part time farmers is based on the same rules and the same procedures that applied in previous major disasters such as the Edmonton tornado, the Saguenay floods and the Manitoba Red River flood. The magnitude of these disasters in terms of the broad economic impact were such that a comprehensive subsidiary agreement covering agriculture and industry were implemented.

We believe the existing combination of crop insurance, net income stabilization account, NISA, and companion programs has the best potential to provide the needed support for all Canadian producers in cases of drought and excessive field moisture.