Bob Mills

[Liberal Party, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the meeting with Mr. Gingrich in Washington. We also met with a number of Democrats. We also met with a number of people from human rights concerns in Washington while we were there. I will tell you that we were as different as anything we could get from that right wing extremist element they are talking about. When I read that in a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, I was furious. I demand and we demand an apology from the Prime Minister now.

[Peacekeeping, October 23rd, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel should be put to a free vote in the House for approval or rejection.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on votable motion M-31 which provides Parliament the opportunity to address the important issue of peacekeeping. If passed, M-31 will ensure that members of the House are properly consulted whenever we send a large contingent of our men and women in uniform on dangerous missions abroad.

It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel should be put to a free vote in the House for approval or rejection.

The reason my motion would only deal with missions involving 100 or more personnel is to allow the government sufficient flexibility to deal with the kinds of small missions that come up from time to time such as observer missions, de-mining operations, election supervision, without requiring full parliamentary approval.

Motion M-31 is very simple and straightforward. There are no tricks here and what it all boils down to is this. As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to our country and to our troops. When soldiers from my riding or any member's riding are ordered to put their lives on the line, I want to know that all members of Parliament looked at all the facts and made the best decision regarding the mission and any questions arising from the mission.

It is not good enough that decisions are made by a few people behind closed doors. The Canadian people expect all of Parliament to face up to the responsibilities of sending our troops on these missions. When our soldiers go it must be a Canadian decision endorsed by the entire House of Commons. Before the decision to go or not to go is made, members of the House owe it to our soldiers to speak for them in a full debate and to cast their votes only after careful reflection.

I point back to the times over the past 10 years when Liberal members stood up to say much the same thing, that it was a total disregard of this House when soldiers were sent off on serious missions without first consulting them. The people in all of our ridings expect us to have been consulted and expect us to have an answer to the reasons why Canadian soldiers have gone on a peacekeeping mission.

Not only are modern peacekeeping missions more risky than they used to be but they are also much more expensive. The tab for our various missions runs into the billions of dollars. That is money coming straight out of the pockets of Canadians. We owe it to all citizens who are funding these missions to evaluate the facts and have a free vote before jumping in head first.

How many of us, in our ridings, have been asked why we are spending whatever the figure is on a particular mission? Our troops have done a great job but our voters deserve an answer from us.

The old way of simply handing over blank cheques to the UN is no longer acceptable. Canadians want accountability. Canadians want to know the risk and cost are worthwhile before the decision is made, and the only way to get all of the facts on the table is by a full parliamentary debate with a free vote at the end of it.

After that debate, the only way we possibly can show our accountability is through that vote. Then members can put their money where their mouths are and go on public record as supporting or not supporting a particular mission.

Since we are not only talking about a huge amount of money but the lives of our troops when we make this decision, it is vitally

important that members be able to vote their conscience or vote the wishes of their constituents. If ever there is a free vote on anything in the House it should be for peacekeeping. It should not be political. It should not in any way be partisan. It is an obvious item for a free vote. The lives and welfare of our soldiers cannot be a partisan matter. Similarly, it cannot be a situation where a whip instructs members how to vote. This is a life and death decision that must be left up to the elected members of the House to decide.

I realize that this is private member's hour so there is not a huge number of people here, but there are more people here now than when we have had some of our rather sham debates on peacekeeping missions that have occurred after hours.

Not all the facts were known at that time. The decisions in many cases had already been made and reported in the press. There was no opportunity for input of members to be incorporated into the government plans. There was no free vote. In fact there was no vote at all on any of these debates. No wonder there was so little interest by members. No wonder there was so little media attention. No wonder Canadians were not informed as they should have been. No wonder that when Canadians would ask members about the validity of the missions, those members were not able to give an answer.

Over the next few months two major peacekeeping missions are supposed to expire. All current indications show that these missions will be renewed. The blank cheques are already in the minister's hand. While I have no doubt that some mockery of consultation will occur, it will be what it has always been, a mirage, an image and a fraud on the Canadian public.

It does not have to be that way. I know there are members on all sides of the House who would dearly love to have some real input. They would love to discuss all of the facts in a full debate and then make a decision that is best for the country by means of a free vote.

In particular, I am thinking of the members of the foreign affairs and defence committees. I am thinking of members whose sons or daughters are in the military. I am thinking of members who have military bases in their ridings or members who are veterans. All of these members have something to contribute and it does not matter if they are Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, Reformers or New Democrats.

This debate is about the lives of our young people and the place our country has in the world. For many years peacekeeping has been a major factor of Canadian foreign policy. It is up to all of us as members of Parliament to take the responsibility seriously and speak to these motions.

I am pretty sure that the Liberal whip has already instructed some member opposite to give a speech saying something like this: "We appreciate the idea of the member for Red Deer and the Liberal Party is always concerned about peacekeeping and consulting with the public, but we do not support this motion". Then we will probably hear some convoluted explanation of why my motion is impractical or improper or unparliamentary, but it will be one of those things.

I think back to a motion a couple of years ago on access to information. Member after member got up and said that it was a great motion and it was just what the House needed for accountability but they were going to vote against it because the government was going to act on it and they would have action within the year. That was two years ago and there is still no action.

I urge whichever member has been chosen to give this speech to think twice before that member gives it. The member should think about his or her responsibility as a member of Parliament to represent his or her people back home, to promote the interests of the country and to support our troops. All of these things have to be more important than blindly serving the all knowing party brass.

I urge other Liberal members who have not had instructions from their whip to speak their minds freely. While they are doing this they should take inspiration from what has been said in the past by certain Liberal cabinet ministers. I am going to read a few quotes and I want the Liberal members here to hold their ministers to their words because their words support the principles behind M-31.

I will begin with the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: "I appreciate the co-operation of all parties in this new Parliament. This way, the people of Canada will be able to express their views to their elected representatives on an important foreign affairs issue. I also want to point out that today's consultation will not be the last on Canada's foreign policy". In this case he was talking about Haiti: "I promise that as far as possible, future debates will be held under better circumstances".

Since a fuller, more complete debate will be of benefit to Canadians, I can only assume that he would support M-31.

A second quote from the minister: "We have learned our lessons. We realize that when the United Nations takes on a role there must be proper and effective resources to meet the needs". Parliament should know if these resources are in place. If they are, then all the facts are laid on the table. And if they are not but the government is going ahead with the mission anyway, clearly the minister's words about having learned a lesson ring rather hollow.

A third quote: "I also brought the views of Canadians to bear by opening up this question on the Internet so we were able to ensure that Canadians from a wide variety of perspectives would let us know what their thoughts were". Obviously the minister is concerned about listening to people and obviously believing in representative democracy as other parties in the House do. They

obviously believe that members of Parliament then should have their voice heard.

Another quote: "We still need and want the expressions of opinions of members of Parliament on what they think". Obviously the clearest way to get that is by a free vote in the House.

Finally, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs: "We are finding the solutions but we need to have the views of members of Parliament". From all these quotes one can see that the minister is saying we should have fuller debate with the facts available to all members so that they can make an educated decision on matters. This is exactly what Motion No. 31 states.

The foreign affairs minister is not the only cabinet minister who seemingly supports the principles of M-31. Let me turn now to some quotes from the former minister of national defence: "I think the hon. members from Red Deer and Charlevoix have raised very good points about getting a better handle on the cost before we go into these missions". Again, clearly the minister was stating he believes more parliamentary debate would be the way to get that information.

He goes on: "With respect to the rules of engagement, we have to be very sure that we know under what auspices we are operating there. We have had some unpleasant experiences before, one in Somalia, and we have learned a lot of lessons". Again I point out that he is strongly promoting the concept of M-31.

I think we will find as well that we have tried various experiments in our committees to make this work. In fact, we have moved a long way in looking at what we might do here.

A final quote from that minister: "The mandate has to be appropriate and achievable under the circumstances. We have to know the rules of engagement. We have to know what the ultimate force size and composition are". This is exactly the point. We have to know the facts, we have to have the briefing and we as members of Parliament have to feel good about what we do when we spend that money and risk those lives.

My conclusion from all of these statements is that it appears there would be strong cabinet support for M-31 based on what I have read and what I have heard in the House.

Time will tell whether those were hollow words or whether the ministers really meant those words about consultation on an issue as strongly felt by Canadians as peacekeeping.

Let me now turn to a discussion on one of those missions which will expire in a month, the Haiti mission. This is a perfect example of an ad hoc mission that is lurching from one crisis to the next. The mission is due to expire yet we have heard nothing about the continued Canadian role in Parliament. Members are being kept in the dark. I expect a day or two before the debate we are going to have a rush debate in order to extend the mission for another six months.

Members of this House who are on the foreign affairs committee know that we were told this was just a six month extension, that most things should be under control by then and that we would in fact not be carrying on with the mission in likelihood come December of this year. Putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery is not going to solve anything.

The former minister of international co-operation in Haiti said Canada will prove its friendship and solidarity. It is very nice for the minister to say that and I am glad that he enjoys cutting backroom deals with foreign leaders while keeping the Canadian Parliament in suspense. I would like to remind this House that the Liberals used to cry bloody murder when the Mulroney Tories did the same thing. Although certain members of this cabinet have the Tory act fine tuned, it appears, I know that most members would agree that this should be openly discussed, openly debated and then let all members consult with their constituents and make that decision. M-31 would allow that to happen.

As far as Reform is concerned, we have to look at the Haiti mission and the facts again, much as we did before. We know the situations, we read the reports about what is happening there. We know that illiteracy is still at 85 per cent and unemployment at 80 per cent plus. We know that Mr. Aristide is waiting in the wings. We know there has been no great progress in democratization. We know that there are under 100 rich families adding nothing back to that country. We know that expatriates are not encouraged to invest in the country.

Canadians need to know more. What are the benefits, the long term solutions and is there a long term plan? We in the House of Commons can put forward such a plan to look at a country like Haiti. It is in our hemisphere. We can come up with a solution, maybe it will take 20 or 30 years, but we have to at least give a chance.

This is the kind of thing that this House can do. This House can put forward a long term solution, one that Canadians will understand, one that all of us will understand and together we will agree on it. This last minute two hour debate rushed through the day before is not a solution to solving these sorts of peacekeeping problems.

Maybe the solution is to go to the OAS to begin the democracy, to say to the 31 other countries it is time that we took the responsibility. It is in our hemisphere, it is causing us problems, let

us take it. Let us at least come up with another solution, not just a band-aid that probably will not work.

Within this House we have the capability, the brain power, the thoughtfulness, the intelligence, all these adjectives, where we could actually create something better for ourselves. If there is any area, foreign affairs has to be that area where we can be non-partisan, where we can look at a solution with long term benefits for all of us.

We should get unanimous consent for this bill. We should all be able to agree to it. My constituents will be happy if I am working for the good of the country, not for the good of my party, not for the good of partisan positions but one showing co-operation, leadership and using members of Parliament to the best advantage of this House.

[Peacekeeping, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I brought forward a votable motion to extend the Access to Information Act. Although many Liberal members supported it, they voted against it because they were assured by their party brass that improving access to information was high on the government's agenda and that legislation was just weeks away.

Today, we all know that was not true, so I hope they have learned their lesson: Do not trust the party brass to do in the future what we can do for ourselves today.

Later today we will begin the first hour of debate on a new votable motion on Canadian peacekeeping. Many Liberal members will also want to support this motion because if it is passed, it will give the members the right to speak out and represent our troops when we send a large contingent abroad. Motion No. 31 also gives final approval for large peacekeeping missions to members of Parliament through a free vote.

When the time comes, members should use their votes to make a difference. Help support our troops and empower members of Parliament by supporting Motion No. 31.

[Taxes, October 22nd, 1996]

Have you read it?

[Return To Canada Of Karim Noah, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to also speak to Motion No. 169 which deals with the abduction of a young Canadian from Quebec.

The hon. member for Rosemont is asking the Canadian government to bring the appropriate political pressure to bear on the Government of Egypt to ensure the immediate return to Canada of Karim Noah who was abducted illegally on January 17, as we have heard.

I would first like to note my respect for the hon. member's obvious concern for one of his constituents. I congratulate his efforts to represent his constituent in the House.

Child abduction is a serious and complicated matter in Canada, as it is in many other countries of the world. Canada has been a good example to the rest of the world in matters like this, one in which we have consistently showed our concern for the rights of children.

It is especially noteworthy that Canada played a leading role in drafting the process of the convention of rights of children and in convening the 1990 world summit for children.

Canada is also a member of The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. This convention was created out of the desire to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of wrongful removal and to establish a procedure to ensure their prompt return to their habitual state of residence.

This convention was adopted by the 14th session of The Hague conference. The convention sets ground rules for dealing with child abduction cases, both when the harbouring nation is a signatory of the convention and for those cases when the harbouring nation is not a signatory.

In this case the harbouring nation is Egypt, which has neither signed nor ratified this convention. In cases such as this one, when the harbouring state has not ratified the convention, the Department of Foreign Affairs can provide some assistance, as has already been done in this case.

It is my understanding that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke with his Egyptian counterpart in November 1995. We have been updated regarding the progress that is occurring there.

Unfortunately because Egypt has not ratified The Hague convention, this case is governed by domestic law in Egypt. Therefore the Egyptian government is not solely responsible for the resolution of this case and the Egyptian courts will also have to become involved.

The authorities in Canada have also become involved by issuing a warrant for the father's arrest and ensuring the mother receives aid from the missing children's registry. While this is not a lot of help to the mother desperately seeking the return of her son, I have been informed that the role of the federal government in abduction cases is rather limited.

Family law falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian provinces, therefore it is the provincial authorities that deal with the hands on work related to The Hague convention and associated child abduction cases.

I am sure all members in this House would urge the province of Quebec, along with the federal government, to work as diligently as possible to secure the return of this child.

Generally the federal government only acts as a conduit between foreign authorities and Canadian provincial authorities. The federal government does play a significant role along with the Canadian Department of Justice in liaising with the provinces regarding the access of new states to The Hague convention. Mostly it assists in general matters requiring liaison between foreign governments and those provinces.

The Canadian government assisted in this way when the Department of Foreign Affairs contacted the Egyptian minister. This was

the appropriate political action outlined by The Hague convention. Therefore while the motion of the hon. member for Rosemount clearly shows his desire to help his constituent, I would hope the Canadian government has done and is doing and will continue to do everything to help move the case forward.

Because family law falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces there is not much more that the Canadian government can do, according to my research of this case. However, due diligence is required.

While the Canadian government is restricted in its dealings with this specific abduction case, I would argue that we can become more involved with the broader issue of international child abduction.

We can start by persuading other nations to ratify the Hague convention using whatever pressure we may have, through aid or other things, to put pressure on countries to sign. For those states that were members of the 14th session of the conference on private international law, the convention enters into force between them and the other member states as soon as they deposit their instruments of ratification with the ministry of foreign affairs in the Netherlands.

There are currently six member states at this conference that have failed to ratify the convention. One of these is Egypt, the harbouring state in this case.

Those states that were not members of the 14th session can also be persuaded to ratify the convention. Once they register their ascension with the foreign affairs ministry in the Netherlands their ascension will have effect with the contracting states and they will be quickly accepted.

Once on board, the convention aids in the return of wrongfully abducted children by setting up the formalities between the harbouring state and the initial resident state of the child. Under The Hague convention these two states co-operate with each other and promote co-operation among the competent authorities in their respective states to secure the prompt return of the children. The convention also outlines the appropriate measures to be taken by both states.

The more nations that ratify this convention, the better the co-operation will be among nations in abduction cases, allowing for the speedy return of abducted children. This is an area in which the Canadian government can get more involved and can put more pressure on governments.

Too often we do not tie things like this to aid programs, to co-operative programs. I think it is time we started to do that. This is a serious problem not just for this one child but for many parents throughout this country and others. The Canadian government can also help end international child abduction by encouraging the use of a preventive method promoted by the convention.

The new ease with which people can move around the globe has caused an increase in international child abduction. Therefore the use of preventive methods must be increased. Ultimately prevention is the only true way to combat this rising phenomenon.

While the motion's purpose seems to have already been partly played out, the role of the Canadian government in dealing with international abduction cases has not. I challenge the government to increase its involvement in the issues of child abduction by encouraging states like Egypt to ratify The Hague convention and by promoting the preventative methods highlighted by that convention.

Again I point out that we write off debts for countries like Egypt. Maybe we should tie some other requirements before we do that sort of thing. I believe we can pull some strings so that we will not have to deal with cases like this in the House.

Being a parent, I can understand the terrible pain the parent is going through and I certainly sympathize with her.

[Middle East, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party and all Canadians I would like to condemn the growing violence on the West Bank in Gaza and call on the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to spare no efforts in immediately re-establishing peace in this very serious situation.

Years of effort in the Middle East peace talks are hanging in the balance and the peace and security of all citizens in the affected areas are in jeopardy. So the time for decisive leadership is now.

Canadians care deeply about what happens in the Middle East and they deplore the kind of violence we see today. Therefore I call on the Canadian government to immediately speak with Israeli and Palestinian officials to forcefully urge an end to the violence and to offer whatever diplomatic assistance that might be helpful in restoring calm and restarting the peace talks.

Peace is a fragile thing and we must not stand by and watch it be destroyed.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have the opportunity to talk about a criminal justice bill. It is not something I do very often, but certainly the constituents of my riding have indicated very clearly that this is a major concern of theirs. It does not matter at what level you talk or to whom you speak, very clearly they state that they are concerned about this issue.

Therefore I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into this in a little bit of detail at least, again not as an expert but certainly as a concerned citizen, representing my constituents.

The public are disgusted with the criminal justice system. They feel that too many Liberal governments, whether they are called Liberal or not does not seem to matter, but it seems that once Ottawa fever sets into people when they come down here that all of a sudden they start thinking about the criminal. They very quickly lose sight of who we should really be concerned about and that is the victims of these crimes. Certainly the opinion is that our justice minister is very soft on crime. He is so liberal that he is more liberal than all the other Liberals who have been responsible for our criminal justice system.

It does not matter what area we talk about, the concerns are over the whole range. Let us start off with the Young Offenders Act. Everybody is upset about that. I have had the opportunity to speak to people across the country. Not once did I go into a presentation and question period when someone did not ask about the Young Offenders Act. It might be senior citizen who is now afraid to go

out because of the young hoodlums they perceive to be out there and who may be a threat to them.

It could be a handicapped person in my riding, which I think is pretty peaceful. It is certainly a riding I am proud of. I have lived there a number of years. In a period of one week two handicapped people were attacked by young offenders and sent to hospital. One severely handicapped lady received a broken arm by these young offenders.

The police will say that when there are break and enters they do not bother going anymore because they just cannot handle them all. This is a major issue. It is part of the whole problem with the criminal justice system.

We can talk about the parole system and sex offenders who are put back out on the streets. Some sex offenders do not even have to take treatment. We are told they cannot be cured and yet they are put out on the streets. Again the Liberal policy is "well, let us hope they do not reoffend".

I have a letter from a constituent: "It has come to my attention that prisoners are being released on parole based on their behaviour inside an institution, not on the crime they committed. This is a grave miscarriage of justice when the crimes committed are of a sexual nature. How many inmates have daily access to sexually assault children? I hope none. If released on to our streets, the pedophile has unlimited access to our children. We should not be required to lock our children away to keep them safe from sex offenders". This is just another cry for help to change the system.

Our parole boards are made up of political hacks with high salaries. They are not professional people. They are not there to try to provide treatment, to provide protection for citizens. They certainly are not interested in the victims.

In Bill C-45 we have even created categories. If a person kills once, premeditated murder, it is one thing. He or she would be eligible for parole. If a person kills more than once, then he or she is a little more serious criminal. The victims did not have that choice. The victims were not given a choice of how serious a murder was. Murder is murder is murder. First degree murder is planned, premeditated murder.

There is no standard for sentencing. Often the punishment does not fit the crime. I read an interesting article from the Innisfail paper two weeks ago when I was at home. There had been a break-in at an auction mart. The person was caught and the owner of the auction mart wrote a letter to the paper and said: "I have no confidence in the criminal justice system that the fine or the minimum sentence this person will receive will in any way stop him from additional crime". His suggestion in the article was that the true way to deal with this person would to be to have him come to work at the auction mart for three months. His job would be to clean out cattle liners that arrive day after day. He said that after three months of cleaning cattle liners he doubted very much that this person would break in to an auction mart again.

We have to look at things like this. We have to look at punishment that fits the crime. For first degree murder what should the punishment be? Is 15 years the price we put on a life? Is that what we say is enough? It is premeditated. I have heard so many speeches in the House about this subject. They talk about murders. They say that someone who was in a traffic accident should get parole. We are talking about premeditated first degree murder.

The fact that they should not have a faint hope is by far and away the majority point of view in the country. This law does not go far enough. It is middle of the road liberalism. It is liberalism at its very worst. We are talking about first degree premeditated murder. Bill C-45 is soft.

We have to get back to the punishment fitting the crime. We have to get back to thinking about the victims. We have to think about the victims who are going to have to relive the crime in just 15 years. We must think about the victims.

I am sure I am not unique in the amount of mail I receive on the criminal justice system. This is a letter that I received, not from a constituent, but from someone in B.C.:

You as our government have seen fit to enact a faint hope clause which gives convicted murderers the opportunity to be released and kill again. It is my opinion that you as our government should remove this faint hope clause for all serial killers and all murderers that torture, mutilate or sexually assault their victims, as parole boards are releasing all murderers that apply for early release under this clause.

We have been told that up to 80 per cent of the applications are successful.

The letter continues:

It is also my opinion that Clifford Olson should never have the faint hope of being released on to our streets. That individual, in my opinion, should be given a lethal injection. I would not have any objection to doing that job myself.

That is a pretty strong statement, but that is what Canadians are saying out there about first degree premeditated murder. That is what we are talking about.

We should look at the Liberal record. What we will find is a great deal of underachievement. There is a great deal of deceit and deception being practised, of saying one thing and meaning something quite different, of not really doing what they say they will do.

In the criminal justice system we might talk to the justice ministers of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Yukon and all of them will say they were not consulted by the justice minister.

Mr. Scott Newark, director of the Canadian Police Association, openly said he has not been consulted and neither has his membership. There is a total lack of consultation.

I could go on to talk about the broken promises of the GST and no tax increases. There have been $26 billion in increased taxes. We can talk about the threats to health care and the threats to pensions. Those are all coming from the deceit and lies of the Liberal government. That is exactly where they are coming from.

We can look at committees. Just this morning I sat in a committee and watched the member for Edmonton North vote for a Bloc member to be the vice-chair of the committee because he had to.

This is a government made up of underachievers who do not listen to the people.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple items and I will try not to get wound up the way the previous member did and try not to be quite so partisan.

In my riding over 12,000 names came into my office about Bill C-68. Seventeen names came in saying I should vote for that bill. Twelve thousand to seventeen is an interesting figure when talking about listening to people.

I could say more about the good people of my riding who are equally as good as the hon. member's constituents. What we are talking about here is first degree murder. What troubled me most about what the member had to say was how he never said that. He kept saying criminals, someone who commits a crime, and talked about dealing with them in this way.

We are talking about first degree planned murders, and that is all we should be talking about in this bill. Is 15 years the time for the life of a victim? When someone has killed should that person serve 15 years? Is that the price of that life? I would like to ask the member that. This is premeditated, first degree murder.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

First degree murderers.

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-54 which expands the FEMA legislation to give Canada the capacity to counter the Helms-Burton bill. I think we would all agree that the Helms-Burton bill is heavy handed, unilateral, coercive and indiscriminate. Helms-Burton breaks international law and it contravenes NAFTA.

As the Reform Party foreign affairs critic I can state without reservation that our party's quarrel is not with the United States which is our friend, trading partner and ally, but it is only with the Helms-Burton bill itself. In fact, given Canada's tremendous relationship with the United States, it was surprising to all of us that Canada should be targeted as it was.

I would encourage Canadians however to consider this more of a nuisance caused by the coming presidential election than any true reflection on Canada-U.S. relations. I think all of us and previous speakers have reviewed the history behind this: the killing of civilians, certainly the number of voters of Cuban descent that exist in Florida, and of course the Helms-Burton lobby that has gone on for a number of years in the U.S. It is also hopeful that after the election in the U.S. this annoyance will disappear.

Nonetheless, as parliamentarians we cannot ignore the fact that Helms-Burton exists and remains a threat to Canadian sovereignty and trade. That is why we must take action. In the opinion of the Reform Party, the government should have already filed the grievances with the NAFTA dispute panel. Therefore I cannot say that we totally agree with the approach the government is using. However, we will be supporting Bill C-54 even though it seems to be a bit of a tit for tat and could even be questioned legally.

My colleague from Peace River, who is Reform's trade critic, has already covered most of the specific elements of Bill C-54 and their objectives. I agree with the analysis of my colleague and instead of repeating the same points I would like to talk briefly about promoting democracy in Cuba which I believe is part of this and probably, had this been approached more strongly, the U.S. politicians might not have gone along with the Helms-Burton bill.

One thing I would like to make clear is that Reform's support for Bill C-54 and our vocal opposition of Helms-Burton in no way signals approval of or support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In fact, Reform shares the view that Cuba would be much better off as a democracy.

We have to remember that Cuba is the last country in our hemisphere to reject democracy. Therefore, we should really channel more of our foreign policy efforts toward promoting Cuban democracy. Not only would we be helping the people of Cuba, but such a constructive approach would show our neighbours south of the border that our goals are the same even if our methods are different from the ones they choose to use.

I think again, as the foreign affairs department has indicated, that being involved is the best approach to having influence. Whether it be China or Cuba, I believe that to be true.

I think as well however, when we hear people talking about Cuba, that we must remember the number of human rights abuses and the number of problems that do exist in Cuba. We cannot be selective about what we say about one country as opposed to another, which often is the case.

If Canada becomes a leader in the fight for democracy in Cuba, I am very confident that Helms-Burton will cease to be a problem. I really believe that it is a rather extreme bill and it is put forward because of the extreme action that was taken by Cuba in the shooting down of the planes as was mentioned.

Toward this end, Canada should assert itself in meetings of the Organization of American States and make sure that promoting democracy, institutional reform and human rights reforms in Cuba is the priority for the OAS. Let us face it, once Cuba becomes a democratic country it could be a very positive force within the Caribbean. I feel that Cuba has a great deal of potential, but in order to achieve this potential and direct it toward positive goals, the people of Cuba have to become their own political masters. Political change in Cuba will only spur economic revitalization.

While Canadian-Cuban trade has continued despite the American embargo, I think the business opportunities in a free Cuba would far outstrip those which exist today. For example, the lifting of the U.S. embargo alone would allow for a rapid economic expansion in Cuba. As a country emerging from communist rule, Cuba will not only need Canadian consumer products and technology but our service sector will also prosper. The Canadian advantage in areas like banking, insurance, wireless communication and high technology will stand us in good stead if Cuba can modernize its economy.

We need a vision of this sort of thing and I believe that this government does not have that vision going into the 21st century. I believe that causes all of us a great deal of concern with the status quo type of positions we seem to take. We basically feel we can solve our job problems simply by infrastructure programs. We do not really look to the tremendous number of jobs that would exist if we were promoting democracy and ourselves around the world.

We should note as well that Cuba is beside Haiti, the other country in our hemisphere with the greatest social, political and economic problems. I cannot help but think that a prosperous, stable and democratic Cuba would help Haiti's long term development. Proximity makes Haiti and Cuba ideal trading partners. I would hope that a democratic Cuba would also be able to shoulder some of the load that Canada has been forced to bear with respect to assisting Haiti these last several years.

All of these possibilities however require a political change in Cuba. Without democracy, Cuba will remain an international outcast and it will continue to earn the wrath of the Americans. We must always remember that Cuba is only 90 miles away from the U.S. border. Because of that proximity, the threat is obvious to all Americans.

In conclusion, I do recognize the need for Bill C-54 and we will be voting for it. I do hope members of this House will agree with me that Canada should do more than just fight against the Helms-Burton bill. We should also fight against dictatorship and fight for building a democratic future for the people of Cuba.