Darrel Stinson

[Gun Registration, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is all provinces support crime control.

As a result of these court challenges the federal government will end up fighting these challenges using taxpayers' dollars, the same taxpayers' dollars which will be used by the provinces and the same taxpayers' dollars the federal government will need in its out of court settlements for the Pearson airport deal and the Airbus fiasco.

I ask the minister this. Have the court bills been tallied?

[Gun Registration, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice on more than one occasion told members of the House he had consulted extensively with Canadians, including his provincial counterparts, regarding his gun registration bill, Bill C-68.

In view of the fact Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon have notified the minister they will be opting out of administering the new federal firearms' regulations and are launching a court challenge, does the minister still stand by those statements?

[Criminal Justice System, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last April 5 a terrible tragedy occurred in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap which resulted in the shooting deaths of nine people. My deep sympathy goes out to all their family and friends who have suffered again through the coroner's inquest which has revealed a lot of heartbreaking information.

The police will now routinely contact the spouse when a person applies for a restricted weapon. This sounds good in theory, but in practice the RCMP already have their hands too full dealing with a 20-year crime wave and laws which impose so much red tape that it can take longer for the officer to complete the paperwork than a judge imposes as the sentence.

Nevertheless, our present government continues to cut funding for the administration of justice. My office has received complaints that the public does not believe there are enough police to protect law-abiding citizens and their property.

The investigation into the so-called Vernon massacre clearly indicates the continuing lack of justice in our criminal justice system.

[Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act, September 26th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-230, an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-230, which is entitled an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada.

Repeatedly we have seen severe impacts right across Canada when the Government of Quebec has decided to ask Quebecers to vote to leave Canada. The possibility of such a separation has brought severe repercussions for its own province and all the people of Canada, including both short term and long term impacts

on investment, from housing prices to business and industry, on the value of our dollar, on the rate of interest which must be paid to induce people to invest here and on the sense of personal comfort and well-being of our people. Even the threat of Quebec separation has been like blackmail hanging over our heads.

However, I want to make clear from the beginning of my comments today that I have had this legislation drawn up not to encourage Quebec to leave Canada but instead to promote discussion and eventual agreement on the ground rules for such a secession in order to prevent repeated referendums and the chaos which surrounds them. We must avoid the bad effects for our entire nation if a separatist government in Quebec again tries to pull the wool over people's eyes about the true meaning and full consequences of what a vote to separate from Canada will mean.

I know from many discussions with people outside Quebec that such separation will not be quick, it will not be simple and it will not be easy. Perhaps most important, such a separation will not lead to increased economic well-being for the people of a foreign country called Quebec nor for Canada.

For example, the North American free trade agreement was originally negotiated with a strong Canada. How would a foreign country called Quebec and a weakened Canada fare against U.S. negotiators in an entirely new round of NAFTA bargaining which would be required if Quebec separates?

To look at just one aspect, what would happen to the current Quebec dairy quota if Quebec decided to become a foreign country? No longer a part of a great nation, which despite our lingering internal trade barriers, today is a great economic union. Once the people of Quebec are given the true facts about what separation from Canada would mean, it is extremely unlikely they would decide to leave. Nevertheless it just may happen although passing Bill C-230 would help to prevent that.

The government has done virtually nothing to prevent it. By contrast, as an example of a prudent government response, yesterday United States congressman Tom Campbell, a Republican from California, had a U.S. congressional subcommittee hear testimony from academics about the possible consequences for the United States if Quebec separated from Canada.

Mr. Campbell's researchers emphasized this morning that their witnesses confirmed that an entirely new NAFTA would be required if Quebec separated from Canada.

Other international consequences would be its affect on NATO, the UN, the St. Lawrence Seaway and American purchasers of Canadian and Quebec debt. How ironic that the Government of Canada by contrast with the U.S. Congress has chosen instead of preparing people to bury its head in the sand and has neglected to bring forward legislation on this critical bill. Even debate on this private member's bill has been limited to one single hour today.

However, the topic has met better fate at the hands of many serious thinkers across Canada since I introduced Bill C-230 on March 8 of this year.

This summer the C.D. Howe Institute released a commentary entitled "Coming To Terms With Plan B, 10 Principles Governing Secession". It began with the following:

The silence of the federal government during two Quebec referendums has left the Parti Quebecois free to describe how it would achieve secession. Maintaining the silence is irresponsible and will lead to chaos if Quebec tries to declare independence unilaterally.

I also find it ironic that the Quebec premier has repeatedly indicated that he believes neither the courts nor the law of Canada should be applied with regard to the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence by his province.

He is only too willing to use the law and the courts as his defence with regard to the Churchill Falls contract with his neighbouring province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously the Quebec premier has chosen to cherry pick which laws he will respect and which laws he will ignore.

Most Canadians respect the law and at this time there is no Canadian law which would allow the province of Quebec to separate legally. As the C.D. Howe commentary points out, the lack of such channels within the Constitution:

-is a case for deep concern. Canada is a democracy whose ultimate legal and political foundation is the consent of Canadians to be governed under the Canadian Constitution and Canadian law. If a significantly large and determined majority of Canadians in a particular province withhold that consent then the absence of appropriate legal wording to achieve secession will not prevent them from realizing their goal. Thus, the absence of an agreed upon procedure to govern secession will lead to confusion and conflict over the legitimacy of any proposed secession.

Clearly Quebecers have a big stake in ensuring that a vote to secede is regarded as legitimate. Otherwise consequences could be disastrous. The best way to avoid confusion and conflict would be to accommodate the legitimate needs and aspirations of the province of Quebec within Canada. That does not mean giving into blackmail which says do what we want or we will leave.

On behalf of the people of my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I want to emphasize that we want Quebec to remain in Canada as one of 10 equal provinces whose citizens are equal before the law. The people of Okanagan-Shuswap respect the fact that Quebec is different from us in many ways. However, we totally reject the idea that Quebec should be offered any kind of powers or status greater than what is offered to every other province of Canada.

If the people of Quebec reject the idea of remaining within the revitalized Canadian federation, the break up will cost all of us a great deal of pain.

One way to lessen that pain would be to pass a law like Bill C-230 so that a majority of Canadians agree in advance on the ground rules for negotiation with regard to separation. Also trying to avoid Quebec separation the Reform Party has released a position paper called "20/20" which presents many ways that all provinces would be given greater powers simply by administrative decision with no need whatsoever to reopen the Constitution.

However, in the event that such changes either are not made or do not satisfy the people of Quebec, it is our responsibility as the Parliament of Canada to have legislation in place which will serve as the ground rules for how a legal separation could be accomplished and that will clearly tell Quebec voters what a vote to separate will mean.

Personally I believe that the law must respect the will of the people.

I firmly believe that my fellow Canadians would be willing to look for a way to allow the people of the province of Quebec to go their own way, if in fact it could be clearly demonstrated that it was the will of the majority of the people of Quebec to become a foreign state; to give up their Canadian citizenship and their Canadian passports; to lose their unrestricted right to enter, travel and work in Canada; and, to lose their right to send some of their brightest and best people to Ottawa to represent them in the Parliament of Canada and in many of the highest ranking positions in the Public Service of Canada.

What has been done so far? Due to the lack of foresight of this government, there is not even a subcommittee of either this House or the Senate currently discussing this critical issue.

Regarding this lack of foresight, after examining the international experience, the C.D. Howe Institute basically said that advance planning in the event of secession could avoid violence and hardship later by establishing a consensus on the terms.

To promote such a consensus by encouraging debate I draw members' attention to Bill C-230 itself. It begins with a preamble, which states that the principles should exist in law to determine whether a vote to separate is a legitimate expression of the wishes of the people and that the provincial electoral districts where there is not the majority vote to separate must have their wishes respected equally with districts where the majority of the people vote to separate.

Simply stated, if Canada can be divided because of the will of the people, then Quebec can be divided because of the will of the people.

Pundits have urged that Cree and other aboriginal people whose traditional lands lie within Quebec have a fiduciary relationship with the Government of Canada which could only be ended with their consent.

Personally, I believe no political unit should be forced to leave Canada against its will whether aboriginals or simply strong federalists. Their decision to remain in Canada must be every bit as binding on the Government of Quebec as the legitimate Quebec vote to leave Canada should be binding on Canada.

Bill C-230 spells out how I believe we could be sure that a separation vote was legitimate. Of course, a serious problem with my beliefs is that I cannot tell the separatists in Quebec what to do. However, this Parliament not only can but must tell the Government of Canada what to do.

If Bill C-230 were passed into law, it would say that unless certain conditions are met, the Government of Canada cannot negotiate separation. It would tell the Government of Canada that it must hold a binding national referendum within one year if elected parliamentarians agree that a fair vote was held in the province wanting to separate. Note that while I include an elected Senate, an appointed Senate is excluded because it represents only political patronage and not the will of the people of Canada.

Bill C-230 says that we must have a national referendum but only if Parliament agrees that the provincial vote to leave Canada was conducted according to the conditions set out on pages 3 and 4 of this legislation.

Some details about the process would include: full and fair advanced advertising and printing on every ballot that a vote to separate means a vote to become a separate state, foreign to Canada; cease to be a province of Canada; cease to have representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons; lose the right to be citizens of Canada; lose the right to hold a Canadian passport; and lose the right to unrestricted entry and travel within Canada and the unrestricted right to work in Canada.

They must also notify provincial voters that the Government of Canada cannot negotiate separation of any electoral district in which a majority of at least 50 per cent of the votes cast, plus one vote, are against separation from Canada; nor could provincial electoral boundaries have been changed so that the number of native people or non-francophone people was significantly altered from the preceding election.

This House and an elected Senate would have to agree by a free vote, that is, a vote in which the party whips told their members they are free to vote their conscience.

I have included many provisions in Bill C-230 to ensure that this issue is decided with the maximum respect for the wishes of the people. The ultimate respect for the wishes of the Canadian people will be shown by referring this entire issue to their final judgment by means of a binding national referendum.

After all, it is their country being carved up. They feel just as strongly about it as some Quebecers do about the partition of Quebec.

According to Bill C-230, the question to be put before the people no later than one year after a legitimate provincial vote to separate should be as follows: "Do you agree that the Government of Canada may negotiate terms of separation between Canada and-?" The name of the province would be inserted here.

Once again the nationwide ballots would have to repeat that electoral districts which did not vote to separate would not be included in the separation. This would help keep separation within the realm of politics and promote a peaceful resolution rather than the wars and/or major civil disobedience likely to follow if, for example, Quebec tries to force primarily English speaking sections in and around the city of Montreal as well as the aboriginal peoples mostly living in northern Quebec in the region known as Ungava to leave Canada against their will.

Many people have argued that the Ungava region was only given to the province of Quebec to administer on behalf of Canada and that Ungava certainly did not form part of the province at the time Quebec joined Confederation. They say, therefore, that it must not be included in a foreign country called Quebec. I prefer that the issue be settled by vote and not by academics arguing.

Finally, Bill C-230 would allow elected representatives of the people of Canada to include additional questions in this binding national referendum, for example a formula for dividing the national debt.

During the last referendum we came very close to losing this country. I have had to sit here in the House many times and listen to the government on the other side, which buried its head and said that everything was fine, talk about us as Reform members not doing anything with regard to that situation. It knew full well that it begged and pleaded with us not to interfere because it had the situation under control in the province of Quebec and we would only get in the way and hinder the process.

Unfortunately, I have to admit, I along with many other colleagues fell into the trap that the Liberals laid for us in the House and we believed them. Look what almost happened. They now use that against Reform whenever they feel like it. They are forgetting quite conveniently how they pleaded with us to let them please handle it and it would be brought under control. Shame.

In conclusion, I repeat that the federal government should take reasonable actions to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec within Canada. However, if Quebec still votes to leave it is essential to pass legislation like Bill C-230 to make the separation process as orderly as possible.

I would now like to ask for unanimous consent from the House to make this bill votable.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand in support of the motion to hoist the bill. Fortunately from my point of view I will speak from a different perspective of why the bill should be hoisted than the member who introduced it.

It is a piece of legislation that I have to oppose for two main reasons. The first is that it totally ignores the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people. The second is that it tramples on the will of this Parliament whose members voted in favour of a private member's bill which would have repealed section 745 of the Criminal Code, and not just tinker with it as the justice minister is doing with Bill C-45.

Regarding my first point, I wish to emphasize the terrible impact on the families of murder victims when their loved one's killer is eligible for parole after only a 15-year sentence. When this legislation was introduced in June, Debbie Mahaffy whose daughter Leslie was one of Paul Bernardo's victims, made a passionate plea to the justice committee to simply repeal section 745. She said how disappointed she was with the half measure proposed by the justice minister.

Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of a Clifford Olson victim spoke on behalf of the national group Victims of Violence saying: "I have fought for 15 years for the rights of victims and I think we are all in this together". Unfortunately, not the case according to this government.

Another mother, Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was raped and murdered south of Calgary, spearheaded a 35,000-name Calgary Sun petition to repeal section 745.

These people are not speaking just for themselves. It has been proven with the names on the petitions and the groups that they represent. They speak for many of the families that have suffered the murders. They suffer for life, not for 15 years.

From personal experience, this bothers me a great deal. Outside the House we have a plaque. That plaque is in memory and honour of officers who gave their lives in service to their communities.

My cousin was married to one of the officers whose name is on the plaque. His name was Lenard Shakespeare. He was an officer in Toronto who in the line of duty happened to stumble upon an attempted bank robbery.

Lenard was the kind of officer who did not believe someone had to use firearms in order to rectify a situation. When this was taking place, he happened to spot a taxicab in front of the bank that was in

the process of being robbed. He thought it was his duty to warn the people in the cab that they were in danger.

When Lenard walked up to the cab and put his head in the cab to warn the people that they had to move, the man in the back seat shot him. He not only shot him then, but he stepped out of the cab and pumped five more bullets into Lenard as he laid there without his gun drawn.

Lenard's wife happened to be at our place. I was there when the officers knocked on the door. Members have not been through hell until they have to sit with the wife or the children of the victim of a premeditated murder.

We try to honour these people through different organizations, through plaques on the Hill. However, we have a government that says we must look after the predator in these cases. The man who shot Lenard is now out in Vancouver as a businessman. Is this fair?

For any member on the other side of the House who would like to know the name of my cousin, I am quite willing to give it. She lives in Atikokan, Ontario. They can phone her family members and see what they think about this joke on society that members call 745.

Premeditated murder was an automatic hanging or execution at one time. The government of the day decided it had some hope for these murderers and would only make it 25 years. It was sold to the public as 25 years without parole. That sounded not too bad. It gave everybody a chance to get over the healing, if they could, and get on with their lives.

Now we look at 15 years. I hear that 15 years is hard on these people. From death to 15 years. We heard the outcry that this might be too much, so we passed section 745. Five years down the road, mark my words, if we have a Liberal or a Conservative government we will be looking at 10 years for premeditated murder.

The government likes to throw out fancy numbers. It forgets to tell the people what the population is in the country, what the unemployment rate is and what the actual crime statistics are. It does not bother to bring forward those statistics. According to Statistics Canada violent crime increased 782 per cent from 1971 to 1994. Argue that one. From 1986 to 1994 violent crime by youth increased 124 per cent. Many of those crimes were murders.

We have a system which I hope people understand. Our courts are so overworked that we have a bargaining system. We have a bargaining system in which the charge will be reduced for a guilty plea. If we want to know why the statistics are starting to show on the other end, it is because we have lawyers and judges who are agreeing to bargain. They are not representing the people; they are representing themselves and their own self-interests, the same as the government.

I wish everyone involved in this debate would go back to their constituents to get their opinions.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

That is right. We have a $600 billion debt. We look after the criminals far better than we do the victims. It is a real shame. I know in other countries what would happen to politicians who think that they are better than the people.

Private members' business is something where a lot of members go to a lot of work trying to bring a bill before this House which the government is not going to address. Our biggest mistake in private members' business is not allowing all bills drawn to be deemed votable. Let us get rid of the politics in private members' business.

Bill C-261 is living proof that when we came here one of our commitments was that we would give referendums to the people and we would abide by the people's decisions. That was a Reform commitment. Members of the government ask: "How can you do that?" They believe they are far smarter than the people and they are so wrong.

When we came here after we were elected we all had these ideals. Somehow it has been beaten out of them on the other side and beaten out badly. They should remember. They still have to look at themselves in the mirror when they shave in the morning. I sometimes wonder how they can do it when they allow the things to go on in this country that they have.

The right to give a referendum to the Canadian people always seems to be on the agenda. This is not the first time it has come before this House, nor will it be the last, until finally they are given their wish and they are allowed to vote on this. I hope this government at least gives them that right in the coming federal election. Then they would be surprised at the people's voice.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you are right.

Members in this Chamber are hired. They are no better than anybody else who walks the street out there. The taxpayers pay our wages to represent them, not our wishes. That is where this government and governments before have gone wrong. It is time the taxpayers of this country demanded that politicians listen to what their concerns are. We are sick and tired of it.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that it gives me great pleasure to stand in support of private member's Bill C-261.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary say that we did not have enough intestinal fortitude to stand to say that we are in favour of capital punishment. I am in favour of capital punishment for certain crimes and I am proud to say that. What I am not proud of is a government which refuses to give the Canadian people a say on this. I am not proud of that. That is lack of intestinal fortitude on that side of the House, not on this side of the House.

When the parliamentary secretary stands up and says such things, I think of the hypocritical people who are involved. The hypocrisy has never been so great. Bill C-261 is not about my personal opinion; it is not about their personal opinions. It is an opportunity to give the Canadian people a say which will be binding on the government. It is a say for the Canadian people.

If I had my way I would say capital punishment right now. But not this good government. Not this caring, sharing government that only worries about self-preservation and its pension plan. No, not this government. The Canadian people can stay out there and be told nothing but what the government wants them to hear. It will twist the facts. It will twist the statistics. It will come up with numbers that mean absolutely nothing in the real world.

The worst of it is, there are many members on that side who think the very same as we on this side but they are being controlled from within. It is politics of the lowest degree in a country that is supposed to be democratically ruled. When we do not allow our populace to have a say in such matters, when we keep on shutting our eyes and letting our folks walk the streets in fear because we have a government that has no intestinal fortitude to give the people a say, it is a disgrace.

Members can sit there with smiles on their faces. Sooner or later the people of Canada will have their say. I hope it is sooner rather than later.

This is good legislation. It should have been deemed votable. Government members can sit there and smirk all they want and say: "No, not us. We won't give the people a say in this because we are here to rule. We are here to rule the people". That is their agenda. They have lost the common sense of what government is supposed to be about. I am sorry the government has lost that. Like the Conservatives before them and the Liberals before the Conservatives, they think they are here to rule with an iron fist and say: "You will do what we wish and not what you wish we would do to govern properly". I find that outrageous.

The Liberals stand here time after time and say: "We listen to the people". Hogwash. If they truly represented the people they would at least allow them a voice on this issue. It is not up to members of Parliament to force their morality on the people. It is up to the people to force their morality on us. Sooner or later Liberal members might learn that.

You are just a hired peon in this place. You are hired by the taxpayers. You are hired to represent their wishes and their demands. You can say you are elected. They pay your wages, do not ever forget that-

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

Mr. Speaker, relations between our southern neighbour and major trading partner, the United States and the small country 90 miles south of the United States, Cuba, have been a roller coaster for nearly 100 years. Ever since 1898 when U.S. forces invaded Cuba and forced out the Spanish, it has not been unheard of for Canada to have to ride that roller coaster.

The legislation before us, Bill C-54, is needed because that roller coaster ride continues today. To put the legislation into perspective, I believe it is useful for us to look back briefly over some of the highest hills and deepest dives which that roller coaster has followed.

For four years, from 1898 until early into this century the U.S. military occupied and ran Cuba. When the U.S. imposed the Platt amendment giving itself the right to dictate Cuba's foreign policy and to have the U.S. military intervene in Cuba's international affairs, that situation continued for more than a generation. Only in 1934 did American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt give up the powers which the U.S. had given itself in the Platt amendment.

Eventually both American corporations and U.S. organized crime had a strong base of operations in Cuba, until a bushy bearded revolutionary named Fidel Castro seized power in 1960.

It shows Canada's special relationship with Cuba when we note that when Castro expropriated Cuba's banks at the start of his reign, he exempted just two, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Royal Bank, both Canadian. Apparently a copy of the document by which the Cuban government bought ScotiaBank's Cuban subsidiary now reposes in the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia in downtown Toronto.

In 1962 intelligence reports revealed that the U.S.S.R. was installing ballistic missiles in Cuba capable of hitting U.S. and Canadian targets. Then U.S. president John Kennedy announced an American naval blockade of the island.

The Canadian government was asked with barely 90 minutes advance notice to move Canadian Armed Forces to an alert status called DEFCON 3. Our defence minister at that time, Douglas Harkness, quietly did so. But the Diefenbaker cabinet was torn and debate sizzled for a couple of days.

However, Soviet ships approached the American imposed quarantine zone later in that week. Prime Minister Diefenbaker authorized the alert on October 24, and it was announced in the House on October 25, 1962.

Many of us recall the international sigh of relief a few days later when the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to dismantle and remove those threatening ballistic missiles from Cuba. Many people feared that the world was teetering on the brink of nuclear war over the Cuban situation in 1962.

In 1985, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, FEMA, became law in Canada. It was designed to defend Canadian interests against attempts by foreign governments or courts to apply unreasonable laws to Canada. FEMA currently gives the Attorney General the authority to prevent compliance in Canada with extraterritorial laws or court rulings which infringe on Canadian sovereignty. However, its penalties are lower than penalties threatened by new legislation in the United States for people doing business with Cuba.

Since FEMA was passed, and especially over some 35 years since Fidel Castro tossed out a right wing dictator to take over the Government of Cuba, many thousands of Cubans have escaped Mr. Castro's communist dictatorship and have gone to live in the U.S. state of Florida. Some estimates place the total of Cuban exiles living in Florida as high as one million people.

On February 24 of this year four people among those Cuban exiles, part of a group called Brothers to the Rescue, who were American citizens, were shot down by Cuban MiGs in international airspace and they died.

About 50,000 Cuban exiles, many with pictures of the dead taped to their chests, filed into the Orange Bowl Stadium a few days later for a memorial service. There they heard an emotional speech from the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, who warned Cuba that the U.S. would not tolerate further attacks against Brothers to the Rescue.

Among other things, Albright promised: "America will protect its citizens in international waters and in international skies. We will tighten sanctions against the Government of Cuba and we will deploy every diplomatic means to bring democracy to the people of Cuba".

Despite the protest from Canada and Mexico, and from many others around the world, the Helms-Burton bill was signed into law by U.S. President Clinton on March 12.

In protest, members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution that urged the European Commission "to investigate the effects of the extraterritorial provisions of the bill on European businesses".

The resolution also urged the EC to strongly consider challenging the bill as "a serious infringement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, World Trade Organization rules and international law".

Not long ago, officials of some Canadian companies which invested in Cuba received an official notice from the U.S. government that they and their families would not be welcome in the United States.

In the months since the Helms-Burton law was passed, debate has raged in Canadian newspapers regarding what Canada's position should be concerning Cuba and the Castro Communist dictatorship.

Many people point to the fact that Canada imposed sanctions on South Africa and that our current foreign affairs minister, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, proposed that economic sanctions should be imposed against the Government of Nigeria.

Others have questioned why Canada has spent so much time, effort and money, including most recently sending in Canadian troops as peacekeepers in another Caribbean country, Haiti, to try to make and keep the peace upon the return of ousted President Jean Bertrand Aristide, and yet we are willing to do nothing to help defeat Fidel Castro.

Is American policy regarding Cuba so different from Canadian policy about Haiti? I believe the answer must be no. Nevertheless, I also believe it is extremely important that this House pass Bill C-54 to bring FEMA up to date after the passage of the Helms-Burton bill in the United States.

My reason is one of pure Canadian patriotism, I believe, although others would no doubt call it plain being ornery.

The fact is, as a proud, certified western Canadian or, as the Liberals like to call us, redneck, I do not appreciate another country's telling Canada how to run our foreign policies. I may not agree with Canadian foreign policy but that is for us, this House and the other place representing the Canadian people to decide. Canadian foreign policy toward Cuba or any other nation must not be dictated by another country and enforced by severe penalties by the legislators of another country. Therefore I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in voting for Bill C-54.

[Privilege, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. colleagues have pointed out, we feel this is a breach of our privilege. I point out that this was passed twice to committee by the House. As hon. members how can we fulfil our responsibilities as legislators if a committee sets itself up superior to the judgment of the House by deleting every clause in the bill passed by the House not once but twice, rather than being a servant of the House, which I believe committees are?