Jesse Flis

[Cuba, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway regarding the United States embargo on Cuba and Canadian policy.

His motion reads at the end:

-and, that Canada restore full bilateral aid and trade with Cuba.

I do not know where the hon. member has been over the last 10 or 20 years. We have full bilateral trade with Cuba that I witnessed personally and will mention later.

I believe Canada and the United States share similar long term goals in Cuba, including the need for peaceful political and economic reform that will allow more liberal economic policies, the development of democratic institutions and full respect for human rights. However Canada has clear reservations about how the United States policy seeks to achieve these goals. I will explain what I mean in a moment.

Let me begin by pointing out that Canada and Cuba have had an official relationship stretching, as the hon. member said, over 50 years. Even at times when we had considerable differences of view with Cuba on Africa, east-west relations, the nature of

political change in Latin America and more recently human rights and good governance, we have maintained our ties and our discourse. I personally have met with the former and present ambassadors of Cuba. We keep very close ties and communications open between our two countries.

There is also a web of unofficial private links that many Canadian organizations, companies and individuals have pursued with their Cuban counterparts over the years. When our review committee was in Saskatchewan I was very pleased to hear Friends of Cuba make a presentation to the foreign affairs review committee.

Some of these unofficial links are concrete and measurable. Cuba is Canada's second largest trading partner after Puerto Rico in the Caribbean-Central American region. Our two-way trade was over $300 million in 1993. It is also a country in which a number of Canadian firms are pursuing investment possibilities.

Cuba is a country that over 120,000 Canadians visit each year. Out of 600,000 tourists 120,000 come from Canada. I was in Cuba recently to open an honorary consular office in Varadero to help Canadians in difficulty. It is a country in which a number of Canadian universities, research institutes and non-governmental organizations have longstanding linkages that benefit both Cubans and Canadians.

We enunciated Canadian objectives in Cuba in June 1994 when the Canadian government announced several policy adjustments. First, we are in Cuba to promote normal Canadian interests including commercial and cultural activities. I underline cultural because when I was in Cuba in the fall well known jazz musician Vic Vogel was teamed with Noche Habanera. It was a performance that Cubans and the Canadians who were there will never forget.

Second, we wish to support positive peaceful change in Cuba, both political and economic. We agree with Cuba on some issues, in particular in the areas of human rights and democratic development. However we will continue to pursue the discussion at appropriate levels.

Third, we wish to encourage Cuba's full, constructive participation in international affairs.

Finally, we wish to support Canadian organizations and individuals who are pursuing development activities in Cuba.

The Canadian government has supported Canadian businesses in their pursuit of opportunities in Cuba. Last fall at Havana International Fair we were pleased to see more Canadian companies than ever. Canadian government involvement was more visible. I witnessed 26 companies from Canada involved in this fair. Fourteen were companies from the province of Quebec. None of them had fleur-de-lis flags; they all had the Canadian flag. They were there as Canadians.

I travelled to Cuba at that time to meet these business representatives. I will never forget the warm reception the Cuban government and the Cuban people gave me. Because of the difficult economic circumstances in Cuba our trade has declined in the past year but Cuba's rank remains as I indicated earlier.

We also wish to encourage and support political developments in Cuba. Cuba has human rights accomplishments notably in the areas of economic and social rights. Cuba's health care and educational systems have been models for other countries. As a former educator I was impressed with the standard of education in that country and the standard of health care.

At the same time we have very real concerns about Cuba's respect for civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom from arbitrary detention. We have also expressed our concern about Cuba's unwillingness to co-operate with the United Nations human rights system, in particular the special rapporteur appointed by the UN commission on human rights. We have welcomed the visit to Cuba by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and hope this can lead to greater Cuban co-operation.

Thus Canada will continue to make human rights and democratic development areas of continuing discussion with Cuba in order that Cuban accomplishments in the areas I have mentioned can be mirrored in full respect of political and civil rights.

In the area of development co-operation the government has made available the full range of partnership programs of the Canadian International Development Agency to Canadian NGOs and others in the non-governmental sector for their work in Cuba, including academic institutions and Canadian businesses pursuing developmental objectives.

By the end of the current fiscal year Cuba will have received over $1 million in Canadian development assistance through the various programs we support, again demonstrating no need for such a motion as the one tabled today.

These examples make clear that Canada is pursuing its objectives in Cuba through a policy of engagement and dialogue. I would add that this is very much in the tradition of Canadian policy regarding Cuba. As the government noted last June we are making adjustments in our policy, not turning policy around.

The United States is clearly pursuing its objectives in a different adversarial manner. We have made it clear to the United States and publicly that we do not agree with its approach. For example, during the parliamentary debate on Canada's foreign policy review on March 15, 1994 the Minister

of Foreign Affairs referred to the government's hope to see the end of the American commercial embargo against Cuba.

The Canadian vote last year in support of the United Nations General Assembly resolution critical of the embargo reaffirmed that point. At that time we indicated that in this post-cold war period isolation was not the most effective means of fostering economic and political reform in Cuba.

For Canada the central concern regarding the embargo is its extraterritorial reach. The way in which the United States through its laws and regulations governing the embargo seeks to constrain the freedom of trade of third countries such as Canada is not acceptable. Canada has always taken a vigorous stand against such measures and in 1992 issued a blocking order to ensure that Canadian companies were not subjected to foreign laws on trade with Cuba.

We shall remain watchful of other efforts to bring Canadians under the ambit of U.S. laws and regulations. Accordingly I believe Canada has implemented a policy on Cuba which takes into account Canadian interests and Canadian perspectives and responds to the concerns of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. I therefore do not believe that the motion is necessary and I do not agree with the tone in which it was cast.

I am very pleased that the Canada-Cuba parliamentary friendship group has been established and a visit has already been made. Hopefully parliamentary exchanges will be speeded up. I know that our Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to meet the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.

When I was there in October I met with five ministers. They welcome Canadians to Cuba. They welcome Canadian investment. You have to be there, Mr. Speaker, to get a feeling for the love and respect of Cubans for Canadians. I appeal to Canadians, if they want a place to invest, to invest in Cuba.

[Project Read, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has already been five years since the United Nations designated 1990 as the international year of literacy. It is the UN's goal to liberate nearly a quarter of the world's population from the bonds of illiteracy by the year 2000 and much of this work starts at home.

It is estimated that 1.2 million adults in Ontario are functionally illiterate. In my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, librarian Rita Cox and the Parkdale Project Read are beating the odds. Just ask two of Project Read's recent graduates, Jerry Lee Miller and Ed Anable. They are individual success stories and are shining examples that together we can break the cycle of illiteracy.

I congratulate the minister responsible for literacy for doing an excellent job in this field.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa mentioned that about 30 members on the government side will be voting against the bill. I would suggest that he redo his research because many of the concerns that our members had have been addressed in the latest changes to this bill.

I was pleased to hear from him that he personally will be supporting this bill because, as he said, it was a long time coming. He did comment, though, that the bill did not go quite far enough.

The minister of the environment and wildlife for Quebec stressed that the bill goes too far. I am wondering if he can give us some clarification if this is the same split within his party. He makes a very strong statement that the bill does not go far enough and yet we are hearing another message from that province that the bill has gone too far.

[Petitions, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of my constituents and residents from the greater Toronto area. The petitioners claim that the majority of Canadians believe that the privileges society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase, sexual orientation.

[Canadian Flag, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago on February 15, 1965 the national flag with the distinctive maple leaf was first raised on Parliament Hill by the then Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.

Since that time our nation has grown to become one of the world's leading democracies. Canadians are known as a compassionate people, ready to respond when natural disaster strikes or war torn regions need help to keep the peace.

Our flag is a symbol of Canada. I encourage all members of this House to support the official federal proclamation of February 15 as Canadian Flag Day, not as an official holiday but as an annual day of recognition.

The Canadian flag is more than just a piece of cloth. It stands for peace, harmony and freedom. It stands for you, Mr. Speaker. It stands for me. It stands on guard for thee.

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent town hall meeting this issue was raised along with the deficit and the debt. I asked the audience that if we closed the borders to the U.S. and closed the borders to Canada so that there were no exports or imports, no exchange of goods and services, which country would last longer? Some constituents said naturally the U.S. because of its wealth, et cetera, that it is an influential superpower.

After a bit of discussion everyone in the audience agreed that Canada would last much longer. Why? Because of our resources. What is the most important resource? Water. In a way I am pleased that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised this issue. It has given us a forum to debate.

I wish that the Reform Party would not use fear tactics on the Canadian people. The issue of the export of water was raised during the free trade debate. It was calmed down. Then it resurfaced during the NAFTA debate. People got an answer and

they were satisfied. Now the Reform has raised this fear tactic again.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the secretary of state quoted a statement from NAFTA that the three countries signed. I will repeat it for the Reform Party so they can pass it on to their constituents. "The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement". It cannot be more clear than that. "Unless water, in any form, has entered into commerce and become a good or product" and the Secretary of State quoted the whole statement signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States. I do not know what further guarantee we want.

The follow-up speaker for the Reform Party compared Canada with Mexico. Again another fear tactic. Surely to goodness we do not in this House get up and compare Canada with Mexico. We have a strong Canadian dollar. It fluctuates, yes, but please do not compare the Canadian dollar with the peso.

Again, fear tactics are being used. I can assure the hon. member and I can assure Canadians that the policies we have in place do allow for the export of bottled water. What is wrong with that? We import water from Italy. We import water from France. We import water from Poland and from the U.S. They buy our water. I see nothing wrong with that.

We also have protection against re-routing rivers, et cetera. There is protection there. I do not know what further protection there could be.

The hon. member complained that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra finished off his debate by saying that we do not need any action. He said that no action is needed at the moment because of the legislation and the agreements that are in place now. He did not say that we do not need any action. Canada is continually vigilant and it has an excellent track record in initiating and pushing multilateral treatments such as the law of the sea.

Being born and raised in Saskatchewan I appreciate the value of water. We had plenty of well water in Saskatchewan, all we wanted, but we did not have any soft water. The only soft water we could get was what we caught from rainwater and spring snow to put into the cistern. One day the children, my brothers and I, were playing with the rainwater and we wasted almost a whole barrel. When Dad came home from town you know what we got. It was the belt he sharpened his razor on and we got it across the buttocks. That is how precious soft water was in Saskatchewan at the time.

That reminds me to this day how vigilant we have to be, and the government is. Even in the Arctic. The ice caps are water. Look at what happened when the U.S. dumped its submarines in the Arctic. We know how easily the Arctic can affect the environment of the whole hemisphere.

The hon. member knows we addressed that issue when we were reviewing our foreign policy. Hopefully the committee in planning its future work will address the whole issue of water, not only water in H2O form but also water in ice form, in ice caps on the mountains, in the air, et cetera.

If all three parties in this House co-operate I do not think we need any change in our present guarantees. That does not mean we should not be vigilant. From that standpoint I thank the hon. member for raising this in the form of a private member's motion so that we could have this debate in this House.

[Department Of External Affairs Act, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today in support of Bill C-47, as amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the official opposition and the Reform Party for their co-operation in improving the bill by suggesting certain technical changes. This is what I enjoy about Parliament, when parties can work together to improve a bill.

This bill contains housekeeping measures related to the Department of External Affairs Act. As I have previously stated in this Chamber, the government made a commitment to Canadians to change the name of the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This change in name reflects the accomplishments and independence of Canadian foreign policy since World War II and Canada's maturity from a colony to a dominion, to a sovereign nation. It embraces the contemporary mandate and responsibilities of the department. The changes to the Department of External Affairs Act contained in this bill are not substantive. The bill changes the legal name of the department, titles of the minister and titles of senior officials.

Under this act the Secretary of State for External Affairs will become the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The title of the Minister for International Trade will remain unchanged. The title of a junior minister, the Minister of External Relations, will change to become the Minister for International Co-operation.

The official opposition had some concern with that, why have that position if it is not filled? The government would like the flexibility in case there is a need to appoint such a minister in the future.

The titles of senior officials, including the term under-secretary, will reflect the changes made to ministerial titles. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs will become the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The amendments passed by the committee following second reading of Bill C-47 were housekeeping measures as well. Clause 7, for example, was amended at the request of committee members of the official opposition to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the minister as they related to aid and trade. This was done.

Government members sponsored amendments to clauses 18 and 19 of the bill. Clause 18 of the bill was amended due to a technical error in the drafting of the bill. Clause 19 was amended so that it would concur with amendments that have been passed by Parliament to the French version of the Financial Administration Act.

Bill C-47 makes no substantive changes to the structure of the department. Rather, the change in name contained in this legislation reflects the current mandate of the department and the modernity of the Canadian statehood as reflected in the government's response to the special joint committee reviewing foreign policy that was tabled here yesterday in the House by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also by the Minister for International Trade.

Both of these reports highlight how important foreign policy and this department are to Canadians. At home and abroad the employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade serve and promote the interest and values that Canadians hold dear. Let us join together in congratulating them on many years of excellent service and their continuing commitment to Canada and Canadians.

The Governor General this morning at his installation complimented and praised our peacekeepers and the good they are doing and the positive image they are giving Canada around the world. I would like to take this opportunity to give the same recognition to our foreign service members who work abroad, all of them, whether it be in the external affairs section or international trade, because Canada does have an excellent image. Anywhere you travel around this globe or in speaking to the diplomatic corps here in Ottawa, you will hear nothing but the highest praises for Canada.

We all can take some credit. The people representing Canada around the globe especially deserve a lot of credit for the kind of

image building, for the spreading of Canadian values and interests around this globe. Hopefully through our example people around the globe will have better lifestyles.

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I did read the hon. member's lips when he was debating this topic. I heard from those lips the words "these animals".

I have been in this House for 11 years now but I have not heard any member refer to a group of people as "these animals". They may have committed crimes, some very serious, but they are still people. They are still human beings. They are not animals.

I did not raise this on a point of order because I think the table will find it is parliamentary and acceptable language. However I am giving the hon. member this opportunity to withdraw the words "these animals".

[Official Report, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the page for yesterday's Hansard in which I did table petitions and noticed Hansard reads Monday, January 6, 1995. I know the House will correct this Hansard .

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the third petition is a little more complicated. I will not go through the whole petition itself.

The petitioners claim it is clear that in the languages of Parliament and Canada there is evidence that the unborn human foetus from fertilization onward has recognition as an individual and also is included in "everyone"; whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Parliament and Government of Canada and article VII guarantees to everyone the right to life and security of the person and article XV(1) states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government to recognize the unborn foetus from fertilization onward as an entity separate from the mother and to prepare a response to this petition which identifies the formal parliamentary process which selected the response of Petition No. 3510130, which I tabled last year, as the sole basis for the government's position

and provide dismissive argument for each issue raised in this petition.