Madam Speaker, the United States through the Helms-Burton bill is seeking to expand its embargo against Cuba to other countries, including Canada, by alleging so-called rights to United States property in Cuba. The United States is holding itself up as the censor of potential foreign investment in sectors which may include former United States property.
The United States believes that the property formerly owned by United States citizens cannot be freely used in Cuba and that it truly belongs to those who live in the United States and is not and will not be the property of the present Cuban government and will at some time be renegotiated back to the American people.
It claims, moreover, that international law requires the Government of Cuba to pay top, adequate and effective compensation.
A constituent of mine, Dr. Tarjei Tennessen, has done some very extensive research for me and this is why I have brought this question before the House.
There is no United States property in Cuba as far as international law is concerned. Ownership of such property was transferred to the Cuban people through a process of nationalization in conformity with international law, which was carried out through expropriation by exercising the power of article 24 of the Cuban constitution of 1940 and the corresponding articles of the fundamental law of February 7, 1959.
Moreover, the property of the United States in Cuba was liquidated under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1964 of the Cuba program of the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and converted into bonds.
We have been criticized unduly for coddling Cuba and for being soft on the Cuban communist regime.
The document in this research indicates that the Americans are bullying countries for trading, openly and fairly, with Cuba, that they are using external legislation over extraterritorial matters which were settled very legitimately some years ago through international law.
In the months following the triumph of the revolution of 1959 the United States government began harassing the country in open opposition. The nationalization of United States property began again in 1960 in response to continuous attacks on Cuban economic targets, combined with United States domination of all basic sectors of activity in the country and the need, as the Americans suggested, to consolidate the new economic, political and social process in Cuba.
In 1960 the president of the republic and the Prime Minister acted to provide jointly, through resolutions, the nationalization by expropriation of property in Cuba belonging to natural or juridical persons having the status of United States nationals.
The transparency of the procedure instituted by the Cuban authorities is not only recognized by international law courts in the United States itself, but it has been confirmed by the validity under international legislation of the Cuban nationalization process in law suits brought forward by United States nationals.
I would suggest that Cuba negotiated in a transparent and open fashion the very timely payment of compensation through lump sum agreements concluded and implemented with Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland. Also, agreements were reached with other countries.
This open, transparent nationalization of property by Cuba is what the question is today. I ask the Minister for International Trade are we soft on Cuba. Are we condoning a communist regime in Cuba or are we trading in an open and competitive fashion?