Debates of Oct. 9th, 1996

Petitions

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition has 27 pages signed by many Canadians, including many from my riding. It states that whereas the human rights of the Kurdish people in Turkey, Iran and Iraq are being violated, and whereas the Canadian people strongly believe in the protection of human rights both at home and abroad, therefore they pray and request that Parliament use all the means at its disposal to encourage international mediation through the United Nations and the Canadian government for an immediate end to the Kurdish bloodshed, for the release of all political prisoners including Kurdish members of Parliament who are being held prisoner, and for the development of a permanent political solution to this problem.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners pray that the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation be opposed.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition draws the attention of the House to various issues.

The petitioners call on Parliament to conduct a full a public inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the judiciary and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of judges with ties to credit granting institutions.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present to the House today a petition from constituents residing in Williams Lake, 150-Mile House and other areas of British Columbia.

The petitioners point out that over the past 10 years the excise tax on gasoline as risen by 466 per cent and that a committee of Parliament has recommended another 2 cent per litre increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive an answer to my questions on the Order Paper, Nos. Q-4 and Q-52.

I requested an answer to both questions within 45 days. As of today, Q-4 has been outstanding for 225 days and Q-52 has been outstanding for 147 days.

Instead of giving answers to my questions, the government complains that the questions are too complex, even intimating that it should consider restricting an MP's right to ask such questions. That concerns me. Frankly, if the government was as interested in gun control, public safety and fighting the deficit as it says it is, it should have the answers to these questions at their fingertips.

I am willing to compromise with the government. Give me the information that you have obtained so far, and I will give you more time to answer it. Give me the information that you already have. If you need more time to get some information on the remaining items, I am willing to make that compromise. Would you be willing to agree to that?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would all hon. members please not use the word you, except when referring to the Chair.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my hon. colleague and I ask that he spare us the theatrics. I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday on the same subject on the same questions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hon. member for Mississauga South has a petition. I did not see him. I would ask permission to revert to petitions.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration.

I have two petitions today. The first one comes from Edmonton, Alberta.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Kingston, Ontario concerning the labelling of alcoholic beverages.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the dangers associated with alcohol consumption.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Evidently the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader did not request that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. I wonder if he wishes to do that.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

While I am on my feet, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers also be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes.

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-54, an act to amend the foreign extraterritorial measures Act. There is no doubt in my mind that we must resist any foreign intervention in our affairs. Under the Helms-Burton Act, the United States is extending its reach to threaten legitimate business between companies from other countries and Cuba. We cannot accept that the foreign extraterritorial measures Act (FEMA) is our answer.

We find ourselves at loggerheads with the U.S. on Helms-Burton partly because of very different approaches to dealing with Cuba. We both share the desire for a strong democracy in that country, fully respecting human rights. But we have been taking different paths to that goal. We believe in engagement and dialogue; the United States favours isolation.

So let me talk about our relations with Cuba before I go further into FEMA.

At the outset, let me say that I am proud of our Cuba policy. It has strong support from all political parties and from interested Canadians. It is also quite similar to that of most other countries in Latin America and Europe.

Canada values its friendship and over 50 years of unbroken relations with Cuba. Unofficial links go back much further, building on trade and investment links with Atlantic Canada. For decades, Canada and Cuba have discussed common goals and interests, learning from each other. There has been co-operation to our mutual benefit in such diverse fields as international fisheries, social policies, the environment, science, culture and international arms control issues.

There are also numerous links between Canadian and Cuban organizations, research centres and universities, and between ordinary canadians and Cubans.

Our goal overall is to help bring Cuba into the community of democratic nations with a genuinely representative government and an open economy.

Unlike the US approach, which has been characterized by punitive measures such as the embargo, we prefer a policy of engagement and dialogue. A significant part of that dialogue indeed focuses on human rights, democratic reform and good governance.

Our longstanding relations, however, have not stopped us from expressing our concerns on Cuba's human rights performance.

Canada has publicly pressed the Cubans concerning violations, such as last February when we condemned the shooting down of two U.S. civilian aircraft by the Cuban air force and the tragic loss of life resulting from this incident. This action, taken by the Cuban government, was an excessive and inappropriate use of force which violated internationally accepted rules for the interception of civilian aircraft.

Canada has raised individual human rights cases with the Cuban government. Human rights was a major item on the agenda during the visit last year of Cuban foreign minister Robaina. I should add that during his visit minister Robaina also met with the UN commissioner for human rights, who was also in Ottawa at the time, Mr. Ed Broadbent of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley of Elections Canada.

Canada was also among the first to express concern at the severe sentence handed down last year against Cuban human rights activist Francisco Chaviano. We have also responded very strongly to the harassment early this year of the Concilio Cubano, an emerging coalition of human rights activists. Canadian embassy officials in Havana also meet regularly with human rights activists and have attended trials of dissidents.

This constant dialogue which Cuba has had with Canada and other countries has helped lead to reforms. Cuba is moving ahead with changes to economic policy. There are changes as well in the human rights areas. For example, Cuba ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in May of 1995.

Our well known commercial ties, which are the target of the Helms-Burton legislation, are but one element in a range of connections that Canadians and Cubans have made over the years.

Parliamentary exchanges are an important part of our strategy with Cuba. They allow each country to understand better their systems of governance and perhaps benefit from each other's experience.

The president of the Cuban National Assembly visited Canada in April 1995. The Speaker of the House of Commons travelled to Cuba in October of 1995 and at the same time provided a major donation of medical supplies.

In May of this year Senator Jacques Hébert and other members of the parliamentary friendship group Canada-Cuba had the opportunity to welcome another parliamentary delegation headed by the Cuban minister of education. During these meetings Cubans posed extensive questions on the workings of the Canadian parliamentary system, and Canadian members were able to make strong representation supporting further progress in democratic reform and in the protection of human rights.

We are also working with the Cuban government to pinpoint areas where Canadians can help Cuba modernize some of its key economic policy institutions. Assistance to the Cuban ministry of finance to develop a new taxation system has begun with technical assistance from Revenue Canada. This program will include training in tax collection and client relations and computerization of taxation information. Assistance to the Bank of Cuba from the Bank of Canada, on the other hand, is concentrating on upgrading its informatics and basic training in economics and accounting.

Encouraging Cuba to open to the rest of the world and to modernize its machinery of government and its key economic bodies will help the majority of its citizens. We are working with the Cuban government to bring about a better future for all the people.

In the area of social programs, the marked decline in the Cuban economy from 1989 to 1993 has resulted in significant underfunding of all social programs.

When I went to Cuba in June of 1994, Canada launched a small but important package of assistance channelled through the non-government sector.

This has allowed Canadians in the non-governmental sector to assist Cubans at a time of economic difficulty and to build bridges with Cuban institutions such as the university system. By the end of that year a small bilateral program was under discussion and this has led to the development of several projects that I have just outlined.

As a result, Canadian NGOs, churches, labour unions and universities are working with a variety of Cuban organizations, a number of which are in transition from a very close association with the Cuban government to a more independent stance. We are eager to support this transition.

Last March CIDA and OXFAM Canada signed a co-operation agreement for a major effort to strengthen the NGO sector in Cuba. With nearly $1 million over the next three years, the project will support the work of Cuban NGOs and churches with, for example, income generation projects for poor women, training for independent small farmers and linkages with Canadian NGOs, including internships for five Cubans at Canadian agencies.

Prior to 1994 when we put in place our assistance package for Cuba, several Canadian universities already had co-operation agreements with Cuban universities. Since 1994 many more universities, community colleges and institutions have joined them.

I could go on about the many links that Canada has now and is developing with Cuba, links with the Canadian and Cuban artistic communities for example. Jazz musicians like Vic Vogel and Jane Bunnett have travelled to play with Cuban counterparts. On a recent trip Bunnett arranged to have three Toronto technicians give much needed instrument repair workshops for young musicians in Havana. The Quebec television and film industry has shot several feature films and a major television series in Cuba. The list goes on and on.

However, there have also been linkages established between labour unions. Last year Bob White of the Canadian Labour Congress travelled to Cuba to meet with representatives of the Cuban Congress of Workers. They in turn sent a delegation to Canada on a fact finding mission.

One hundred and forty thousand Canadians visit Cuba each year.

We believe it is through this multitude of engagements at many levels that Cubans will undertake their own reform which will eventually open their society to more liberal, economic and political institutions.

As I said earlier, we do not quarrel with the American objective of moving Cuba peacefully to a more democratic society. We do quarrel with the use of Helms-Burton as a tool to fix an American problem with Cuba. Helms-Burton targets companies and other countries doing legitimate business with Cuba.

The United States could have followed the same route as other countries and settled its dispute bilaterally. Having chosen this path, the U.S. risks hurting its friends and allies while aiming at Cuba through Helms-Burton. In this situation we had to do what we could to protect Canadian citizens and Canadian firms.

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act was a logical path to take and the changes it proposes are necessary. However, it is my sincere hope that it will not be necessary to use them. That of course will depend on whether the Helms-Burton claims provisions and other similar measures are used against Canadian firms.

I hope that Helms-Burton is just a brief blip on the screen. The Canada-U.S. relationship is a strong and fruitful one and we should not have to squabble over irritants of this kind.

In closing this part of the debate, I regret that I will not be able to be in attendance for the rest of the debate this afternoon due to prior engagements, but I will look with interest at Hansard so that I can have the opportunity of reading further on this debate.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak again today to Bill C-54, which, as we know, and as my hon. friend said previously, is intended to counter certain effects of the extraterritorial measures contained in the U.S. legislation referred to as the Helms-Burton act, legislation which has been referred to many times in this House in the past few days and the past few months.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the passage of this bill, quite the contrary. As we have said from the very beginning, we support any attempt to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses from illegal measures, measures we call illegal, imposed by the Americans.

In fact, as soon as the Helms-Burton act was passed, the Bloc Quebecois vigorously objected to this initiative by the American government which initially attempted to impose on all countries its policy of economic sanctions against Cuba, this in flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of states.

From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has asked the federal government in this House to strongly condemn the Helms-Burton act and to do everything it could to have this act declared null and void. However, the Liberal government's only response has been Bill C-54, which is now before the House. Seven months, seven long months after the Helms-Burton act was passed, the government tabled its own Bill C-54 in the House, saying that it was responding to an urgent need to counter the effects of this legislation which, need I remind you, is still in effect, since it has not been contested before the courts, and has been in force since August.

I have already commented in this House on the late arrival of Bill C-54 and its lack of substance. However, what I want to discuss today is the irresponsible attitude of the Liberal government and its ministers to this issue.

The government's lack of political will and its failure to show that it wants to be serious about the Helms-Burton act have become intolerable. The government never intended to have the Helms-Burton act declared null and void, although it is the only effective way to get rid of this legislation and show the Americans that Canada is very serious about protecting its trade policy and its territorial sovereignty as well. When the Americans attacked, Canada fired back with water pistols. Although some water pistols look like the real thing, they are useless in combat.

Recently, appearing before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Liberal government again refused to demand a special panel for the settlement of trade disputes under NAFTA-although it has been entitled to do so since July 29-claiming that it was waiting for the right time. The right time was July 29. Ever since that day, we have had the right, the opportunity to ask for a special committee. We should have taken action at that time, not the day after the presidential election in the U.S.

The government tells us it did everything in its power to respond to the urgent situation, but it has known about the Helms-Burton law since it came into effect on March 12. The government could have taken action as early as March or April. It would not have taken very long to make eight or nine short amendments to an existing act in order to cover the Helms-Burton law. How long did

they wait? Seven months. It took them seven months to amend an existing act and table Bill C-54 before the House.

The government has demonstrated a total lack of leadership in this matter, considering it was in the best position to act against the Americans. Frightened, our government let so much time pass that the European Union had to take it upon itself to challenge the validity of the Helms-Burton law.

In fact, the European Union announced last week that it would ask for arbitration and, if need be, for a special trade dispute settlement committee under the World Trade Organization on October 16, before the U.S. election is held.

The member states of the European Union understood the urgent need to act. How can the Minister for International Trade now boast to the media that he wants to participate in this process before the WTO, given the importance of the situation? If we were in his shoes, we would be slightly embarrassed to have missed the boat and to follow in the wake of other states in challenging a law the Canadian government should have challenged seven months ago under NAFTA. But no, they would rather leave this to the WTO and trail behind the European Union.

Once again, the Liberal government has demonstrated its lack of leadership and its inability to effectively protect Quebec and Canadian businesses against foreign pressure.

To prepare for an eventual arbitration regarding the other American extraterritorial legislation, the Iranian and Libyan economic sanctions law of 1996 penalizing companies that make oil and gas investments in Iran and Libya, the European Union also decided to undertake consultations within the WTO, while Canada has done nothing so far to challenge this law.

Obviously, there are not a multitude of Quebec and Canadian companies investing in the oil and gas industries in Iran or Libya. That is not the problem. The problem is that, on the one hand, we challenge the Helms-Burton law, claiming that it is not right, but on the other hand, we delay acting. Then we face a fait accompli. Instead of seeing reason, the American government comes back with another extraterritorial law, taking another tack; it is the principle of the law that the Canadian government should have challenged. But they wait and wait, while time goes by.

It would seem that foreign affairs ministers in Europe have more courage than our Canadian ministers, who dare not attack either the American President or American policies during a U.S. presidential election. Unlike our Canadian ministers, European foreign trade commissioner Leon Brittan does not see any reason to defer arbitration.

To conclude, I wish the government would make sure the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act will be enforced and not shelved. As the Minister for International Trade or the Minister of Foreign Affairs often says: "We made amendments but, and we say so in the House and to the media, we hope we never have to implement this act. We amend the act, we make it more rigorous, we increase the amounts to be paid or recovered, but we hope we never have to use this legislation". If the government keeps saying it hopes to never have to use it, the international community will no longer support this legislation.

I should also point out that Bill C-54 does not counteract all the perverse effects of the Helms-Burton act. Indeed, title IV is still in effect, and officials of the companies doing business with Cuba, including Sherritt, a Canadian company, are prohibited from entering the United States, as could be executives from other Quebec or Canadian companies, and their families.

By introducing Bill C-54 as a means to deal with an urgent situation, the Canadian government only solves half of the issue, namely the case of Canadian or Quebec companies that could be sued for conducting business with Cuba.

However, title IV, which prohibits company executives and their families from entering the United States is still in effect. We, Bloc Quebecois members, say to the Liberals that, if they want to abolish title IV, if they want to eliminate the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of Canadian and Quebec executives doing business with Cuba, they can easily do it, because, since July 29, they have been able to apply to a special panel under NAFTA to invalidate the Helms-Burton act. The Liberal government can, not with Bill C-54, but under the rules agreed in NAFTA, oppose the whole Helms-Burton act and thus eliminate the dangers posed by title IV for executives of Canadian and Quebec companies, and their families.

We propose concrete solutions to the government, because it does not act. We know that, the day after the presidential election, if the U.S. President abolishes titles III and IV or sets them aside, this government will say: "You see, we were right to wait, nothing came out of it". But what happens if the U.S. President decides otherwise? We will have waited nine months, or a year, to either decide not to go before the special panel, so as not to hurt the President's feelings, or to finally decide, after the Europeans, to take concrete action?

In spite of all this, and even though its effect is quite limited, we will support Bill C-54. But rest assured: we will not give the

government any medal for its response to the American administration. The government should, once and for all, learn from its mistakes and redo its homework.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are addressing Bill C-54, which is an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, commonly known as the blocking legislation for the Helms-Burton bill in the United States.

I am pleased to be able to speak at this the third and final reading of Bill C-54. During a previous debate on the bill I was interested to note that members of the other opposition parties felt the way the Reform Party does, that this bill should be supported but that it does not go far enough. I will outline the reasons.

This is only a stop gap measure, a half measure if you like, that needs to be advanced a lot further. I have stated repeatedly that this bill should go further. Canada must act in other ways to get this situation resolved quickly.

It is fine to have legislation on the books to be used if we need to do so. It is there on the shelf, but as the Minister for International Trade stated himself, we hope we never have to use it.

While every well stocked medicine cabinet contains an antidote for accidental poisoning and snake bites, it is hoped they never have to be used but it is pretty nice to have them there if they are needed. It is far better though to eliminate the problem from one's territory and remove the deadly poisons from one's household.

What I am getting at is that the United States must be told that not only is the Helms-Burton bill unwise, it is illegal. Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton legislation are in clear violation of the NAFTA agreement which the United States has signed. Title III further violates international law and the sovereignty of all countries that invest and trade with Cuba.

Even though it is nice to have an antidote, let us get rid of this poison and this problem once and for all. Canada has been in the position for some time to call a dispute settlement panel under NAFTA. I submit that had we done this when this problem first arose in June, it could have been settled by now. We could have been finished with it and eliminated some of the potential for problems.

We know the President of the United States has given Canada a six months reprieve and may do so again. However, it is election time in the United States and we can never be sure if that is going to happen. In fact, President Clinton, or perhaps it will be President Dole at that stage, may be in a position to extend the six months further or he may not. On the other hand, a new crisis may occur which will force the president to allow lawsuits to go ahead. We do not want our companies to be in that position.

Furthermore, the metre on the claims continue to tick. We are still being exposed to these claims and the liabilities are continuing to accumulate. This bill does nothing to protect certain Canadian executives and their families who may be turned away when trying to enter the United States. That issue continues to be unresolved. We need to have the Helms-Burton bill overturned. We can only do that by challenging the legislation at a NAFTA panel.

There is another reason for getting Helms-Burton overturned. Canadian companies operating in Cuba have to decide whether or not to do business with Cuba. They can follow the U.S. rules. If they do that, they are hit with a fine of $1.5 million Canadian, or they can decide not to follow the U.S. rules and get hit with a fine of $1 million U.S. That is a little like a choice of being hit by either a brick or a baseball bat. Really, it is not much choice at all. The only real solution to this problem is to resolve it once and for all with a decision by a NAFTA panel.

It disturbs me that time and time again this government has allowed itself to be pushed around by the Americans. A persistent pattern has developed in this area. It certainly has.

We can go back to 1994 with soft wheat, the pasta wheats. Canada caved in on a dispute with the United States and accepted export caps. What happened was that the free trade agreement stated that Canada had the right, if we have any economic advantage, to export into the United States just as they had the right to export into our country. The subsidies are equal. That is not what we settled on. We settled on export caps on wheat deliveries to the United States. That deal has now expired and we hear rumblings that they may want to start it again.

We have caved in on the softwood lumber issue. Instead of taking it to a softwood lumber panel under NAFTA or the World Trade Organization, again we have accepted caps on exports. In that case it is even worse because we have to administer this bureaucratic nightmare ourselves.

The lumber industry has been waiting six months to have a process put in place it can comply with. Now it has learned it is going to take at least another month before provincial quota allocations will be decided, never mind the whole problem that we are going to get into with allocating to the different companies once that happens.

I will say again that a persistent pattern has developed and that Canada has been afraid to take on the Americans under these dispute settlement processes that we have worked so hard to put in place.

I would submit that we cannot allow ourselves to be pushed around. Furthermore, there is absolutely no need for it. Our trade agreements give the protection we require here. We have worked very hard to put these processes in place but when it is time to test them we always seem to be afraid and back away.

I also submit that it is very important for us to test these agreements when we feel we can win. How credible can Canada be in further reforms that we want to take place at the World Trade Organization and further dispute settlement mechanisms that we want to put in place when we have not even used the processes that we have negotiated in the last round?

I would like to talk a bit about the country that is being affected in addition to Canada over the Helms-Burton legislation. That little country of course is Cuba. We should take every opportunity to remind the Americans that their dispute is with Cuba and not with Canada. Although we share America's desire to see a more democratic, market driven country in Cuba, we think there are other means to achieve this. We know that the United States has used an isolationist policy and I do not believe that has worked. We have 40 years in which that has taken place and we still have a communist government in Cuba.

I believe that Canada shares some responsibility for the problems there too. We continue to trade and I think we should, but we have other tools that we can use.

We heard the Secretary of State for Latin America a little while ago speaking about the gains that have been made in terms of human rights and economic reforms and what Canada is doing to help. I think that is laudable that we have been helping out where we can, but we have not heard of too many gains that have taken place in trying to make that a more open, democratic country or any result in multi-party open elections, freedom of voting, freedom of expression. Those are all very restricted.

For 40 years we have had a policy of trading with Cuba and what is the result in terms of the other side of this, the engagement part? Very little, it seems, and I think we have to work a lot harder to accomplish an open, democratic country in Cuba. We have to work with the OAS to achieve this. We in the Reform Party believe that engaging Cuba is the right approach. We think there are other methods and I will outline those.

I think trade in this case is our carrot and we can use other methods such as the carrot and stick approach if we like, but we do have to trade with Cuba and use the opportunities to discuss the serious issues where we are not making gains.

We can make aid conditional upon improvements in certain areas like human rights and democratic reform. We can insist that Cuba get no special deals in terms of bilateral aid from Canada, no Canadian partnerships in CIDA for example that go bilaterally, which came to about $500,000 in 1994-95, and that there be no technical support from IDRC, the International Development Research Centre.

We have to see some movement, some improvement in those conditions in the United States before we should offer these kinds of technical supports. We should certainly not have any more dipping into the Canada fund to support activities in Cuba until we see some progress made in the areas I have just identified.

We should continue trading in the private sector but do what we can in terms of engagement to encourage change and restrict Canadian aid programs until some improvement is made.

In conclusion, Reform supports this bill but we do not think it goes nearly far enough. There needs to be a resolution at NAFTA, but it is a stop gap measure and to that extent I think it is probably necessary.

In addition, we must take a more hard nosed attitude when we deal with the United States in these types of disputes. Canada must clearly challenge the United States, which is way out of bounds on this issue. I believe the United States does not respect countries that cave in, and that seems to be our history in the last while. We should challenge the United States when we feel we are clearly in the right, and this is one of those times when we should challenge the United States.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Co-operation.

It gives me great pleasure to support Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act at third reading. This bill is timely and greatly needed.

The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, FEMA, was passed in February 1984 to block unreasonable laws or rulings of a foreign power from being applied in Canada. The time has come to bring it up to date to ensure that it remains a credible act. I am pleased that both opposition parties are supporting this legislation and will ensure its speedy passage.

Bill C-54 and the amendments put forward will better prepare Canada to block countries in applying unacceptable laws and rulings in Canada. In the case of the Helms-Burton act, the United States has overstepped legal boundaries and has violated the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter. Furthermore, the act infringes on the sovereignty of Canada and that of other friendly trading nations.

Our Canadian foreign policy and trade relationships are determined here in Canada and not in the United States. The United States has every right to determine its own trade policy with Cuba. It is unfair of the American government to impose its policies and laws on us.

Overall, our relationship with the United States has been positive. As the Canadian chairman of the permanent joint board on defence, I know of the kinds of close working relationships our two countries have in defence matters and North American security. The United States has shown time and time again that it works well with its partners. Our trade relationship with our neighbour is a strong one.

However, we must assert ourselves in this instance. Helms-Burton creates a dangerous precedent for future trading relations. The Prime Minister of Canada is absolutely right when he says friends are friends and business is business. However, the Helms-Burton bill is no way of doing business or no way to treat your friends.

We live in a global economy where countries are interacting more now than ever. In the case of Canada and Cuba there has been an unbroken official relationship since 1945. Canada and Cuba have maintained good relations in many key areas including fisheries where Cuba has supported the Canadian view on the need for measures to end high seas overfishing of straddling and high migratory fish stocks.

Good relations have also been maintained in the areas of agriculture, natural resources development and tourism; over 120,000 Canadians visit Cuba each year. In my former role as parliamentary secretary I had the pleasure to open an additional honorary councillor office to serve Canadian tourists there. This was in addition to the services we provide through our embassy in Havana.

Last year Canada exported goods worth over $274 million to Cuba comprising mainly of agri-foods and manufactured goods. In return, Canada imported close to $321 million worth of products from Cuba, mostly sugar and nickel.

In October 1994, I had the privilege to visit Cuba in an official capacity to attend the Havana International Fair. I met with representatives of 24 different Canadian companies which were doing business with Cuba. These companies included Sherritt Incorporated of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta; Romet Limited of Mississauga, Ontario; J.D. Irving of St. John, New Brunswick; Galax Incorporated of Montreal, Quebec; United Tire and Rubber Company Limited of Rexdale, Ontario.

I saw firsthand the many advantages that resulted from Canada's relationship with Cuba. I am also in full agreement with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said that Canada shares the U.S. objectives of improving human rights standards and moving to a more representative government in Cuba.

Canada and the United States have differed significantly in the approaches we have taken toward these very important goals. Whereas the United States implements a policy of isolating Cuba, Canada encourages a policy of dialogue and engagement.

Canada has taken a number of measures to promote democratic reforms in Cuba which have created real results. Canada has been developing a technical assistance program to help modernize Cuban economic institutions. Through the partnership program the Canadian International Development Agency has provided funding to Canadian non-governmental organizations working with grassroots partners in Cuba.

A policy of openness, dialogue and interaction is an effective way of assisting Cuba to become a pluralistic society. It is obvious that the Helms-Burton legislation does nothing to advance sound policy in the short and long term.

On a more positive note, in July of this year President Clinton suspended the right of U.S. companies to file law suits under the act for six months. While this is a positive move forward, it still leaves the threat of future law suits unresolved.

Unfortunately some Canadians have already been informed that they are no longer welcome on U.S. soil. It is completely incomprehensible to me that any person, individual or company, as well as the spouse and all dependants of such a person doing business in Cuba would be excluded from the great United States.

Canadian companies need tools to defend themselves, and Bill C-54 will strengthen FEMA by giving Canadians recourse to Canadian courts to recover any amounts awarded under foreign rulings, along with their court costs in Canada and the foreign country, a measure known as a clawback.

The attorney general will be able to block any attempt by a foreign claimant to enforce a judgment under any objectionable foreign law such as Helms-Burton.

Hopefully these changes to FEMA will deter U.S. firms from taking action against Canadians. Canadian companies sued in the United States will have the right to initiate counter-suits against interests of the U.S. firms here.

In conclusion, the object of Bill C-54 and the amendments is very clear. It is to enforce the sovereignty of Canada.

The Helms-Burton Act draws third countries into a bilateral political squabble between the United States and Cuba. That is not right and sets a dangerous precedent.

Strong opposition from the European Union and Latin American countries suggests that Canada has powerful and ready made allies.

The bill and the amendments reinforce the position that Canada has every right to pursue trade and other commercial links with Central American and Caribbean countries and to strengthen its own diplomatic, trade and development co-operation relations with Cuba.

Again I thank the opposition parties and all members who saw the importance of this legislation for their co-operation in ensuring it receives speedy passage.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. I do so by asking about the logic of the American bill which inspired this response, the Helms-Burton Act.

The logic is simply this. The principle underlying it, if it is fully implemented, is that a nation may and should provide means for its citizens who have had property in a foreign state confiscated to sue those who are presently enjoying the property for compensation, even those who are not nationals of the confiscating nation, and to sanction those people by denying them entry to the United States.

I have often asked myself what would happen if we applied this new standard of international morality to other revolutions, present and past. What would happen if we applied this new high standard of international morality to American history, to that great revolution which created the United States, the American Revolution of 1776? Would we not in fact have a complete parallel?

From 1776 to 1783 the property of well over 100,000 Americans who were in disagreement with a revolution, who upheld the principles of ordered government and who upheld the principles of private property, were deprived by revolutionary courts in the American states of their civil rights and of their property. Many of them, like the Cubans after 1959, fled from the United States to Canada, to Britain and to the West Indies, being like many of those Cubans who went to the United States after the Cuban revolution, without their property.

Unlike the current situation however, in 1783, at the conclusion of the war between Great Britain and what was to become the United States, there was a treaty of peace signed in Paris in September of that year. Article V of that peace treaty had the Americans agreeing to the restitution of all the estates, rights and properties which had been confiscated. Unlike the Cubans, the Americans promised to give back confiscated territory and property but they did not do so.

If we were to apply the logic of Helms-Burton to the American revolution, we would find that the Americans have completely neglected their own principles. What they did was they ignored the treaty. The Cubans never signed a treaty promising to do anything. The Americans actually signed a treaty. The issue simply was never resolved.

The Americans went their merry way without compensating those 100,000 people who fled: 40,000 to Canada, now three million of us who are their descendants with legal, rightful and unsatisfied claims for confiscated property; another 40,000 to the United Kingdom; and 20,000 to the West Indies. Some of us are asking if what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Is it possible that we could apply the Helms-Burton principle to an earlier revolution, admittedly a little earlier than 1959? We are going back to 1776. What would happen?

In support of this bill, I would like to say that a couple of us are going to be bringing forward a private member's bill. It will be known in response to Helms-Burton as the Godfrey-Milliken bill, which will mimic in every detail the Helms-Burton bill. I have to declare here that as a loyalist descendant I have a lively interest in a certain property in Virginia. My colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, has quite a lot of territory coming to him in New York's Mohawk Valley.

The principle of our bill is going to be very simple: it is just and equitable that Canadians who are heirs to loyalists whose property was confiscated, stolen or destroyed by the American revolutionaries should be afforded the same assistance as is provided by the United States government to its citizens who have had property in Cuba confiscated by the revolutionary government there, in our bill we are going to apply exactly the same sanctions.

We are going to establish a list of claims, which I have already started to do so on my Internet site. If I may be allowed to advertise, www.johngodfrey.org is where those of loyalist descent can get in touch with us. We can register the claims and make sure that we hot link them to Senator Helms and Congressman Burton just so they can keep a running tally of how much their folly is costing them.

We will say that any person who has a reasonable claim to an interest in a confiscated property may bring an action in the Federal Court of Canada and that the court may determine whether the claim is valid. If it is valid, the court will order that the property be restored to the people who are descended from those loyalists and that compensation be paid either directly, or damages of three times the value. Sounds familiar. We may also bar from entry into Canada those persons who head up institutions which are trafficking in our property, whether that person is the head of an agency, a department of government or a municipality, a corporation, or is a shareholder or an individual, and indeed their spouse and dependants.

I admit there may be some practical difficulties with the application of the Godfrey-Milliken bill should it ever receive the approval of the House. One person who has been in touch with us informed us that 700 acres of downtown Washington belonged to her family. That would mean the chief executive officer presiding over a great deal of that real estate, the President of the United States, would be barred from entering Canada. Should he still be in place after November, his daughter and rather charming wife would be barred from entering Canada, just as the heads of Canadian

companies are currently barred from entering the United States. I admit it is tough but fair.

In conclusion, the importance of supporting this bill is to realize it can be but the first step of an ever graduated series of responses to American provocation. We have powerful cannons-and I like to think of the powerful cannons of Fort York in Toronto-behind us to give a stronger riposte should they fail to heed our logic.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it appears by the member's speech and his reference to early American history that he strongly supports property rights. If he were really serious about this, he would do something meaningful in that regard and would urge his government to support strengthening property rights in Canada, but that has not occurred. Federally the legislation in that regard needs to be changed.

Why does his government not support the strengthening of property rights in Canada, rather than this approach which makes a mockery of the Canadian Parliament?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is a point of view as to whether this approach actually makes a mockery or draws attention to the illogicality of the act. I guess that is up for debate and discussion.

I would say this about property rights. As the member may have possibly heard over the past few question periods, the government believes in the rule of law. It is the rule of law and the rule of contracts which govern relations between people and relations concerning property.

This particular bit of law we are talking about today, Bill C-54, simply reaffirms a principle of international law. That is what has been violated. The notion that one country unilaterally can impose its standard on the rest of the world without consultation, without agreement, without consensus, is unacceptable to any sovereign country. It is particularly the case of this sovereign country.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary, the member of Parliament for Don Valley West, and the former parliamentary secretary, the MP for Parkdale-High Park.

I suppose the Reform Party does not really understand exactly what the hon. member was talking about. I wanted to point out that the hon. member for Don Valley West was referring to the great business relationships that many Canadians have with Cuba.

I want to put on the record that when Canada was trying to manage its ocean resources through the United Nations, an organization called the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization was

formed. It was Cuba that joined with Canada. Cuba joined and the United States refused.

Canada had a crisis in its fishery on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, which we all know about. An organization was formed made up of Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the European Community, every nation, but the United States refused to participate.

Cuba joined when Canada wanted to meet its responsibilities for conservation and each one of these times business relationships were struck up. When Canada wanted the scientific information from the oceans, the United States of America refused. Cuba is the only country on this side of the Atlantic where we have observers aboard all of its vessels. Just imagine, in international waters. Cuba volunteered and said it would put up the money for that scientific evaluation. The list goes on.

With the United Nations today there is a requirement that Canada must form an organization of all of the nations which exploit the ocean resources off the east coast of Canada in order to manage the resource. There are meetings every year in Halifax, Nova Scotia. What happened? The United States refused to belong. Cuba said yes and sends its representatives.

That is what the hon. member is talking about. It is all of these relationships that have been built up between companies, businesses and the scientific community. All of a sudden in my riding Cubana lands at Gander airport. Everybody who has developed a relationship with Cuba-which the Reform Party does not understand anything about-is now under the gun under the Helms-Burton legislation. That is what the hon. member is talking about. Perhaps he could further refer to his opinions regarding this matter.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only praising me but he is also a mind reader. I had no idea I was saying so much. Sometimes the subconscious speaks more powerfully than one knows. It is nice to know that what one says has such resonance as to afford this kind of interpretation.

I would simply add this final thought. If we are to break the logjam with Cuba, and let us face it, it is not a regime that anyone here particularly approves of, but it is precisely the spirit of confrontation which is being perpetuated by the Helms-Burton bill which perpetuates the Cuban regime. It is a symbiotic relationship between the president of Cuba, Mr. Castro, and Senator Helms. They each need each other to perpetuate their own bogey people.

If we can intervene and bring Cuba back under the rule of law, as my colleague has pointed out has already occurred so effectively in the fisheries, then we will have done a great service for ourselves,

for Cuba, for the western hemisphere and particularly for the United States.