House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cuba.
Motion M-240Routine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Since the hon. member has consulted with members of all the other parties, is there unanimous consent for this correction?
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners request that Parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.
John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions. The first asks Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity, to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
This petition is signed by 43 of my constituents.
John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament to pass Bill C-201 which would ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
These petitions are signed by 375 of my constituents.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to Parliament a petition signed by 360 people in my riding of Red Deer.
The citizens pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions that raise the question of human rights and violence and terrorism.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table today.
The first petition signed by residents of the riding of Hull-Aylmer is opposed to the inclusion of the phrase of sexual orientation in the human rights act.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from a number of people in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell supporting an initiative by the hon. member for Scarborough West, namely Bill C-205.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from the constituents of Hull-Aylmer. It has to do with the indivisibility of Canada.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is from the people of Hull-Aylmer again and it is against the inclusion of the sexual orientation phrase in the Criminal Code.
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
Mr. Speaker, the petition calls for Parliament to support Bill C-205. This bill amends the Criminal Code and Copyright Act with the objective of preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes through the sale of books, video tapes and other such means related to their crime.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, before we were interrupted for question period I was speaking about the aspects of Bill C-54 which do not guarantee the rights of Canadians and therefore the need to have a NAFTA dispute panel settle this issue once and for all.
One important aspect was that Bill C-54 does not have any provisions against the Helms-Burton bill for barring entry of senior officials of selected companies doing business in the United States.
Bill C-54 does not cover a number of questions and these are questions that need to be settled at a NAFTA panel. Does the United States have the right to seize assets of Canadian companies in the United States? Clearly not. Article 1110 states that no party may expropriate an investment of an investor of another party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to the expropriation of such an investment.
Here is another NAFTA article to take to the dispute panel. Article 1105 states that each party shall accord to investments of investors of other parties treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security. No one can tell me that Helms-Burton is not in contravention of that provision of the NAFTA.
I know that the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have been looking at whether the Cuban legislation, the Helms-Burton legislation, is in violation of U.S. international trade obligations as they relate to the World Trade Organization. A senior American State Department official said last year that the bill essentially meant that the United States was asserting its jurisdiction over transfer between two non-U.S. parties of land or assets situated outside the United States. The official argued that went well beyond the accepted international practice and would be difficult to defend under U.S. law. I make the point that it would be more difficult to defend under the World Trade Organization.
I am sure foreign affairs lawyers have advised the minister as to which dispute resolution forum is best. Let us go with it. Let us stop pussyfooting around on this issue and putting tit for tat legislation in place. Nowadays when a bully bullies us we do not have to put our tail between our legs and run. We do not have to get bloodied in the fight either. We can take that bully to international court. Let us take the Americans to court to see if we can get the Helms-Burton bill overturned.
The United States is a very important trading partner of Canada. It is not only our trading partner, it is our friend. We have about $1 billion in two-way trade per day crossing the 49th parallel. However, that does not mean the Americans can take their dispute with Cuba beyond their international borders. I make the point that the United States has every right to challenge Cuba and to put trade sanctions of a binational nature in place. However, it is simply not within the international parameters of good citizenship or international trade to take that outside its borders and apply it to countries such as Canada.
I would like to talk a bit about our trade and investment relations with Cuba. Canada maintained full relations with CUBA after the 1959 revolution which brought Castro to power. Even though the country has largely a state owned economy and cutting through paperwork is tiresome and frustrating we continue to do business there. Last year Canadian exports to Cuba amounted to $108 million. This was mostly food products, chemicals, industrial machinery and transport equipment. Our exports were up more than 130 per cent last year. Imports from Cuba amounted to $194 million. This is largely made up of sugar, raw nickel products and fertilizer.
In all, 37 Canadian companies have offices in Cuba and Canadian businessmen are involved in as many as 30 joint venture projects with Cuban partners in areas ranging from minerals, petroleum, processed food and others.
Canadian companies have arranged to build over 4,000 hotel rooms at 11 different sites in the next ten years. These are valued at over $500 million and will feature golf courses, riding stables and yacht berths. Of course, Cuba is a very important and favoured winter vacation location for about 120,000 Canadians who travel there each winter.
There are continued prospects for Canadian companies to hunt for gold, drill for fertilizer and mine for nickel. A particularly interesting development is that Canadian firms are involved in biotechnology ventures with Cuban institutes.
At the same time we are trading with Cuba, I believe it is incumbent on the Liberal government to work to help that country bring about democratic reform. It is interesting to note that although we have been trading with Cuba for over 30 years the Minister of Foreign Affairs said today that we need to encourage democratic reform. Where has been that effort in the past?
The Minister for International Trade said that we should not have an isolationist policy like the United States does with Cuba; that we need to engage it. I concur completely.
It seems strange that it takes a bill like the U.S. Helms-Burton bill to cause interest in Canada helping to bring about democratic reform in Cuba. We should be making every effort to work with Cubans very closely through our trade relationships to encourage them to work toward a more democratic country.
Trading with Cuba is good business for Canada and good business for Cuba. I also believe that keeping trade alive is the best way to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. The trade policy we are following with Cuba is the same one the United States is pursuing with China. Keep trade channels flowing and eventually the political situation will open as well. I believe we should be doing more to encourage that. In any event, we insist on our right to make our own decisions regarding trade and investments with Cuba and any other country. The United States has every right to take action against Cuba but its fight must be maintained with Cuba and not with us.
The Reform party supports Bill C-54 as a first step to repelling the Helms-Burton legislation but it is only a stop-gap measure. Let us take this to a dispute resolution under NAFTA. If we do not insist on our rights we will only encourage the Americans to keep pushing us around. It is time for Canada to test the United States' resolve. Will it be part of these international trade agreements and the rules that govern them or not?
I also believe it is time to test this Liberal government's resolve. The U.S. is testing Canada at the World Trade Organization on our policy on split run magazines. It has tested us at NAFTA. What is this government afraid of? It is time to test this government's resolve. Does it believe in the trade agreements it has signed, NAFTA and the World Trade Organization? Is it prepared to see them through? It seems to me we have worked very hard. Canada has been a leader is setting international trade agreements in place and rules to settle these disputes. It is ridiculous that we do not use them to settle matters of this nature.
Francis Leblanc Liberal Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to switch spots with my colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, so that he could speak now. I will speak after.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say it was very kind of the parliamentary secretary to accept to switch spots with me. He agreed to do so for personal reasons and I am most grateful.
Before commenting on Bill C-54, I would like to take a moment to commend the chamber of commerce of Bois-des-Filion, in my riding, for holding a conference breakfast that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and myself attended this morning. As you can see we do get around quite a bit. A great deal of energy and professionalism went into organizing this event. I want to congratulate the president, Alain Éthier, and everyone involved in the operation of the chamber of commerce, for so successfully delivering the merchandise.
Moving to the heart of the subject, that is to say Bill C-54, as presented by the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As you probably noticed from the previous speech made by a member of the Bloc Quebecois, we have no intention of stopping this bill from passing second reading.
The reason for this is quite simple: the Bloc Quebecois is against this American initiative to limit Canadian and foreign companies' freedom of trade. It is illegal and it has prompted the Bloc Quebecois to ask over and over these past few months that the federal government take more vigorous steps than public criticism in the press in reaction to such an attempt by the U.S. to extend to Canada its embargo against Cuba.
It is clear in our minds that it is essential to do everything in our power to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses trading abroad. This is why we will support Bill C-54. However, even if we do not oppose this measure, we have some reservations and we are somewhat puzzled about the efforts made so far by the government regarding the Helms-Burton issue.
It is clear to everyone that the measures taken by the U.S. are totally reprehensible. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, better known as the Helms-Burton law, is unanimously condemned as unacceptable, both in Canada and in countries such as those of the European Union, the West Indies, the Caribbean and others from Latin America and South America.
One would have expected the international community to react against this attempt by the U.S. government to subject the whole world to its foreign and trade policies.
One would have expected greater leadership on the part of Canada to fight the actions of the U.S. government, first because our country is a major economic partner for Cuba, but also because of the strong economic ties between Canada and the United States. Instead, the Canadian government opted for the soft approach-time will take care of things-preferring to publicly condemn these measures, rather than take concrete and effective action.
The action, or lack of, deemed to be the most effective by this government is an incomplete and, more importantly, tardy bill. Whereas under NAFTA, the government could have called a special panel hearing since July 29. In fact, I wonder if the government could even have used the NAFTA procedure from the very beginning, in March or April. But instead of using this option, the government preferred to wait and start reacting once the damage was done.
Since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has strongly condemned this American legislative measure with its extraterritorial effects, and it has urged the Liberal government to take strong, quick and decisive action. However, the government has not met our expectations or answered our questions, far from it. It has been
slow in taking action and the solutions proposed today are far from being complete.
Let me briefly remind the House of the history and the basis of the Helms-Burton law. Following Fidel Castro's takeover in Cuba in 1959, the United States decided, in 1963, to impose an economic embargo against that country. From then on, it became illegal for American companies to do business with Cuba. Over the years, American economic sanctions against Cuba multiplied, until recently the American government passed a law preventing foreign companies from trading freely with Cuba, thus flouting international law and the sovereignty of states.
In 1995, the American senate tabled a bill to strengthen the embargo's sanctions. However, in 1995, the presidential campaign had not begun, and agreement on the bill was far from unanimous. At that time, even the American president opposed it because, in his view, certain measures went too far, such as the ban on entering American territory, and the right to prosecute.
The situation changed when two civilian aircraft belonging to Cuban exiles were shot down over the Straits of Florida. Following this unfortunate incident, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act was passed by the American congress and signed by President Clinton on March 12, 1996. The act strengthened the embargo and imposed reprisals against all companies that do not respect the American embargo against Cuba, and that are using expropriated American property or interests, and this is after Fidel Castro's victory over thirty years ago, should anyone have forgotten.
There are two titles worthy of note. First, title III entitled Protection of property rights of United States nationals . This title allows an American company to prosecute foreign companies profiting from investments expropriated by the Castro regime. The act permits the assets of such companies on American soil to be seized. Although this title was suspended by the American president on August 1 for a period of six months, before it could take effect, the fact remains that if the suspension is not renewed, this title could take effect in February 1997.
It is important to remember that there is also title IV, which has been in effect since August 1. This title is entitled Exclusion of certain aliens , and makes it possible to bar the entry into the United States of company directors who have bought or invested in expropriated American properties and their families.
Until now, directors of the Canadian company Sherritt International Corporation and members of their families have been barred from entering the United States. It should be noted that the President of the United States has the power to suspend titles III and IV, but has used his discretionary power only for the most controversial measure, which is title III concerning the right to prosecute.
The Bloc Quebecois has always believed that a strong reaction to the Helms-Burton law was called for, in order to send a clear and unambiguous message to the U.S. government that its behaviour is unacceptable and that we will not give in to its imperialism.
Now, a few words about the extraterritorial legislation on Iran and Libya. Unfortunately, the Liberal government was not very vociferous in its opposition to the U.S. government's repeating the same offence by passing another piece of legislation with extraterritorial impact, this time blocking trade with Iran and Libya. On July 23, 1996, the United States Congress unanimously passed the 1996 legislation on sanctions against Iran and Libya. Its purpose is to discourage companies from making major oil and gas investments in Iran and Libya. The Canadian government ought to be opposed to this in principle, not its technical agreements but the principle.
The Helms-Burton and 1996 laws on sanctions against Iran and Libya have a direct impact on the spirit of international trade agreements. These acts violate the principle of the sovereignty of states and their territories, recognized by international law.
Although I am taking care not to oppose the federal government's attempt to counteract the effects of the Helms-Burton legislation, I feel that Bill C-54 can be summarized succinctly: too little, too late. Too late, because the Helms-Burton law has been in effect since March, and the government has waited until now to respond to the U.S. threat.
Too little, also, because its effect is incomplete. First of all, it addresses only title III, with respect to legal proceedings. C-54 does nothing about title IV, which means that at the present time the Canadian government is doing nothing about the only provision in the legislation which affects Canadian citizens, namely blocking their entry into the U.S. While it has had the possibility since July 29, 1996, of calling a special committee under NAFTA, it has refused, for obscure reasons. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will let us in on those reasons shortly.
Bill C-54, which we have before us today, modifies an existing act, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. Let us touch briefly on that act. It came into effect 11 years ago, in 1985. It was enacted by the Mulroney government to respond to possible legal actions by foreign governments or tribunals in order to interfere in Canadian jurisdictions.
It was amended twice: in 1990 and in 1992. In 1992, the act was amended in response to the US Torricelli law, which was extraterritorial in nature dealing with trade with Cuba.
This act contains two parts, one dealing with legal actions and execution of judgments, the other one requiring compliance with Canadian laws over harmful foreign legislation and setting fines.
It is very important to note that so far the current legislation has never been applied. And yet, since 1992, it has required Canadian corporations, including subsidiaries of US companies, to comply with Canadian laws and, therefore, ignore the US embargo on Cuba. On June 18, 1996, during Question Period, I put a question to the Minister for International Trade regarding American Express. I asked him then why he had not fined this corporation, since the legislation on foreign extraterritorial measures gave him the authority to prosecute Canadian companies and subsidiaries of foreign companies which comply with foreign legislation in contravention of Canadian law.
American Express, in the United States, had given unequivocal instructions to its foreign offices, including in Canada, to honour the American embargo on Cuba. Even though officials at the Department of International Trade have been aware of the situation for two years, the international trade minister told us in June he knew nothing about it. And, as of last June, the government had taken no action against American Express.
And what has happened since? The minister had three months to take action under the former act and he did nothing. Therefore, one wonders if the amendments proposed in Bill C-54 will serve any purpose. Is this yet another smoke screen?
Since the act has never been used, we have every reason to believe that the legislation amended by Bill C-54 will also remain unused. The minister himself said this morning that the government hopes this legislation will remain unused. Moreover, given that the Helms-Burton law could become a dead letter after the American election, in November, Bill C-54 is definitely a case of too little, too late.
In reply to my question on June 18, the Minister for International Trade said that the intent of the amendments he wanted to make to the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act was to neutralize the effects of the Helms-Burton law, adding that this was a last resort measure.
The minister also said, like he did this morning, that he hoped Canada would never have to resort to this measure. The Canadian government gave itself time to see what it would do, before showing the true colours of its bill.
The federal government repeatedly claimed that Canada strongly and vehemently opposed the Helms-Burton law, but it did not take any concrete measure. The Liberal government strongly condemned the illegal actions of the United States, but when the time came to counteract the American government's measures, it never rose to the occasion. The government was just buying time.
We will support Bill C-54 even though we have reservations about its usefulness. We will do so only because we want to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses. However, we want to put it on the record that we are not pleased by the Canadian government's lack of effective action.
By not refusing to use the process provided under NAFTA to have the American law invalidated, this government is shamelessly hurting dozens of Quebec and Canadian companies doing business with Cuba. Canadians and Quebecers expect more strength on the part of their government.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members for listening to my comments.
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures ActGovernment Orders
Cape Breton Highlands—Canso Nova Scotia
Liberal
Francis Leblanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members of the official opposition and the hon. member of the Reform Party who spoke in support of Bill C-54 today. This bill to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act is part of the continuity of Canada's firm, active and measured campaign worldwide and in the U.S. to convince the American administration and the American Congress to withdraw the Helms-Burton law and to change the course of action they have taken with this legislation.
Canada has lead this campaign in every international forum on this issue, at the World Trade Organization, the European Union, the Organization of American States and many other multinational organizations, where we have taken the lead in opposing this law.
The bill we are introducing today is a further element in our campaign to convince the U.S. to reconsider and withdraw their law, which affects their trade relations with many other countries.
It is indeed regrettable that these amendments are necessary. Our trade and political relations with the United States on the whole are very strong, but we cannot ignore the U.S. Helms-Burton act. It clearly interferes with business between Canadian companies and Cuba.
Basic principles of international law are at stake here. In effect the U.S. is unilaterally extending its reach into business between other countries. We cannot accept that quietly. We have to respond. We must give Canadian companies the means to protect themselves. That of course is what we are doing in this legislation.
I want to underline that this is responsive legislation. We are responding to a U.S. initiative that affects Canadians. We did not choose to start this quarrel.
Someone might say that a clash was inevitable because Canada and other countries have followed a different path than the United States in dealing with Cuba. My answer is that disagreement with our Cuba policy does not justify Helms-Burton. There are other ways under international law for the U.S. to resolve its dispute with Cuba.
Helms-Burton is indeed a disturbing development in U.S. foreign policy. I am aware that the U.S. administration had strong reservations about Helms-Burton before the shooting down of a U.S. civilian aircraft by Cuban planes in February.
I am also aware that in July President Clinton did suspend the right of U.S. companies to sue foreign firms under the claims provision of Helms-Burton for six months. I note that the President's special envoy, Stuart Eizenstat, said in Ottawa that the U.S. is in no way telling Canadians to stop trade and investment with Cuba.
But Helms-Burton remains a threat to Canadian businesses dealing with Cuba. The legislation is on the books. It does give President Clinton or his successors the power to permit filing of claims by U.S. companies against Canadian or other foreign firms. The U.S. has already informed some Canadians that they will be denied entry to the U.S. because of this law.
It is also unfortunate that Helms-Burton is not an isolated case. The President has signed into law the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which again thrusts the United States into the trading relationships of other countries. The details of the two laws are different but the principle is the same.
Are these signs of a change in direction in U.S. foreign policy? Do they mean that the U.S. is ready to put aside the normal rules of international trade to achieve its own ends? I would like to answer no. I would like to say that the long U.S. tradition in support of open trade and internationally accepted rules is as strong as ever but I am not so sure.
There are some good signs. President Clinton has publicly endorsed the World Trade Organization and the U.S. is using the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to resolve some trade disputes. It has participated actively in a number of international negotiations in such areas as telecommunications and financial services, and it continues to press for more open trade around the world.
On the other hand, the U.S. has had a tendency to throw down the gauntlet in recent international trade negotiations. In some cases it has left the impression that it will not settle for less than the whole ball of wax. As well, the momentum of the free trade clause seems to have slowed, at least in the U.S. Congress. An example is last year's decision to refuse fast track authority to the president to negotiate admission of Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I do not want to overstate this. The U.S. is one of the most open and generous countries in the world. More than 95 per cent of Canada-U.S. trade flows freely without any impediment. The U.S. continues to show in the G-7 and other international meetings that it wants to work jointly with its partners on economic and political issues. I am convinced that remains the wellspring of U.S. policy.
But we cannot allow measures such as Helms-Burton to pass by without resisting. It is only by being firm and by working co-operatively with other countries that we can ensure Helms-Burton does not become a pattern. That has been a key element of our policy throughout the Helms-Burton debate.
On the domestic side, we are introducing these FEMA amendments as our response to what is clearly an infringement of Canadian sovereignty. The main purpose of these amendments of course is to give Canadian companies the tools to defend themselves if U.S. courts rule in favour of American claimants who sue them under the Helms-Burton act.
Under the FEMA changes, Canadian firms can attempt to recoup these damages by suing the American companies in Canadian courts. There are other changes which give the attorney general the authority to block application of unreasonable U.S. laws in Canadian courts. I hope these changes will help deter American firms from acting against Canadian companies under Helms-Burton. At least it will give them something to think about.
We are not limiting our action to the domestic front. Canada has played a leadership role in developing a co-ordinated international response since the President signed the Helms-Burton act into law. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade and the Secretary of State for Latin America have raised the issue with colleagues in other countries and in international organizations. It has been discussed with visiting leaders from other countries. This co-ordinated international action is having some effect.
Mexico is introducing similar legislation to ours. The European Union is considering action through the World Trade Organization. The Organization for American States has asked the Inter-American Juridical Committee to investigate whether Helms-Burton is consistent with international law. These actions taken together may contain the damage of Helms-Burton. Beyond this my hope is that this experience will have an impact on legislators in Washington and that this will discourage such extraterritorial measures in the future.
We cannot however rely on hopes. We must take concrete steps to protect our interests. That is the purpose of these FEMA amendments and that is why I support them.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-54 which expands the FEMA legislation to give Canada the capacity to counter the Helms-Burton bill. I think we would all agree that the Helms-Burton bill is heavy handed, unilateral, coercive and indiscriminate. Helms-Burton breaks international law and it contravenes NAFTA.
As the Reform Party foreign affairs critic I can state without reservation that our party's quarrel is not with the United States which is our friend, trading partner and ally, but it is only with the Helms-Burton bill itself. In fact, given Canada's tremendous relationship with the United States, it was surprising to all of us that Canada should be targeted as it was.
I would encourage Canadians however to consider this more of a nuisance caused by the coming presidential election than any true reflection on Canada-U.S. relations. I think all of us and previous speakers have reviewed the history behind this: the killing of civilians, certainly the number of voters of Cuban descent that exist in Florida, and of course the Helms-Burton lobby that has gone on for a number of years in the U.S. It is also hopeful that after the election in the U.S. this annoyance will disappear.
Nonetheless, as parliamentarians we cannot ignore the fact that Helms-Burton exists and remains a threat to Canadian sovereignty and trade. That is why we must take action. In the opinion of the Reform Party, the government should have already filed the grievances with the NAFTA dispute panel. Therefore I cannot say that we totally agree with the approach the government is using. However, we will be supporting Bill C-54 even though it seems to be a bit of a tit for tat and could even be questioned legally.
My colleague from Peace River, who is Reform's trade critic, has already covered most of the specific elements of Bill C-54 and their objectives. I agree with the analysis of my colleague and instead of repeating the same points I would like to talk briefly about promoting democracy in Cuba which I believe is part of this and probably, had this been approached more strongly, the U.S. politicians might not have gone along with the Helms-Burton bill.
One thing I would like to make clear is that Reform's support for Bill C-54 and our vocal opposition of Helms-Burton in no way signals approval of or support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In fact, Reform shares the view that Cuba would be much better off as a democracy.
We have to remember that Cuba is the last country in our hemisphere to reject democracy. Therefore, we should really channel more of our foreign policy efforts toward promoting Cuban democracy. Not only would we be helping the people of Cuba, but such a constructive approach would show our neighbours south of the border that our goals are the same even if our methods are different from the ones they choose to use.
I think again, as the foreign affairs department has indicated, that being involved is the best approach to having influence. Whether it be China or Cuba, I believe that to be true.
I think as well however, when we hear people talking about Cuba, that we must remember the number of human rights abuses and the number of problems that do exist in Cuba. We cannot be selective about what we say about one country as opposed to another, which often is the case.
If Canada becomes a leader in the fight for democracy in Cuba, I am very confident that Helms-Burton will cease to be a problem. I really believe that it is a rather extreme bill and it is put forward because of the extreme action that was taken by Cuba in the shooting down of the planes as was mentioned.
Toward this end, Canada should assert itself in meetings of the Organization of American States and make sure that promoting democracy, institutional reform and human rights reforms in Cuba is the priority for the OAS. Let us face it, once Cuba becomes a democratic country it could be a very positive force within the Caribbean. I feel that Cuba has a great deal of potential, but in order to achieve this potential and direct it toward positive goals, the people of Cuba have to become their own political masters. Political change in Cuba will only spur economic revitalization.
While Canadian-Cuban trade has continued despite the American embargo, I think the business opportunities in a free Cuba would far outstrip those which exist today. For example, the lifting of the U.S. embargo alone would allow for a rapid economic expansion in Cuba. As a country emerging from communist rule, Cuba will not only need Canadian consumer products and technology but our service sector will also prosper. The Canadian advantage in areas like banking, insurance, wireless communication and high technology will stand us in good stead if Cuba can modernize its economy.
We need a vision of this sort of thing and I believe that this government does not have that vision going into the 21st century. I believe that causes all of us a great deal of concern with the status quo type of positions we seem to take. We basically feel we can solve our job problems simply by infrastructure programs. We do not really look to the tremendous number of jobs that would exist if we were promoting democracy and ourselves around the world.
We should note as well that Cuba is beside Haiti, the other country in our hemisphere with the greatest social, political and economic problems. I cannot help but think that a prosperous, stable and democratic Cuba would help Haiti's long term development. Proximity makes Haiti and Cuba ideal trading partners. I would hope that a democratic Cuba would also be able to shoulder some of the load that Canada has been forced to bear with respect to assisting Haiti these last several years.
All of these possibilities however require a political change in Cuba. Without democracy, Cuba will remain an international outcast and it will continue to earn the wrath of the Americans. We must always remember that Cuba is only 90 miles away from the U.S. border. Because of that proximity, the threat is obvious to all Americans.
In conclusion, I do recognize the need for Bill C-54 and we will be voting for it. I do hope members of this House will agree with me that Canada should do more than just fight against the Helms-Burton bill. We should also fight against dictatorship and fight for building a democratic future for the people of Cuba.
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I was about to make an aside that my friends in the Reform Party are in good form as usual. It is always good to have their support for something like this, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, which I am pleased to support. I congratulate both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade on this particular initiative. It is an important one and one I can gladly give my support to.
I think all of us were-chagrined is the nice word-disgusted by the Helms-Burton initiative of some months ago. Apart from the fact that it flies in the face of everything we understand about the rule of law, about the territorial integrity of sovereign nations, it also says volumes about the arrogance of the people who would advance that kind of legislation.
I had the occasion fairly recently to be outside the country in Asia. There they cannot often tell the difference between an American and a Canadian, until they are told. They are anxious to know the difference. It is amazing and heart warming the reception one gets once they learn one is a Canadian and not an American.
I am not on an American bashing initiative today. I just wanted to make that observation because I could make a long speech on how much I admire the aspects of the American system. I did my graduate work at Boston University many years ago and I have many good friends in the United States.
At the same time I think all of us who have travelled internationally first of all are amused but second are puzzled that certain Americans so readily cultivate or lend credence to this aura of arrogance and that they know best. There are two sets of rules, one for the Americans and one for everybody else.
The bill before us is intended to strengthen the act to allow Canada to respond to attempts by the United States to infringe on our sovereignty. It is an objective which I believe will find support on all sides of the House. The amended bill will allow Canadian companies to oppose the financial claims aspect of Helms-Burton. It will allow Canadians to recover in Canadian courts any amounts awarded in Helms-Burton actions in United States courts plus any costs associated with both the Canadian and U.S. court actions.
As my friend the Minister for International Trade was saying earlier today in his speech in this Chamber, we as Canadians share the objectives of the American government in so far as Cuba is concerned. Yes, we want to see democracy there. Yes, we want to see more respect for human rights there. So do the Americans. What we disagree on is the way to get there. The Americans have been trying the old isolation policy for at least 170 years, going back to the early 1820s, without much of a track record. It has not worked very well. It certainly has not worked in Cuba. One only has to look at the parade of American leaders who have come and gone since this policy was implemented. Mr. Castro still remains.
One only has to look at the hypocrisy of the Americans in dealing with Cuba versus how they deal with other countries. Surely the Americans have a few axes to grind with other countries in the world. The U.S. has certainly made it known that it has a very big human rights axe to grind with China. However, we do not see the Helms-Burton initiative being taken, being advanced or being suggested in relation to that country.
I have often felt that the American stance toward Cuba was more motivated by spite and by pride than by common sense. If it had been motivated by common sense I submit the policy would have been different. It would have been more effective in its results than it has been to date. The results show no promise of change. There is no indication that the American approach to Cuba is going to bring any more results than it has over the last 30 years.
Even that comment is beside the point. It is not our role as Canadian parliamentarians, as Canadian citizens or as the Canadian government to tell the Americans what to do. We have not spent much time doing that. My comment a minute ago was not intended in that direction. I have no allusions they would listen anyway, but the fact is we should not be telling them what to do. That is the point. While we do not attempt to tell them, they think it is quite all right for them to tell us. They think it is all right for them to implement legislation which would seek to have impact beyond their borders. They can make whatever laws they see fit to regulate activities in their country and their citizens. That is what government is all about, what a good part of it is all about.
The moment they step over the line, the moment they say "Canada, we respect your sovereignty only as long as you do things we like", that is the day we have to stand up and be counted. I applaud the ministers responsible and the administration for this amendment to the act which would give some teeth to our efforts to
respond to the Helms-Burton initiative and other initiatives should they come along.
Let us have a quick look at what the minister and especially the attorney general will be able to do once this amendment becomes law, as I certainly hope it will. The attorney general will be able to issue so-called blocking orders declaring that judgments handed down under certain foreign laws will not be enforced or recognized in Canada if the attorney general believes the legislation violates international law.
Second, once the amendment to the act is implemented, the attorney general will be able to allow Canadians to recover in Canadian courts amounts awarded under these foreign rulings, plus any costs associated with these court cases in Canada and the foreign country; a so-called clawback.
Third, the attorney general will be able to issue and amend in the future with the agreement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs a schedule listing items of objectionable foreign legislation that in the opinion of the attorney general violate international law.
It is a good piece of legislation and I am delighted to support it.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-54, which is meant to offset the extraterritorial effects of the Helms-Burton legislation on Canada and Quebec. In fact, we support the action by the Canadian government to protect businesses and corporations in Canada and Quebec, against retaliatory measures taken by foreign countries.
Unfortunately, we see that our neighbours the United States resort more and more often to threats of retaliation against businesses in third countries, even against friends like Canada, in order to isolate countries they have differences with.
The present case involves a political dispute between Cuba and the United States, which is deteriorating into a trade war with extraterritorial consequences. Furthermore, the Helms-Burton legislation could jeopardize the efforts of many countries, including the United States, to further free trade. Finally, we cannot tolerate any country dictating the foreign policy of another.
Bill C-54 is certainly the first step in a reply to the American legislation, but the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal government still have a lot to do in this matter.
Let us see what factors brought about Bill C-54 so that we really understand its scope, utility and shortcomings. The President of the United States signed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, commonly called the Helms-Burton legislation, into law in March 1996.
This law is aimed at stopping foreign businesses that own or use American nationals' properties or interests that were expropriated by Cuba from doing business in that country, on pain of retaliation by the United States. Canada, as well as Quebec, and many countries and organizations such as the OECD, the European Union and the Organization of American States, have already positively opposed to this law, which imposes American jurisdiction outside U.S. territory on non-American businesses and people.
The Helms-Burton law contravenes the principles of international law and the sovereignty of countries on their own territory. The Bloc Quebecois believes the American government would vehemently oppose any form of external interference in the conduct of its affairs. The same applies to Canada. It is therefore important to counter the Helms-Burton law so that the principles established by trade practice relating to disputes between states be respected.
Through Bill C-54, the Liberal government proposes to amend the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act of 1985 to counter the effects the Helms-Burton law would have in Canada and in Quebec. But we must ask ourselves if this response will be sufficient. Will Canadians and Quebecers doing business with Cuba be able to find in it the means to protect themselves against potential American legal action?
To answer this question, let me comment on the titles of the American law that are prejudicial to businesses in Canada and in Quebec, and the measures proposed in Bill C-54 to counter them.
There are two titles in particular in the Helms-Burton law which affect Canadian and Quebec interests: titles III and IV. Title III allows American citizens whose property was expropriated during the Cuban revolution to bring legal action against anyone, American or not, who has invested in the properties they used to own in Cuba. This title was to come into effect on November 1, but the U.S. president has decided to suspend its application until February 1997. Nearly 6,000 lawsuits in this connection are already pending, a good number of them, no doubt, involving Canadian or Quebec companies.
As for Title IV, which came into effect this past August 1, it blocks entry into the U.S. of any person who has invested in expropriated American properties in Cuba. In Canada, the directors of a Toronto firm, as well as their family members, have already been refused entry into the U.S. under this section.
We feel that the problem lies in the fact that the amendments to the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act proposed in Bill C-54 are not complete and are a bit late in coming.
I have just referred to the fact that two specific titles of the Helms-Burton law threatened Canadian and Quebec interests: titles III and IV. Although Bill C-54 addresses the effects of title III, implementation of which is suspended until after the U.S. presidential elections, it proposes nothing to help the cause of Canadians and Quebecers affected by title IV, which is the one that has already caused problems to some Canadians.
The Bloc Quebecois wonders why the Canadian government refrained from taking any action to deal with the ban on entry and residence in the United States, which, as you know, penalizes the executives and shareholders of these companies as well as their spouses and minor children. Why did the government fail to react to this section of the Helms-Burton law?
We all condemn the U.S. Helms-Burton law and deplore the unfortunate impact it may have on the good relations we have with our U.S. neighbours.
We must not forget, however, that this law was not passed yesterday, and that is the problem. It has been one year and seven months since the red flag went up, so the government knows what will happen if it does not act promptly.
In February and in the fall of 1995, the Helms-Burton bill was introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In March 1996 the Prime Minister finally expressed his opposition to this legislation, and it took six more months for him to transform his verbal opposition into a bill.
We are familiar with the delay involved in the NAFTA process for dispute settlement. However, today it is clear there is no excuse for waiting any longer. That being said, the U.S. election should not prevent the government from taking action. That is why we urge the Minister for International Trade to ask for a special panel to be charged with settling this dispute under the auspices of NAFTA. If it refuses to take action to have the U.S. law invalidated under the auspices of NAFTA, the Liberal government will continue to expose Canadians and Quebecers to the adverse effects of the Helms-Burton law, especially title IV.
After expressing its opposition verbally during the past six months, it is perhaps time for the Liberal government to starts some concrete action towards the invalidating the U.S. law.
Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, the ten clauses making up Bill C-54 have been pretty thoroughly covered. I will therefore take the opportunity provided by this bill to reflect on some of the important questions facing the international community.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a wind of liberalization and globalization of trade has swept the planet. And I imagine that, for the world's greatest economic power, the United States, it must be extremely frustrating to see that Cuba, a tiny country in Latin America, is standing in the way of this free trade movement.
Cuba is to the United States as David was to Goliath. For over 30 years, the Americans have tried by all the means at their disposal to bring down the Castro regime, but success has so far eluded them.
They undoubtedly thought that the liberalization of trade sweeping the planet would also sweep away the dictatorship in Cuba. However, I think they are reading it the wrong way. Instead of applying an even tighter embargo against Cuba, if they had taken the opposite approach a number of years ago, the Cubans themselves would probably have taken steps to throw off this dictatorship.
But the reaction of the Cuban people now that they are feeling oppressed by the United States is to stand behind their leader, and this is why the regime continues on, despite everything. It could have been completely different, of course. The whole Cuba-U.S. matter could have been different.
I remember a television program reviewing some of the main failed appointments in the history of mankind. What happened between Cuba and the U.S. was one of these failed appointments. The host of the show pointed out that, months if not weeks before President Kennedy's assassination, a French reporter had been hired to act as an intermediary between Fidel Castro and President Kennedy in organizing what would no doubt have been a historical meeting, which would probably have led to the resolution of this huge conflict between the two countries.
However, we know what happened in November 1963. President Kennedy was killed and the program host reminded us that Fidel Castro was crushed by this news, because he hoped the confrontation with the United States was coming to an end.
Of course, there is a direct link between the Helms-Burton legislation and the election, we must not delude ourselves about that. Just as we can almost be sure that there is a link between the United States' recent intervention in Iraq and the upcoming American elections, and that is unfortunate.
Obviously, this legislation is, or at least was, to strengthen the embargo around Cuba, in order to attract the votes of Spanish Americans.
Helms-Burton is an anachronistic measure since it goes against the tendency toward freer trade that has emerged over the last few years. Think about the length of the negotiations known as the Uruguay Round which led, in 1993, to the creation of the WTO. They lasted seven years. They were supposed to give us freer trade. Think about the NAFTA negotiations under the leadership of, if I am not mistaken, the United States. And here we are today faced with a piece of legislation that goes completely against this strong tendency toward freer trade.
Helms-Burton is an example of the inability of the United States to accept the fact that smaller countries also have rights and privileges. After the free trade agreement was finalized, we had the case of Norsk Hydro, a Quebec company, when the United States tried in every way it could to counter the effects of free trade and was finally successful.
We are all familiar with the softwood lumber story. The agreement was signed to promote free trade between Mexico, Canada and the United States and subsequently, the United States tried in every possible way, either directly or indirectly, to revise the content of the agreement. Finally, Canada was obliged to sign a schedule that would limit exports of softwood lumber to the United States for five years.
I will finish with a fable by La Fontaine. If we look at the U.S. attitude to trade, it is just like the fable of the wolf and the lamb. A little lamb was drinking water in a river, and the wolf was drinking up river. The wolf accused the little lamb of making the water murky, and the lamb answered: How could I, since I am down river? The wolf answered: If you did not do it today, you did six months ago. The lamb answered: I had not been not born six months ago. The wolf added: If you did not do it six months ago, it must have been your parents. The fable ends with the wolf eating the lamb. I think this is a little like the attitude of the Americans to measures they themselves created. They are just sabotaging the agreements they signed of their own free will.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the hon. member Okanagan-Shuswap will be seeking the floor to make a speech.
I think you would find unanimous consent that the House not see the clock at 1.30 p.m. to permit the member to make his remarks, within the 20-minute rule that usually applies, and that after that the House proceed with the question prior to going to private members' hour.
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to permit the member to speak for 20 minutes?