House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cuba.

Topics

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do hope there will be a withdrawal of that comment.

Before I ask the usual question, I would like to ask the House leader if she would consider an idea, and that would be to be more generous with allocating debate for Bill C-29, the budget implementation bill, than she was with Bill C-26, which she well knows was allocated the minimum amount of time possible. Worth noting is the House leader's predecessor committed five sitting days to the same stages of the budget implementation bill on this watch. Since she was appointed—

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am going to remind the opposition House leader that this is not the time for debate; it is the time for the usual Thursday question. I have made this point before, and I will make it for both sides. I do not expect to hear debate from either side on the Thursday question. Let us get to the Thursday question.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you review the Thursday questions in the past 20 years, which I have done, and I have done so academically, you will find that the hon. opposition House leader is perfectly within her right to have this preamble.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am not changing my ruling, and I am going to the hon. opposition House leader to ask—

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order, please. We do not want the usual Thursday question? Are we going to have order?

The hon. opposition House leader.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that she would commit to more consideration of the budget bill on her watch.

With that in mind, would the government House leader advise the House what the business will be for the remainder of this week and for the next week?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing with opposition day. Tomorrow the House will consider the report stage of Bill C-29, the second budget bill, and it will continue studying that bill Monday and Tuesday of next week.

For the remainder of the week, we plan to call the following bills: Bill S-4, the tax conventions legislation, and Bill S-3, the Indian tax amendment, provided we get these two bills from the Senate; Bill C-25, the business frameworks bill; and Bill C-30 concerning CETA. All these bills are at second reading.

It is my hope that parties will be able to negotiate on how to proceed in advancing these very important initiatives. Something I have committed to is working well with other parties, and I will continue to do that.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

This sounds like debate also. I ask the members not to take part in debate during the Thursday question.

Does the opposition House leader have a problem with that? I am not going to hear from her now. We are going to go to orders of the day.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I understand she has a problem with that, but I have heard enough of this today. We are going to orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has seven minutes remaining in debate.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back on my feet in a place where democracy can reign. We can hopefully have the debate that Cubans cannot have in their own country.

As I was saying before question period, the documentation is very real and very troubling.

On January 12, 1959, at the start of the so-called Castro revolution, the Castros had 71 men executed, without trial, in the city of Santiago de Cuba. Men were lined up in front of ditches at San Juan Hill and shot. When the massacre was over, a bulldozer covered a mass grave. From that time until the present, the reign of terror and oppression has continued unabated for decades, and continues under the dictatorial leadership of brother Raúl.

Fidel Castro was a man who held no free or fair elections and imprisoned his political opponents after phony show trials. He completely controlled all media and installed his brother Raúl as his successor. Yet the Prime Minister celebrates him as being the longest-serving president of Cuba. Longest-serving president? I guess if someone shoots or jails the opponents or a million and a half people flee because of oppression, that person could be president for quite a long time. That is not an appropriate thing for the Prime Minister of Canada to say. It is as simple as that.

The Castro record is dynastic, diabolical, and unquestionably dictatorial, which makes the Prime Minister's sweetly toned Kumbaya farewell and reverent eulogy of Castro utterly without precedent and dumbfounding. It smacks of an arrogance and an imperiousness that has left many Canadians shocked, deeply embarrassed, in many cases angered, and in some cases traumatized.

Let us go through the list one more time about what the Prime Minister had to say about Castro.

I mentioned Cuba's longest-serving president. Apparently, he was a legendary revolutionary orator. “We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader”. Really? The people who escaped Cuba were celebrating in the streets and those who were still under the oppression of brother Raúl, the obvious impression we have, were cowed into being quiet for fear of being arrested and shot if they displayed any kind of emotion of relief at the demise of Fidel. Therefore, these words from the Prime Minister come as a hard slap in the face to generations of oppressed Cubans, some of whom have found freedom in Canada and who regard the Castros with bitter and utter contempt.

Around the world, this eulogy from the Prime Minister was met with utter dismay and astonishment and, as we know, was widely mocked. One only has to go to #Trudeaueulogies to see how people took the Prime Minister's words and turned them on him to show him how disrespectful and hurtful they were. It was so ill-conceived that some, like U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Cuban descent, thought the Prime Minister's Twitter account must have been a parody and surely could not have come from the Prime Minister of Canada.

There are many dark chapters in the history of the Castro legacy, but perhaps it is fitting to remind the House of the 13 days in October 1962 when the world was brought to the brink of nuclear destruction.

Having embarrassed Soviet Russia, Castro gladly invited Russian intermediate-range nuclear missiles onto Cuban soil. He had no qualms about the Soviets mounting a first strike, which would have meant the death of untold millions. This utter madness cannot be scrubbed from the record of history that must show that Fidel Castro was a danger and menace not only to his own people, but to the world and the freedom lovers of the world. The complete disregard for liberty and democracy and the willingness to hold on to power at all costs is what we should really remember about Fidel Castro. That is the real memory we should hold in our hearts and our heads. His is a dark legacy that will live on in infamy, well beyond his death.

That is the message that Canada should be sending. That is the message that the world should be hearing from Canada, not the bromides of a Prime Minister who has a tin ear and does not reflect the values and the democratic principles of our country, Canada, that we love.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that Castro was a dictator. We all agree that Castro abused human rights. Castro was not a good man, period.

However, the same is true of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for whom the previous prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, made very similar comments to those our current Prime Minister made with respect to Castro. That seems to be the way, whether we like it or not, that heads of state or leaders of government deal with the death of another head of government.

The hon. member was there in the previous government. Did he criticize his previous prime minister in exactly the same way for exactly the same type of statement that he is now advocating to criticize our current Prime Minister for the Castro statement?

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at this moral equivalency coming from the other side. They ran a whole campaign on being better than the previous government and now they want to equate themselves with it.

The statement to which the hon. member refers was clearly written by the Department of Foreign Affairs and was issued on behalf of the prime minister. I have no doubt in my mind that the eulogy that was issued on the demise of Fidel Castro, the pen that was held on that, was not by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, nor his department. It was the Prime Minister himself. It had all the markings, all the indicators that the Prime Minister wanted to talk about the family history and how good it was to have known this man for decades, and what a good papa he was, I am sure. All of these things did not come from the Department of Global Affairs. I have no doubt that it came from the hand of the Prime Minister.

“Though controversial”, really, that is the message the Prime Minister wanted to send? He should have said he was dictator in his first remarks.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, how silly of the member. If I get his answer correctly, he is saying it was not Stephen Harper who said it, it was the department that wrote the speech for him, and that is the reason it is okay.

The real tragedy of this whole debate today is that we should be advancing what is in the best interests of the Cuban people. This is not what is happening today because the Conservative Party has chosen to politicize something that need not be politicized.

I think the member across the way, who has some experience, owes an apology. I wonder if Mr. Harper, the former prime minister, would agree that he was made to say it because of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is struggling to change the subject, but referring to me as “silly” is insulting to the electors of Parry Sound—Muskoka, so I do hope he finds time to withdraw that statement.

If he wants a real lesson on how to issue a statement on the death of Fidel Castro, he should go to the statement issued by the interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That statement talks about the people of Cuba, their trials, tribulations, sufferings, and hopes for a better time of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. That was the statement that the Prime Minister should have issued, but it had to be issued by the interim leader of the opposition.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, figures like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are products of the times they lived in.

It is safe to say there were no saints on any side during the Cold War. In fact, the United States is responsible for atrocities in Iran, propping up the Shah, installing Pinochet in Chile. There were no saints in the Cold War.

Can the member tell us why we are dredging up a relic of the Cold War when we look at the issues Canada is facing today with immigration, the tough times Canadian families are going through, our current foreign affairs? Can he tell us why we are debating a history lesson, instead of looking at the problems Canada is facing here and now?

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a history lesson, although I started with 1959 in my remarks.

This is what is happening today in Cuba, too. This change of authority which was not really a change, the authoritarianism still exists under Raúl. People are arrested. People have to try to escape in order to have dignity and human rights. There is no question in my mind that the perilous state of human rights in Cuba today is still an issue that Canadians do care about and should care about.

The hon. member can talk about history lessons, but I hope he understands that history is being repeated every day in Cuba, even as we speak.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on this very important motion that the opposition has brought forward. Normally what one would expect when a motion is that it would have been a little more thought out.

I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of the Conservatives speak on the motion, and I am somewhat disappointed. There are so many issues that the Conservatives could have chosen to present on what is in fact the last opposition day leading up to our constituency break.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The convention of this House during debates has been that when a member is finished his statement, we move to questions and answers.

Typically the first question does come from a member on the opposite side of the House, which you appropriately allowed, but then the following questions come from members of other parties so that every recognized party theoretically gets an opportunity to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, you recognized two members of the government and only one member of the opposition, which was disproportionate and, in my experience, out of keeping with the convention for questioning speakers in the House.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Carleton for raising this point. I think if he checks with the Deputy Speaker, he will find that he has already indicated to the House that we have changed that now. We are going to not tend to hear from the same side as the member who spoke and who has given a speech in debate, but to hear from other members.

Actually, after the first member from this side raised a question, I believe it was the member for Mount Royal, I looked to the other side and I had the impression the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford might get up. He did not at that moment. He did later. He meant to, I guess, but he did not get up. So I went back to another member who was not on the same side as the speaker.

The Deputy Speaker has made it very clear already that this has been a change that has been discussed amongst the presiding officers and a conclusion was arrived at, and I think that has been communicated.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

As I was indicating, we have today what is the last day of supply where opposition parties are afforded a wonderful opportunity to be able to set the agenda for the day. I know that there are many issues that Canadians have taken quite an interest in and there is no shortage of ideas. In fact, there are a good number of major policy issues where there is a difference of opinion between the Conservatives and the government in particular. We could talk about everything from the price on carbon, to the CPP, to the tax breaks that we are providing that the Conservatives oppose. There is a litany of things, so I am somewhat surprised that they would have chosen this issue.

Let me say why I am disappointed that the Conservatives chose this issue. If they wanted to talk about foreign affairs as a subject matter, it would have been better if we had been talking about the people of Cuba and from our perspective how the people of Cuba could move forward. I hope to talk more about that as I go on because there are some opportunities that are very real and tangible. We talk a great deal about the importance of trade and I would like to be able to expand upon that. That is not really what the opposition day motion is all about. Rather they have chosen to be critical of the Prime Minister because of comments he made after the passing of Mr. Castro.

The best way to illustrate this is to use a quote that I used earlier in questions and answers. It is important that we recognize that the person who said this was the former prime minister. Stephen Harper was the prime minister of Canada when we had the passing of King Abdullah. I would suggest that Conservative members of the House need to listen to this point because it is very important. We need to recognize that King Abdullah was a dictator, much like Castro was. Here is what the former prime minister said on January 22, 2015:

On behalf of all Canadians, Laureen and I offer our sincere condolences to the family of King Abdullah...and the people of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah was recognized as a strong proponent of peace in the Middle East. He also undertook a range of important economic, social, education, health, and infrastructure initiatives in his country. I had the pleasure of meeting King Abdullah in Toronto when Canada hosted the G-20 and found him to be passionate about his country, development and the global economy. We join the people of Saudi Arabia in mourning his passing.

This was an individual of history. The prime minister at the time correctly stood in his place. I disagree with the previous speaker. I believe that Mr. Harper did not just read it because the Department of Foreign Affairs told him what to read. I believe that Prime Minister Harper actually read it because he truly believed that it was what he needed to say as the prime minister of the country.

When that statement was made on January 22, to the best of my recollection and I was around, I do not recall any Liberal member of Parliament saying he should not have said that because after all, he was a dictator.

I would challenge my Conservative colleagues to point out if I am wrong. Nor can I recall any Conservative members of Parliament at that time, including Conservative members who have chosen to speak today, saying that our then prime minister was wrong. I do not remember any challenge to that comment—not one.

It does not upset me that there was no objection to what the then prime minister said. Why will I not complain about Stephen Harper? Because I believe it was appropriate for him as the prime minister to say what he said. I believe that the members of the Conservative caucus today would agree with me that the comments I read were appropriate.

Let us contrast that with the comments made by the current Prime Minister. He stated:

It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

It might go on beyond that, but I believe, as do my caucus colleagues, that nothing inappropriate was said. I also believe that the NDP are of the same opinion. I am not 100% sure of that, but I anticipate that to be the case.

If we compare the two comments, I think both prime ministers did the most appropriate thing with respect to the passing of both dictators.

I am confident and proud of the manner in which our current Prime Minister deals with human rights issues. It does not matter whether he is talking about human rights here in Canada or abroad; he has been consistent in what he has said with regard to human rights. Not only has he been consistent, but he has been persistent and very aggressive in ensuring that people understand where he stands on the issue of human rights. I know from the government policy positions that we have taken that he is a very strong feminist to the core. Therefore, Canadians will see through what the Conservatives are trying to portray here today. They are trying to take an issue and politicize it.

When I was in opposition, I would often see the government of the day using foreign affairs issues to try to make political points on many different policy files.

Today we have a government with a brilliant Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has consistently provided the same type of message, whether as the critic for Foreign Affairs in opposition or as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons.

I believe that the position we have taken as a government is what Canadians expect a government to do. We need to take our values to heart. We need to appreciate all those rights we have as Canadian citizens.

We have talked a great deal about listening to Canadians, understanding what Canadians truly believe. Indeed, I am convinced that what Canadians have today is a government that truly understands what their expectations of government are, and the types of actions we are seeing today are as a direct result of the society we represent. That is why when the Prime Minister is not here in Canada, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or, I would suggest to you, the other ministers, such as our Minister of International Trade, who is often negotiating with countries around the world, the issue of human rights is one of the issues that are not forgotten. We do not forget about those issues, because they are important to all Canadians.

If we listen to the Conservatives' style or approach to countries like Cuba, we question the degree to which they really have a global perspective. They often talk about trade. Brian Mulroney was mentioned earlier, and some of the significant work he did in protecting the people of Cuba. I suspect that today's Conservative Party might challenge Brian Mulroney and some of his actions. All we have to do is to reflect on history, and we will find that Brian Mulroney, as prime minister, did take progressive steps to ensure a solid relationship and more respect between Canada and Cuba.

At the end of the day, we have a unique relationship with that country. I have posed the question to others inside the chamber to at the very least recognize that.

Under the previous government, when we would talk about, for example, the trade agreement with Panama, the Conservatives would jump up and down and say, “This is great agreement”. Then we always heard the New Democrats say, “No, no. It's a bad agreement. We don't think it's a good agreement”. Why would the NDP always say that? It was because it was a human rights issue. Then what would the Conservative response be? They would say, “It's better for us to be engaged and we can have more of an impact on an issue of human rights if in fact we're engaged with Panama”, or with Jordan, for example, or other countries of concern where there was a human rights issue.

I would argue, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs argued earlier, that establishing those strong links gives Canada more ability to share our values and, hopefully, have the type of influence that will have a real impact on the people of those countries. That is one of the things we take into consideration when we look at trade with other countries.

Earlier today, there were comments on issues related to China. We, as a government, and in particular the Prime Minister, have been able to accomplish a great deal with China in a very short period of time. I can speak from a prairie perspective in regard to canola and the hundreds of millions of dollars for our farmers as a direct result of the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade being able to communicate with China and ultimately address an issue. Our farmers on the Prairies are benefiting as a result. It does not mean that we have given up on human rights concerns in China. No, not at all. In fact, I have stood in the House on many occasions and talked about the importance of human rights in China.

There are all sorts of issues before us. What the opposition is attempting to do today is not doing a service to the people of Cuba, and indirectly neither is it doing a service for Canadians. What they are hoping to do is to stir up emotions and agitate a situation. That is what they are really trying to do today.

The government has never shied away from raising the issue of human rights, both at home and abroad, as I indicated earlier, but the main priority for all of us should be the future of the Cuban people. To antagonize or ratchet up rhetoric now in an effort to score points will not advance the Cuban society today, or the Cuban society we are working to achieve for the Cuban people of tomorrow.

There is so much more that we could and should be doing. Instead of doing that, we have the official opposition trying to do something that neither helpful nor consistent.

I know how I will be voting on the resolution today, and I can tell the member and Canadians that I will be consistent in my approach. My challenge to my Conservative friends is this. Will they be consistent? I like to think I am an optimist and would love them to be consistent, but when I challenge them to be consistent, I want them to remember what former Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in regard to King Abdullah. If the Conservatives want to be consistent with what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party said when they were in government, then they should not vote in favour of this resolution, because King Abdullah was a dictator too.

Many Canadians have the same sort of concerns in regard to that area of the world, as they have with the area of the world Mr. Castro represented.

I see that my time has expired. I always appreciate the privilege of sharing a few thoughts and words.

Opposition Motion—CubaBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that member is no stranger to ratcheting up rhetoric in the House. I just wonder if he has actually read the opposition motion and his Prime Minister's statement.

Our motion says that the House should do the following:

...express its hope and full support for the people of Cuba, that they may now begin to see freedom and a commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, in order to ensure a brighter and better future for the Cuban people now and for generations to come.

Our motion speaks to the Cuban people and to their aspirations, now that one of the Castros is gone.

We see none of that in the Prime Minister's statement. We see effusive comments like, “He served his people for almost half a century; a legendary revolutionary orator; a tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people.”

I do not really have a question, but more of a comment to the member. What kind of damage is he doing to our nation's status in the world when such statements are heard publicly and spread around. Talk about ratcheting up the rhetoric, there is a time and a place for commemorating someone's life and a time and a place for saying it like it is, calling a spade a spade. In this case, I just do not believe that has been done.