Debates of Dec. 1st, 2016

Opposition Motion — Cuba

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could the member repeat one sentence?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It appears the hon. parliamentary secretary did not have the translation available. We will go back to the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. We will add a little bit of extra time to make this happen.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the issue with the parliamentary secretary was not an issue of translation. Now, if she was not listening to the question, we need to continue with the debate. I think the NDP member made her point very well. It is up to the parliamentary secretary to answer, and then to continue with questions and comments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

The chair has some discretion in these matters, and that is the way we are going to do it.

We will go to the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. She will repeat her question, and then we will ask the parliamentary secretary to respond.

In the spirit of debate and exchange, in this part of the debate, it is important to do this. These things do happen from time to time to members on both sides of the House.

We will go to the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the parliamentary secretary will listen to my question and those asked by other members of the House.

As I was saying, the Conservatives cut Canada's funding to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, even though it is a vital organization that does a great job of defending human rights in all of the Americas, including Cuba. A few months ago, the organization issued an urgent call to Canada for help but never received it.

The Liberals and the Conservatives talk a lot about human rights. Talking is all well and good, but when will the government provide real support to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for this patience. I apologize. I was looking through notes, and it was my fault. I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the rigour you bring to the House.

With regard to our government's role, of course, we are deeply committed to human rights. We have established the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. I mentioned the funding that the Prime Minister announced when he was there with regard to a range of areas on which we will be working closely with Cuba.

I thank the member opposite for pointing out that the previous government made cuts rather than contribute constructively to the well-being of the Cuban people.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her speech, although I do have to say that some aspects of it are very hard to take, on the substance of it.

In response to the question from my friend for Calgary Shepard, the member continued to insist that there is some kind of elongated transition of leadership. She talks about the Prime Minister having these round tables on climate change, youth engagement, and inclusion. I think there is just a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a communist society is, and the fact that no political activity outside of the Communist Party is permitted in Cuba.

The Prime Minister compliments in glowing terms the Castro regime when he participates in these Potemkin exercises, which everybody should know cannot involve real conversations, because those civil society activists always have the gun pointed at them if they say the wrong thing in the presence of a foreign leader. This just does not seem to be appreciated at a basic level by the parliamentary secretary and the government.

Could I ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify her appreciation of the facts on the ground with respect to the complete lack of political freedom or freedom of speech? Could I ask her to at least clarify her appreciation of that fact and condemn these gross violations of human rights in stronger terms than we have heard until now?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada will not give up. We will not abandon the people of Cuba. We will not stand here and make it more difficult for our two countries to work together in mutual support of human rights, inclusion, and freedom of speech.

Precisely the constraints mentioned by the members across the aisle are the reasons we are there. The Prime Minister does not miss any opportunity to raise human rights, as he did on his most recent visit.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to speak about this important motion. It is a great opportunity for us to demonstrate the contrast between us and the Conservative Party. This is an ongoing philosophical conversation in which the Conservatives seem to want to satisfy their own emotional frustration without really taking into account what it is that Canada can do to help people who really need our help.

Let me first start by saying that, when someone dies, we say nice things. It is not something that was unusual for the previous government. It is really not that hard to look through its record and see all kinds of statements that the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, made when former heads of state who were controversial passed away, statements in which he offered his condolences and said pleasant things about them.

This is what Canadians expect their government to do. In fact, this is what Canadians expect us, among ourselves, to do when someone dies—at least talk about positive things and look toward the future. That is precisely what the Prime Minister has done.

To prove that point, as colleagues from the Conservative Party and the parliamentary secretary have already mentioned, when the Prime Minister was in Cuba a few weeks ago, he did not miss the opportunity to speak directly with the Cuban people about human rights, about inclusion, about fundamental rights of democracy and of self-determination.

Our government, our Prime Minister, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and our members of Parliament, always champion these causes wherever we are, at home or abroad. This is a fundamental disagreement between us and the Conservative Party. We believe, as the government, that we have a role and that Canadians expect Canada to play a constructive role on the world stage. We need to be champions for human rights. We need to carry the voice of the voiceless around the world. We need to make sure that their rights are protected. We need to put pressure on governments around the world to ensure that their people are respected and heard and that they live in dignity.

One of the ways of doing that is by setting an example here at home. I do not want to miss that point. It is really important if we want to set an example, if we want to send a message to the rest of the world that we here in Canada, first, acknowledge our mistakes of the past and, frankly, our current challenges and set a road map to deal with these issues, whether it is dealing with how to reconcile with our indigenous people, or how to set the law straight on transgender rights, or protecting women's right to choose how to dress. These are fundamental rights that, frankly, the members of the Conservative Party are still struggling with. They are still unable to figure out where they stand on these issues. In fact, I know some members of the Conservative Party oppose these rights. Currently, there is a leadership candidate of the Conservative Party who is going around promoting xenophobia. That is her way of thinking of winning the leadership of the Conservative Party.

If we really want to send a message to the rest of the world that we are champions of human rights, we need to do that at home. I encourage my hon. colleagues to deal with these issues, to deal with these skeletons in their closets, to fix their problems, to make sure that their next leader believes in human rights here at home. That is how they can be effective when they champion human rights abroad.

Speaking of leadership candidates for the Conservative Party, I want to quote another leadership candidate, the member for Milton. This is what she said last weekend:

Doesn't Justin Trudeau travel around the world, talking about how wonderful he is as a feminist, how wonderful he is for the LGBTQ community, how wonderful [that] he will speak up for everybody? I mean he sets the bar....

This is precisely what that leadership candidate said on television last weekend. She is confirming what we have been saying ever since we took power. It is what we are saying today. Our Prime Minister does not shy away from championing human rights wherever he is.

We have also established the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. We have tripled the budget of the previous office that was set up by the Conservative Party, and we gave mandated it to be an international voice for human rights, to ensure that people's rights around the world have a venue where they are represented, and to ensure that our government speaks up for those who do not have a voice around the world. We have also demanded that our heads of missions around the world ensure that human rights are a fundamental element of every policy that they advocate, and every time they speak with foreign governments to ensure that human rights are a fundamental element of their conversation.

The list of what we have done is long, and I want to go through some of it. We are supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with significant new funding. Canada has been elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. We have tabled new legislation to guarantee and protect the legal rights of transgendered people across Canada. We have announced our intention to adhere to the optional protocol to the United Nations convention against torture.

One other important action that we have done is this. Here in Canada, we do not believe in the death penalty, but there is something that the previous government did that puzzles me to this day. It stopped a policy where Canada would ask for clemency for Canadian citizens who are sentenced to death. I do not understand why the previous government would stop that policy. The moment we took office, we reinstated that policy. Now Canada will always ask for clemency for Canadian citizens if they are on death row, because Canadians expect their government to speak up for Canadian citizens, and Canadians do not believe in the death penalty and do not believe that states should be executing individuals. I do not know why the previous government stopped that policy, but I am proud to say that one of the first things that our Minister of Foreign Affairs did when he took office was to reverse that policy.

I am curious as to whether the hon. members know how they are helping the Cuban people right now, when they want to antagonize about a past that we all agree was a dictatorship. We all agree there was a controversial figure. What we want to do is to help the Cuban people. We want to find the most effective way to work with the Cuban government to ensure that the Cuban people are respected and that their human rights are protected.

Canada has had an unbroken diplomatic relationship with Cuba for decades, and Canadians are proud of that. Canadians know that Canada has an independent foreign policy, that we as the Canadian government derive our foreign policies from the Canadian people. Frankly, I have to give credit to previous Conservative governments because they maintained that tradition. Perhaps it is the opposition benches that are having some kind of influence on them, so that all of a sudden now the Conservatives want to reverse the policies of their own party when it was in government.

With that, I just want to conclude that our government is a strong believer in being a voice for human rights here at home and abroad; and that our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs will never shy away from championing these causes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if there are any Cuban people who have managed to illegally tap into this broadcast to watch these debates, they will appreciate that the member took this opportunity to educate us on his views on the Conservative leadership race. However, memberships are selling like hotcakes in Mississauga Centre.

He spoke about the death penalty. I also oppose the death penalty. In particular, I oppose it for white-collar crime and for people who happen to be members of a religious minority. That is why I strongly oppose the government's desire to sign extradition deals with China. So much for human rights.

It is important to underline that the member has made some very clearly false distinctions. All of us in the House agree with the importance of certain kinds of strategic engagements that advance Canada's interests and values. Indeed, no Conservative government, no Conservative member has ever proposed replicating the American embargo. However, our previous prime minister was always very clear about human rights in Cuba.

The issue is that the Prime Minister is parroting Cuban propaganda. He issued a statement which praised Fidel Castro. The worst the statement said was that he was a controversial figure. It also praised health care and education in Cuba. In Cuba, there is no independence of education whatsoever. There is no alternative points of view that are allowed. Why is the government parroting Cuban propaganda? I wish it would promote human rights. It is just not the reality of the statement that was issued.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member was expecting a dissertation for a short statement on the passing of the Cuban leader. We are not disputing the fact that he was a dictator. In fact, when the Prime Minister was there, he was a voice for human rights, for inclusion, for democracy, speaking directly to the Cuban people.

I would be happy to provide the hon. member with copies of statements that his former leader made when former leaders died, and they were very complimentary.

I also want to wish him luck with his leadership competition.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to come back to a point that I have raised in the past, and that is the fact that the Conservatives' indignation seems to work on a sliding scale.

In this case, it is over the death of the leader of the country we are talking about today, Cuba. However, when the King of Saudi Arabia died, the government of the time issued a very similar statement to the one the current Prime Minister gave about the Cuban leader. The statement about the Saudi Arabian king was almost exactly the same. I believe, as do many people in Sherbrooke, that human rights is a huge problem in Saudi Arabia. One of my constituents is the wife of Mr. Badawi, who is imprisoned there for having publicly criticized the Saudi Arabian regime.

What does the member think about the fact that the Conservatives' indignation works on a sliding scale when it comes to speaking out against international leaders and issuing statements at the time of their death?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I know that consistency has never been the hallmark of the Conservative Party. Let us be honest. Human rights are fundamental values of Canadians and this government. Wherever we are, whoever we meet with, we always promote human rights.

I want to share this with my colleague. The president of the Saudi Arabian human rights commission visited Canada a couple of weeks ago. Our government, in addition to private bilateral meetings, organized a round table with Canadian human rights NGOs to have the opportunity to speak directly to the president of the human rights commission. We even invited members of the opposition parties. My colleague from Thornhill was there. What surprised me was that after the meeting, he issued a release, a long laundry list of complaints about Saudi Arabia. However, did he ever have the courage to raise these issues during the meeting? No, he never did. I was puzzled by this.

We gave him the opportunity to speak directly to the president of the human rights commission, but he would not utter a word. That is disappointing.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I think that the Prime Minister can be said to have truly shown some lack of judgment when he issued his news release following the death of Fidel Castro.

However, what is happening here today is that the Conservatives, in moving this motion before us, want to devote an entire opposition day to ganging up on him and scoring political points. They are going to use an entire day that we could have used to talk about major foreign policy issues.

We could have talked about what is going on in Aleppo at the moment; we could have talked about reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq; we could have talked about Yemen, the Central African Republic, Haiti or North Korea. However, the Conservatives want to talk all day about what the Prime Minister said. We are not even talking about what the government is doing or what we could be doing.

Of course they are going to tell us that this is an issue that affects Canada’s reputation. I find that rather funny, given that the Conservatives have done such harm to Canada’s international reputation. In any case, the Conservatives and the Liberals are much alike in this respect. Canada’s reputation is not built simply by blowing trumpets and making big speeches. It is built on facts and specific actions.

Does the motion before us propose concrete steps Canada could take to support and promote human rights in Cuba? One need only read it to see that that is not the case. It refers rather to hope. So we are going to cross our fingers and remain in our seats, doing nothing.

Does it propose anything at all for the many Canadians who have very close ties with Cuba, whether they are tourists who go there in large numbers, investors, academics or artists? No, there is absolutely nothing.

Does it propose any avenues of multilateral action? Again, nothing at all.

On that subject and the subject of human rights, the most flagrant example is this sort of hope that the motion holds out for an improvement of democracy and human rights in Cuba. This comes to us from the party that did away with Canadian funding for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an important institution that gets concrete results on the ground and that works to defend human rights all across the Americas, including in Cuba. I would like to have seen them put their money where their mouth is, for this shows an absolutely fascinating lack of consistency.

Does the motion say that the election of the new President of the United States might complicate relations between Cuba and the U.S., which were improving, and that Canada might play a mediating role? No, it offers nothing concrete. The objective, I repeat, is to score petty political points.

Does the motion mention anything about our development aid, namely whether we should increase it or base it primarily on support for civil society organizations, democratic development, or anything that might change the situation? No, they are simply playing petty politics on a subject that is nonetheless important.

However, the Conservatives do not hold the monopoly in this area. The Liberals are saying that Canada is back and that we will have a policy of engagement with countries like Russia and China.

They are telling us this, but there is no concrete plan to that effect. It is not enough to say it for it to miraculously come true.

They talk of the Americas. They would like to see a concrete plan for the Americas. What does Canada want to do in the Americas? They also say that they are feminists and are trying to defend human rights, which is important. However, they don’t want to look too closely into arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because that is too troubling. What is more, they are prepared to sign an extradition treaty with China. Now all of a sudden, it is a good thing to defend human rights.

When it comes to torture, they say it is bad. However, they are still not amending the directive permitting the use of information obtained through torture. They are also refusing to open an inquiry into the transfer of Afghan detainees who were subsequently tortured. That is a long-standing issue that continues to be current. They do not want an inquiry; they want to sweep it under the rug.

I will add a word on cluster munitions, although it is a less familiar issue. When they were in opposition, the Liberals were saying that the bill passed by the Conservatives was not adequate. Is the government going to change the law? All indications are that it will not.

Let us talk now of nuclear disarmament. Suddenly, Canada does not want to participate in the international efforts that would allow us to live in a world free of nuclear weapons. There is nothing on this issue.

The government says it is being open and transparent; it says that there will be conventions and conversations. We suggest that a parliamentary committee be formed to study the whole issue of arms exports on an ongoing basis, since this is an issue of immense concern to Canadians. I leave it to my colleagues to guess the response: they don’t want to talk about it.

Foreign policy is not just about photo opportunities, family relations, and grand words. Action is necessary. In that regard, we realize that there are certain striking similarities between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

One of them is this sort of black-and-white approach. I still remember the former foreign affairs minister, minister Baird—I can name him since he is no longer an MP—going to the Middle East and saying, “these are the good guys and those are the bad guys”. Not only is that overly simplistic, but it solves nothing. On the contrary, it stands in the way of progress.

We now have other similar examples. On the one hand, the Prime Minister made a very rosy statement. He said that his father was proud to call Fidel Castro a friend. He spoke of Fidel Castro’s love for the Cuban people. However, as we know, it was a problematic love. The human rights issue was a real concern.

On the other hand, the Conservatives moved a motion in which all was black, but there are in fact many shades to the situation with respect to Fidel Castro. He was a man who meant different things to different people. He did some positive things. He improved the quality of life of the poorest people. He did some work in the field of education. We would be proud to have the same literacy rate in Canada that they have in Cuba. He did important work in the field of health. He ousted a brutal dictator.

However, he suppressed freedom of expression, imprisoned his opponents, and crushed freedom of the press. A particular target of attack was the LGBTQ community. What we need to do now, instead of playing petty politics, is turn to the future and consider what we can do to help Cuba on the road to upholding human rights and democracy.

As I was saying earlier, this motion in no way does that. This motion does nothing positive and nothing concrete. It is in fact a cynical exercise in petty politics, politics with such a small p that we could say it is virtually invisible and we should talk about “olitics”. It contributes nothing of substance.

This is pure cynicism and small politics. It is pursuing politics using what could be an important issue. Rather than proposing concrete action on what we can do, it is meant to score political points by underscoring the lack of judgment the Prime Minister showed in his statement after the death of Fidel Castro.

Does the motion suggest anything positive about what Canada should do with respect to human rights? I think that single example tells the whole story about this motion. The Conservatives are saying in this motion that the human rights situation is very bad in Cuba, yet they cut the funding to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is doing concrete work, with results, in all of the Americas, including in Cuba.

If we want to promote human rights, we have to take concrete action. We have to give ourselves the tools and help those who are working on the ground improve human rights. We will not improve human rights by standing here and giving big speeches.

There is nothing in the motion about Canadians with links to Cuba, such as tourists, investors, academics, and artists. There is nothing about development assistance. We have a very small budget for development assistance in Cuba. Should we increase it? Should it focus more on democratic development and support for civil society? There is nothing about that in this motion.

I will repeat as often as is needed that this motion is just about politics. Not only are the Conservatives using a full opposition day to play politics and take a shot at the Prime Minister, it is a day we could have used to talk about huge issues and what Canada could contribute. What do we do about what is happening in Aleppo? What do we do about Iraq? What do we do about Yemen, the Central African Republic, and North Korea? I could talk about the potential list for probably 20 minutes, but rather than talk about big issues and what Canada could do, the Conservatives have made it about small political gains.

Let us talk about hope. The Conservatives hope it will get better in Cuba. We do too. However, this is not a magic wand. If we want things to get better, we have to start acting, and there is absolutely no concrete proposition in this motion.

What is funny is that it is so one-sided. The Liberals and Conservatives are being one-sided in their statements, when the reality is a lot more nuanced. Fidel Castro did some good things in education and health care, but he also repressed dissidents and the press and imprisoned political opponents. It is not a black and white reality.

I would suggest that we use our time in the House to actually propose things that will make the world and Canada better, rather than playing small politics. Canadians are not paying us to do that in this place.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague distinguished herself in her previous diplomatic career. I wonder if she could comment on the fact that in 2015, Canada and Cuba celebrated the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Cuba was the first country in the Caribbean where Canada established a diplomatic mission.

I would like the member's comments on the importance of diplomacy.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member’s question and I thank her for it.

We do indeed have very close relations with Cuba. I am a Quebecker. It is not just in Quebec, but in Canada that a lot of people choose to go to Cuba, if only to visit. There are a lot of Cubans in Canada. We have some very substantial investments. We have long-standing economic, cultural, and personal relations. As with many other countries, we are not obliged to agree on everything, but it is important to maintain a dialogue, and in that dialogue it is important to be firm on those issues where we are not in agreement. It is important as well to take concrete action.

I again call on the Liberal government to respond to the urgent appeal from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for Canada to renew its funding.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to point out is that when one looks up Cuba on travel sites, they say that it is like stepping back in time. With the old cars, it is like stepping right back into the 1950s. Cuba has not progressed under Fidel Castro. People say that education and health care are so great, but it has not made any progress. They advertise that people step back in time when they go to Cuba.

An interesting thing that has been pointed out on Twitter by other members in this place is that Fidel Castro stood against imperialism. It is interesting, then, that he was one of the wealthiest political leaders in the world.

Who will miss Fidel Castro now that he is gone?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I made it pretty clear in my speech that things in Cuba are far from perfect.

All the same, that is not the issue here. The issue is that we have before us a motion that does not actually propose anything, that is just a political ploy to score a few political points but that will result in nothing tangible at all and offers no suggestions for making things better.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, there were some good things, but there were also some very bad things. Fidel Castro's death may inspire the Cuban people to seek change, to regroup and start building what they want for the future.

I would like the member to tell us about the expertise Canada can make available to the Cuban people to help with that transformation as they work toward becoming a more democratic society with greater respect for human rights.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

There are many things Canada could do. To begin with, and since this organization has already been mentioned, I must point out that we lost a very valuable tool when the Conservatives literally killed Rights and Democracy, a Canadian institution that existed for 25 years and did exceptional work.

That being said, obviously, not everything is lost. First of all, we do have some expertise in democratic development and in institutions that promote respect for human rights. That is one thing we can do. I mentioned development assistance, particularly to support civil society organizations. We can also do political work, since there are so many uncertainties around the transition and what will happen in the future.

We can do political work with Cuba, especially considering the current situation between the newly elected president in the United States and Cuba itself. We can also support multilateral organizations, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, that do crucial work on the ground to defend human rights.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are a number of other things Canada could contribute.

Niall Ferguson, in his book Civilization: The West and the Rest, says there are six key things needed for a successful society: competition, science, property ownership, modern medicine, consumerism, and a proper work ethic.

The education system and medicine have been championed in this House as good work in Cuba. I am wondering if my colleague is interested in some of the other things that need to be in place to make it a successful society.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely interested in those things as well.

My answers focused on democratic development and human rights. However, as I pointed out, we have many investors in and business ties with Cuba. We can do a whole lot of things in that regard.

However, when I heard the question, I wondered why there was no mention of these aspects in the Conservative motion if we wanted to debate what we could do for Cuba. Why does the motion just express the hope? As I said, its sole purpose was to bring up and highlight the Prime Minister's error of judgment in his statement on the death of Fidel Castro. I agree that it was an error of judgment, but this motion is basically a political ploy. I would have liked to spend the day debating what we can do for Cuba and other countries.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we should acknowledge that Canada has had a unique relationship with Cuba for decades now. There is a substantial difference between the United States and Canada in terms of how that relationship has worked over the past decades.

Could the member illustrate, from a New Democratic Party perspective, how she sees that relationship as positive, as opposed to Cuba's relationship with the United States?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I believe that our relationship was more positive. I am one of those people who believe that in order to solve issues we have to work together, talk to one another, and have a dialogue. It is not enough to talk about having a dialogue. There has to be a concrete plan and we need to take concrete action.

My colleague also raised the issue of relations between the U.S. and Cuba. This relationship has been very problematic, but the Obama administration has made progress in recent years. We really do not know what will happen under the new administration. Based on its excellent relationship with the U.S. and its historic relationship with Cuba, Canada may eventually play a role that will facilitate dialogue between these two countries.

That is what we can do. That is the sort of thing I would have liked to see in today's motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Fidel Castro was not a kind man. He was not an admirable man. He was in fact a tyrant.

Wherever he went, he left behind a wake of violence, death, and misery, which is why it was alarming to those of us on this side of the House and to Canadians at large to hear the Prime Minister mourn his death as if Castro were a relative or a close family member. What is worse, however, is that the Prime Minister had the audacity to speak on behalf of all Canadians when he heaped praise on this abusive dictator.

This is not a partisan issue. Canadians at large confirmed this sentiment. In fact, Liberal MPs and supporters share the view that Fidel Castro was an oppressive dictator who ruled by terror. The Prime Minister's comments were inappropriate and do not reflect the beliefs of the Canadian public.

Castro was known for degrading women, murdering innocent people, and terrorizing anyone and everyone who disagreed with him. We do not, nor should we, condone these actions in Canada.

Here, we cherish freedom and democracy. There, Castro imposed his will through dictatorial rule. Here, we value tolerance and debate amongst political ideas. There, Castro imprisoned, tortured, and murdered those with a different view from his. Here, we reward entrepreneurs for investing their time, their talent, and their money to grow the economy, whereas Castro nationalized all businesses and arbitrarily outlawed or took over successful small entrepreneurial ventures.

Castro was in fact the antithesis of freedom.

International experts have documented these abuses of fundamental human rights for decades. Amnesty International said:

Over more than five decades documenting the state of human rights in Cuba, Amnesty International has recorded a relentless campaign against those who dare to speak out against the Cuban government’s policies and practices.

The Americas director of Human Rights Watch, José Vivanco, stated this week:

As other countries in the region turned away from authoritarian rule, only Fidel Castro’s Cuba continued to repress virtually all civil and political rights. Castro’s draconian rule and the harsh punishments he meted out to dissidents kept his repressive system rooted firmly in place for decades.

Meanwhile, Christopher Sabatini, a Columbia University expert on Cuba who advised Barack Obama's administration and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, has publicly said:

Unfortunately, his human rights record will not get the weight it deserves.... Let’s be honest: [at the end of the day] this was a regime which when it came to power lined up its opponents and shot them.

The most recent report by Human Rights Watch on Cuba states:

Under Fidel Castro, the Cuban government refused to recognize the legitimacy of Cuban human rights organizations, alternative political parties, independent labor unions, or a free press. He also denied international monitors such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and international nongovernmental organizations like Human Rights Watch access to the island to investigate human rights conditions.

And this is to say absolutely nothing about the treatment of the LGBTQ community. From 1950 to 1979, members of this community were arrested, put in forced labour camps, and worked to death because they were considered “incompatible” with the socialist revolution. Since 1979, “publicly manifested” homosexuality and “persistently bothering others with homosexual amorous advances” remain illegal under Cuban law.

Fidel Castro left a legacy of broken people and made Cuba even poorer than when he seized power, but then we know that this is true about socialist regimes.

It is clear that the values of Castro are not congruent with the beliefs and practices we hold here in Canada. Canadians value freedom, value democracy, and respect the rule of law. Cubans lack the freedom to express political views, to establish their own businesses, or to travel between different regions of their country without government approval.

Canadians, as witnessed by our actions here today, function with the freedom to express their political views on any subject without fear of reprisal. Our journalists publish a wide variety of opinions on the government without fear of punishment. No Canadian journalist has been roughed up, sent to a forced labour camp, or exiled for criticizing the government of the day.

Canadians are incredibly proud of the beautiful land we call home, and we travel freely from province to province and into the territories without impediment, without borders, and without needing government approval.

In Cuba, there is no rule of law. Arrest and detention are arbitrary and entirely at the whim of the Castro brothers. Connections within the Communist Party of Cuba allow others to ignore the law or use the law to make themselves wealthy by punishing their competition.

In Canada, we celebrate the fact that even the prime minister is bound by the same rules that guide us. It does not matter how connected people are to the government of the day; the justice system is there to hold them accountable.

In Cuba, more than 80% of the land that could be used for agriculture sits entirely fallow. Why is that? It is because no one can be bothered to pick the weeds or plant a plot of land, because there is no incentive to work, no reward for labour. In Cuba, the locals are forbidden from eating local lobsters that they catch. This is not a health precaution. In fact, the lobsters are simply saved for the tourists who prop up the Cuban economy.

In Canada, we have free markets, and those free markets reward individuals for their hard work. We celebrate our entrepreneurs, who through vision and hard work build successful businesses.

As a self-declared feminist, a defender of human rights, and an advocate for the middle class, the Canadian Prime Minister should have stood against the acts of brutality committed by the late Fidel Castro. Instead, however, Trudeau took the opportunity to praise Castro, calling him a “remarkable leader” and even went so far as to state that Castro had a “tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people”.

Based on the public outcry of Canadians, including hundreds of my own constituents, I know with confidence that the Prime Minister's sentiments are not widely shared among the Canadian people. The outrage over the implication that Canadians support Castro is one of the most visceral reactions that I have seen from the people in my riding. Castro is not viewed as a paternal or warm and fuzzy figure who wanted the best for his country, who loved his people, and who advanced it. He is seen as a repressive dictator who chronically mistreated his people, who had zero tolerance for women, and who viewed the marginalized as a problem to be solved by imprisonment or forced labour.

I understand that the Prime Minister has some family connections to Castro, but as the Prime Minister of Canada, one would hope that Trudeau could put aside his personal affections—