Debates of Dec. 1st, 2016

Opposition Motion—Cuba

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I was obviously amused and perhaps even supportive of some of the earlier comments made by a member opposite with regard to the rhetoric coming from the other side and the absolute lack of focus on issues facing Canadians.

However, I heard two things from the member opposite and I would like some clarification on them.

The first point is the deal with Saudi Arabia. I we look at the campaign platform of the New Democrats in the last campaign and at the comments made by the member for London—Fanshawe, the NDP promised to fulfill that contract as a commitment to voters in London—Fanshawe and across the country in exactly the same words that the Liberal Party did. Are those members now flip-flopping on that promise?

Second, the New Democrats seem to have listed a number of our other campaign promises around truth and reconciliation or in advancing social agendas related to housing and CPP. Which of those would they like us to achieve faster and how would they help us?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on truth and reconciliation, the Prime Minister made a promise to enact it. It does not need speed. It needs moral courage, which is lacking.

The House voted just two weeks ago, forcing the government to agree to move the $155 million in child welfare. It has not moved it and it will not move it because that motion also told them to stop fighting children in court, which the Liberals are doing.

The fact that the Liberal government spent $500,000 so far fighting Cindy Blackstock shows a lack of moral courage. The fact that the justice minister goes to court and says that a child who was raped should have the case thrown out by the Ontario Superior Court because the child cannot remember the date shows a lack of moral courage. This is not something we need years to plan or prioritize over urban transit or rural strategy. It is about moral courage. It is lacking on the issue of truth and reconciliation and it is breach and it has to be addressed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, International Trade; the hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend, Employment; the hon. member for Essex, International Trade.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion today. It is part of a regrettable tendency I see of both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the House to try to make partisan hay out of foreign affairs questions.

If we are going to discuss foreign policy on a Thursday afternoon in the House, there are many important issues we could be discussing. We could be discussing the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo. We could be discussing the aggressive foreign policy of Russia in eastern Europe or even in the Arctic. On World AIDS Day, we could be discussing the very encouraging prospect of the eradication of HIV and AIDS in the next 30 years due to the efforts of the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. On a similar topic, we could be discussing how homophobia in Tanzania has caused that government to end the crucial community HIV/AIDS programs, which are crucial to achieving the goal of eradication. Instead, we are debating something that to me sounds a bit like the old Cold War, apart from having a mention of people like me in it, which would not have happened at that time.

No matter how valid the concerns it raises, I am also not supporting this specific motion because it suggests no action on the human rights situation in Cuba. Having called out Cuba, rightfully, for being a serious human rights violator, there is nothing in this motion that talks about how Canada could work to improve the situation in Cuba, to use our influence to help Cubans who are also concerned about human rights make progress in their own country. There is nothing of that. This is tit for tat, hit for hit, partisan political posturing in the motion.

In my remarks about Castro, I will strike what I would call a middle path between the statement of the Prime Minister, who forgot to include reference to a lack of democracy and human rights, which of course he has done before in his reference to Chinese leaders when he has forgotten that they may be efficient but not democratic, and somewhere in between when it comes to the Conservatives, who only see a great villain in Fidel Castro.

Without forgetting that lack of democracy and severe repression of human rights are a fact in Cuba, let us acknowledge the significant accomplishments of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. They overthrew a corrupt and brutal regime led by Batista and brought about significant social development in the face of constant threats, including invasion by the United States and a decades-long blockade.

There is no doubt about Cuba's domestic accomplishments. Cuba has what is perhaps the highest literacy rate in the entire world at 99.8%. It has probably the highest immunization rate for children. Ninety-eight per cent of children by the age of two have been vaccinated against 13 illnesses, a far better record than Canada. Ninety-five per cent of the women in Cuba receive prenatal care, a far better record than either Canada or the United States. Cuba has among the lowest rates of maternal and infant mortality in the entire world. It also now has achieved one of the lowest rates of HIV infection through its very extensive and active community education programs. It has built impressive medical, research, and teaching facilities.

This medical revolution took place not just for Cubans domestically when it came to health, but through significant, what Cubans like to call, medical internationalism. Cuba offers free medical education to students from poor countries. Much more significant right now in a Canada where we have very high pharmaceutical prices and we talk about the impact of trade deals, Cuba produces quality pharmaceuticals and HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals and sells them to Africa at the lowest prices possible.

Indeed, internationalism was an important part of Castro's world view. Under his guidance, Cuba sent doctors, scientists, teachers, and construction workers to Africa, especially to Ethiopia and Angola in the 1970s and 1980s.

All of these accomplishments, domestic and international, are among the reasons many people in Cuba and many around the world hold Castro in high regard.

Unfortunately, I cannot join them. Cuba has historically and currently a terrible human rights record. On any scale, Cuba ranks as the least democratic country in the Americas. This too is part of Castro's legacy. This human rights record was established in the 1960s, a record of arbitrary arrests and detentions, surveillance and beatings, and loss of employment for anyone who disagreed with the government. Unfortunately, these very same practices continue today. This too is part of Castro's legacy.

When it comes to the LGBTQ community, Cuba's record has been among the most appalling in the world.

Yes, 1960s Cuba was part of the Americas, where people like me were nowhere treated with dignity or respect. However, to understand the circumstances is not to forgive or forget the record of Cuba.

The public ostentation law, which allowed for the arrest of people who publicly exhibited, as the phrase went, their homosexuality, pre-existed Castro, but it was enforced throughout the 1960s. In fact, for three years, anyone who was publicly known to be gay was sent to a group that was called military units to aid production. These were re-education and forced labour camps.

In the exodus from Cuba that occurred from April to September 1980 from the Port of Mariel near Havana, organized by Jimmy Carter, more than 125,000 Cubans fled. A very large proportion of those were from the LGBTQ community, many released from prison by Castro so they could be expelled as part of that exodus.

Probably second only to that is the record from 1980 to 1993. Cuba had what it called a quarantine for anyone who was HIV positive. This was not only a problem for gay Cubans, but anyone who contracted the virus, whether sex workers or drug addicts. They were placed in what were called sanitariums. International observers at the time said that this was simply a euphemism, that these were simply pretty prisons.

There was a break in 1986 when most of the legal prohibitions on homosexuality were removed, apart from the HIV quarantine, which carried on until 1993. Again, that was not exclusively a problem for the gay community.

Since then, we have seen Castro's niece, Raúl Castro's daughter Mariela, leading reform on LGBT rights in Cuba, but we should not be deceived. Cuba still does not allow any independent HIV organizations, any independent gay and lesbian organizations in Cuba. There is only the official organizations to which individuals must belong if they wish to be active in the community on these issues. Yes, things have improved, but that basic democracy, that basic human right is not present in Cuba.

I am one of those people who visited Cuba. It was not possible for me to do much as a tourist, but I did encounter LGBT community members. They expressed their great fear of even talking to me at the time because they still risked being imprisoned, arbitrarily arrested and detained. There is still a ways to go and people should not be fooled by the official adoption of LGBTQ rights because it is in the context where there are no democratic rights.

When we look at Fidel Castro, I do see great accomplishments of the revolution, but I will also never forget the human rights records and, in particular, the treatment of my own community.

Back to how we spend our time in the House. Perhaps there is some usefulness in this kind of debate, but as I said at the beginning, in any motion like this I would like to see some indication of how we as the Canadian House of Commons can promote human rights in Cuba. What can we do in terms of our aid programs? What can we do in terms of the inter-American human rights organizations in providing support to them? What can we do as parliamentarians to ensure progress is made toward a democratic Cuba? The social progress has been great, but the democratic process is yet to take place. I would prefer, as I said several times now, that we were debating how to do that and not what the Prime Minister said versus what the Conservative backbenchers say today about Fidel Castro. Not a perfect man, not a perfect villain is what I have to say today.

I hope in the future days like this will be used in more constructive ways to talk about how Canadians can help us solve the most perplexing conflicts in international human rights and how we can move forward in concert with others who care very deeply about human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I well know my colleague's concern about human rights, because we had the opportunity to work together on the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet.

The member talked about the importance of having a solutions-oriented approach, and I completely agree with that. Would he also agree that part of the solution is for leaders to speak with a degree of moral clarity in regard to other countries and to be willing to call out in a very clear way human rights abuses?

This is an important part of, let us say, punching through the leader myth that a lot of these types of totalitarian states rely on. They rely on this sort of mythology of the leader being in some sense superhuman.

Is it not part of the solution for us to use the opportunities we have to speak clearly about the realities of the human rights abuses that take place? Would that not contribute constructively to encouraging and supporting the reform movement in Cuba?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to work with the member on the Canada-Tibet committee. As an aside, for many years I was not involved in Tibet solidarity work, until the Dalai Lama changed his position on homosexuality. Once he did, then I felt I could help work toward democracy in Tibet. However, Cuba still has a way to go to win my full support.

If the member is really talking about how to make progress in Canada's international relations, then, yes, these dialogues have to include an honest assessment of the situation. However, do I believe that is what the member's party has put forward today? No, I do not.

The member's party is calling out the Prime Minister for what I believe is a faulty statement. I say that his statement was incomplete. It was a mistake to state only the positives without any qualification in his original statement. However, spending an afternoon debating a statement is not the best use of our time in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member across the way and would add that it would have been nice to have a debate about the people of Cuba and how we might be able to move forward on a number of different fronts.

Canada has foreign investment promotion and protection agreements and often has trade agreements. Does the member have any thoughts on whether or not Canada's moving in that direction with Cuba would be in both countries' best interests, believing that if we strengthen that relationship, we will have more influence with respect to human rights?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question. Is it the Conservatives or the Liberals over there, because the Conservatives' answer to everything was free trade agreements, and now it seems as if the Liberals' answer to everything is free trade agreements too.

What I would say about free trade agreements, looking at the record of Cuba, which provides pharmaceuticals at cost to Africa, is that if we were to enter any kind of trade agreement with Cuba, I am sure that Cuba would demand that we do something about the high pharmaceutical prices in Canada and not sign other trade agreements that would only make pharmaceuticals more and more out of reach for many seniors in our society.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for a balanced, thoughtful, and well-researched presentation. I was particularly taken with his description of the LGBTQ issues that have arisen in that country.

I would like the member's comments on the potentially negative impact of a politicized approach to foreign affairs debates of this kind resulting from the Conservatives' motion. What better way could the House proceed in promoting human rights in Cuba?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the point I tried to make in my speech today. It is a solutions-oriented approach to foreign affairs, in which we look at the things we can do to make things better. No, we cannot solve all of the problems in the world as Canada alone, but we have always punched above our weight on the international scene, and that is because we focused on solutions.

We did not focus on calling people out, name-calling, and debate just for the sake of scoring points against each other. What we focused on in the international scene, and what I hope we focus on here, is finding those ways we can move forward.

We may disagree, but are there points of agreement that we can work toward that will make things better for ordinary people both here in Canada and abroad?

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

Mr. Speaker, Leonardo Notario Gongora, age 27; Marta Tacoronte Vega, age 36; Caridad Leyva Tacoronte, age 36; Yausel Eugenio Perez Tacoronte, age 11; Mayulis Mendez Tacoronte, age 17; Odalys Munoz Garda, age 21; Pilar Almanza Romero, age 30; Yaser Perodin Almanza, age 11; Manuel Sanchez Callol, age 58; Juliana Enriquez Carrasana, age 23; and Helen Martinez Enriquez, age six months.

The event that provoked this motion was the Prime Minister's glowing tribute to Fidel Castro and his shameful and yet shameless parroting of the Castro propaganda about education and health care.

Reynaldo Marrero, age 45; Joel Garda Suarez, age 24; Juan Mario Gutierrez Garda, age 10; Ernesto Alfonso Joureiro, age 25; Amado Gonzales Raices; Lazaro Borges Priel, age 34; Liset Alvarez Guerra, age 24; Yisel Borges Alvarez, age four; Guillermo Cruz Martinez, age 46; Fidelia Ramel Prieta-Hernandez, age 51; Rosa Marfa Alcalde Preig, age 47; Yaltamira Anaya Carrasco, age 22; Jose Carlos Nicole Anaya, age three; Maria Carrasco Anaya, age 44; Julia Caridad Ruiz Blanco, age 35; and Angel Rene Abreu Ruiz, age three.

The Prime Minister called Castro a “legendary revolutionary and orator” who made significant improvements to education and health care. He said “both Mr. Castro's supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people”.

Jorge Arquimides; Lebrijio Flores, age 8; Eduardo Suarez Esquivel, age 39; Elicer Suarez Plascencia; Omar Rodriguez Suarez, age 33; Mira lis Fernandez Rodriguez, age 28; Cindy Rodriguez Fernandez, age two; Jose Gregorio Balmaceda Castillo, age 24; Rigoberto Feut Gonzales, age 31; Midalis Sanabria Cabrera, age 19; and four others who could not be identified.

It is a matter of public record that the Cuban dictatorship has driven a full one-fifth of the population to flee or die trying. Medicines are scarce and reading materials must be pre-approved. If people would like education to involve a complete lack of ideological flexibility, and health care without proper medicines or facilities, then they might like Cuba's situation, but not otherwise. It is a further matter of public record that any claims about education and health care rely entirely on data provided by the Cuban government. People cannot exactly file an ATIP.

By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

The Prime Minister called Castro “legendary”, which is perhaps an apt adjective, if by “legendary” he means that the stories told about him do not at all resemble the realities.

The many crimes of Fidel Castro and the Cuban state are too numerous to describe in one speech, but I want to tell about one in particular. The names that I have read thus far are men, women, and children who lost their lives aboard the 13 de Marzo on July 13, 1994.

Let me read verbatim from the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Reports, Report No. 47/96:

On July 13, 1994, at approximately 3:00 a.m., 72 Cuban nationals who were attempting to leave the island for the United States put out to sea from the port of Havana in an old tugboat named “13 de Marzo”. The boat used for the escape belonged to the Maritime Services Enterprise of the Ministry of Transportation.

According to eyewitnesses who survived the disaster, no sooner had the tug “13 de Marzo” set off from the Cuban port than two boats from the same state enterprise began pursuing it. About 45 minutes into the trip, when the tug was seven miles away from the Cuban coast—in a place known as “La Poceta”—two other boats belonging to said enterprise appeared, equipped with tanks and water hoses, proceeded to attack the old tug. “Polargo 2/1 one of the boats belonging to the Cuban state enterprise, blocked the old tug “13 de Marzo” in the front, while the other, “Polargo 5/1 attacked from behind, splitting the stern. The two other government boats positioned themselves on either side and sprayed everyone on deck with pressurized water, using their hoses.

The pleas of the women and children on the deck of the tug “13 de Marzo” did nothing to stop the attack. The boat sank, with a toll of 41 dead. Many people perished because the jets of water directed at everyone on deck forced them to seek refuge in the engine room. The survivors also affirmed that the crews of the four Cuban government boats were dressed in civilian clothes and that they did not help them when they were sinking.

Later, Cuban Coast Guard cutters arrived and rescued 31 survivors. After being rescued, the survivors were taken to the Cuban Coast guard post of Jaimanitas, which is located west of Havana. From there, they were taken to the Villa Marista Detention Center, which also serves as State Security Headquarters. The women and children were released and the men were held.

In the days following the tragedy, relatives of the victims who had drowned asked the Cuban authorities to recover the bodies from the bottom of the sea. The official response was that there were no special divers available to recover the bodies.

The nonprofit organization “Hermanos al Rescate” (Brothers to the Rescue)—which is dedicated to rescuing Cuban boat people trying to escape from the island—asked the Cuban Government for permission to fly over the spot where the events took place, to help recover the bodies, but the request was immediately denied. To date, none of the drowning victims' bodies has been recovered by the Cuban authorities, despite the fact that the sinking of the tug “13 de Marzo” occurred in Cuban territorial waters.

I raised the issue of the Prime Minister's comments in the House for the first time on Monday. The foreign affairs minister told me that he wants to help the people of Cuban to be united instead of agonizing over the past. I am quite sure that the minister would not be so dismissive of those agonizing over the past if it had been one of his children on board the 13 de Marzo, a boatful of unarmed men, women, and children intentionally sunk by the Cuban state authorities in Cuban territorial waters, who made no effort to rescue the drowning civilians, who imprisoned the male survivors, and who did not allow the recovery of the bodies.

It is right and necessary to agonize over the past. Indeed, immediately beside the Prime Minister's statement regarding Castro on his website is a statement regarding Holodomor Memorial Day. We remember the Holodomor and we must learn its lessons in the present and the future. We must similarly remember not just the past but the ongoing crimes of the Castro family and the Cuban state, a state the very nature of which stands in stark opposition to the foundational covenants of international law, and of international decency.

The Prime Minister has three beautiful children, and I do not think he would say the things he has said about Fidel Castro if one of them had been on the 13 de Marzo on July 13, 1994. In praising Castro, he spoke about family ties, but love for one's family is only a decent thing when it flows into a broader love of humanity that emanates from empathy. The essence of a minimally moral foreign policy is that every time he stands up to speak about issues that impact the lives and well-being of children in other countries, that he then imagine those children to be his own.

However, across the board this government's foreign policy fails that moral test. There is the failure to defend Yazidis and Christians in Syria and Iraq. That is well known, but there are a litany of other cases where the government has also ignored basic human rights. For instance, as we speak, China is cracking down on religious minorities: Uighur Muslims in East Turkestan, and Tibetans Buddhists in Tibet, as well as Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners. That is what we call “China's basic dictatorship”, and shame on the PMO for refusing to call out China's so-called justice system.

For these Liberals, as they cozy up to dictators around the world, it is very clear that human rights is just a slogan. They speak of engagement, but there has been no meaningful engagement on human rights issues with these dictatorships with whom they are so eager to curry favour.

On every major international human rights file, the government is completely missing in action. It is because this foreign policy of the government is not rooted in morality or empathy, but very clearly rooted in self-interest. It wants to cozy up to dictators who will give them votes in the UN Security Council election. The Liberals call this sophisticated diplomacy.

However, there are some things in life and there are some things in politics that are more important than a Security Council election. Very clearly, on this side of the House, we will not become the useful idiots of foreign tyrants, not for this price, and not for any price. Canada is so much better than this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would call former Prime Minister Stephen Harper a “useful idiot”, based on the comments that that Prime Minister made not that long ago, in January 2015.

Maybe the question should be related to that. We hear a lot of rhetoric coming from the Conservatives today. Unfortunately, I believe the debate would have been far better if we had been talking about Cuba and the people of Cuba, and ways in which we as a nation could be helping Cuba and its people.

Could the member explain to us why, when Stephen Harper made comments on the passing of a dictator, it was okay? I have read those comments into the record. I know the member is aware of it. However, when it is this Prime Minister, somehow it is different. A lot of things come to my mind, but it is unparliamentary for me to say it. Would the member not apply the same thought pattern to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper as he is applying to this particular Prime Minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak specifically about the member's comments with respect to Stephen Harper's comments on the passing of the king of Saudi Arabia. I have been very critical in various fora about the human rights issues in Saudi Arabia, as have many people on my side of the House.

A number of things are distinct about the situation. First, Prime Minister Harper's comments were not in any way nearly as glowing as the Prime Minister's comments were about Fidel Castro. There is no comparison. Further to that, the Saudi state has many different elements to it and centres of power within it. It is not the monolith, in terms of levels of control, that exists in the Cuban state. It is right to call out the problems of human rights with respect to Saudi Arabia, but that is not to say that there is the same centralization of those abuses in Saudi Arabia as there clearly exists in Cuba.

The member wants to know what it takes to help the people of Cuba. There are many things that we can do to help the people of Cuba and I think there is agreement that there needs to be some level of engagement—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The member is taking a little too much time. We have five minutes and will try to fit in at least one more question.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's effort to defend the Saudi regime, but I want to bring this discussion back to Cuba. I would ask if he acknowledges that one of the reasons for the lack of medical technology and economic opportunity in Cuba is the crippling American economic embargo and whether he sees a role for Canada in trying to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member, I do, but I think he embarrassed himself by misstating my comments so grossly. To suggest that I, at any point, defended the Saudis is utter nonsense. My comments are clear on the record and I would appreciate it if the member explored opportunities for withdrawing that comment, because it is particularly absurd given that he knows where I stand and what I have said repeatedly about the Saudi regime. That does not mean we cannot have a nuanced conversation about the differences in terms of state structure while still being very clear about that.

With respect to the embargo, nobody in my party has defended the embargo. I do not think the embargo has been effective, but that is not a comment about the Cuban regime, of course. That is merely a comment about the effective mechanisms for responding.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the truly appalling comments made by the Prime Minister on the death of the brutal dictator Fidel Castro. These comments must be rejected by the House of Commons today to at least save face with the international community and to avoid continued mockery of our country.

To quote from an article in the most recent issue of Maclean's magazine it said, regarding our illustrious Prime Minister, he turned “from cool to laughing stock”.

In this day and age of serious international diplomacy, how can we expect Canada to be taken seriously, given the Prime Minister's shallow and callous statements about the brutal dictator Fidel Castro?

Instead of paying homage to Castro, we should be supporting the people of Cuba, defending human rights and the rule of law, and assisting them however we can.

I want to point out that although the statement was ostensibly made on behalf of all Canadians, to quote the statement directly, the Prime Minister's words lauding the despotic dictator Fidel Castro certainly did not reflect my views, or the views of millions of others. The Prime Minister could have consulted anyone and realized that his fondness for Castro was certainly ill-advised. This lack of judgment is deeply concerning to many Canadians and, now, thanks to the notoriety of his statement, much of the world.

However, as they say, “the apple does not fall far from the tree”. It is well-known that the Prime Minister's father, who he referenced in his statement, revered Castro, and even considered himself a close friend of the Cuban dictator; but that does not sufficiently whitewash Castro's brutal history of control.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau had a fondness for dictators which belied his reputation, unearned in my view, as a supporter of democracy. He was certainly not.

In a March 2011 National Post article, entitled “The Disastrous Legacy of Pierre Trudeau”, David Frum writes:

Pierre Trudeau opted not to serve in World War II, although of age and in good health. He travelled to Josef Stalin's Soviet Union to participate in regime-sponsored propaganda activities. He wrote in praise of Mao's murderous regime in China. Trudeau lavishly admired Fidel Castro, Julius Nyere, and other Third World dictators. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik scathingly recalled Trudeau's 1971 prime ministerial visit: Trudeau visited the Siberian city of Norilsk and lamented that Canada had never succeeded in building so large a city so far north—unaware, or unconcerned, that Norilsk had been built by slave labor.

In that same article, Frum describes Pierre Trudeau's support for the brutal military crackdown in Poland that crushed the Solidarity movement.

Frum writes:

It's telling I think that Trudeau came to the edge of endorsing the communist coup against Solidarity in Poland in December 1981. Hours after the coup, Pierre Trudeau said: “If martial law is a way to avoid civil war and Soviet intervention, then I cannot say it is all bad.” He added “Hopefully the military regime will be able to keep Solidarity from excessive demands.”

Can members imagine that? Solidarity was asking for freedom and the former prime minister saw that as something that was not right.

The violent suppression of true freedom fighters was something that Pierre Trudeau shared with Fidel Castro.

I am of Czech extraction and I was part of the Czech community in Winnipeg, in 1968. My grey hair and grey beard proves that I have been around a fair bit. I remember, in 1968, Czechoslovak refugees coming to Winnipeg and what that meant to us. I was a fairly young person then and I did not quite appreciate the significance of that event.

We had the kind and gentle Alexander Dubcek trying to peacefully wrest Czechoslovakia from the iron grip of the Soviet Union, and that was brutally suppressed.

In Czechoslovakia, my father's birthplace, they were so fortunate to have Václav Havel and the velvet revolution, again, peacefully tearing Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic and Slovakia, away from the iron grip of the Soviet Union.

What did Castro say in 1968, in a speech in Havana, regarding the Soviet Union invasion of Czechoslovakia?

He said, “I wish to quickly make the first important statement that we considered Czechoslovakia to be heading toward a counter-revolutionary situation, toward capitalism and into the arms of imperialism. This is the operative concept in our first position toward the specific fact of the action taken by a group of socialist countries. That is, we consider that it was unavoidable to prevent this from happening—at any cost, in one way or another.... As long as the Soviet Union was capable of permitting the breeze of freedom that blew in Czechoslovakia, the world had the impression that finally the large nations, the captains of the blocs, were playing in a more tolerant manner than with the automatism of military interventions. But the panorama brutally and unexpectedly changed. The brunt of Soviet violence was brought to bear against the Czechoslovak attempt to practise freedom.”

Fidel Castro had a long history of supporting dictatorships, and our Prime Minister lauds him as one of his family's best friends.

What of our current Prime Minister's views on repressive regimes? In 2013, the current prime minister participated in a question and answer session. The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded, “There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime”. Of course now with inflation and dealing with Chinese billionaires, that dime has turned to a $1-million gift to the family foundation.

Lenin and Stalin had a word for the western apologists of communism. They called them the useful idiots. The phrase “useful idiot”, supposedly Lenin's, refers to westerners duped into saying good things about bad regimes. Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin used the term “polyezniy idiot” or “useful idiot” to describe sympathizers in the west who blindly supported communist leaders. Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Fidel Castro, destroyed or affected, through mass execution, mass incarcerations, mass larceny, and exile, virtually every family on the island of Cuba. Simply put, he was a brutal dictator who, over the course of 60 years, callously affected the lives of thousands of innocent people. His treatment of the gay community was particularly egregious.

Castro was not able to execute or jail all Cubans of course. One-fifth of all Cubans left the country during Castro's time in power, including entrepreneurs and intellectuals, many of whom risked their lives as my colleague so eloquently described. Those of course are likely the ones we saw parading in the streets of Little Havana in Miami once they heard of Castro's death.

One has to wonder how our Prime Minister could be so out of touch not to realize the reasons those Cubans who escaped the iron grip of Castro were celebrating in the streets. Instead, he was dreaming up ways to conceal and whitewash Castro's despicable history.

The statement from the Prime Minister completely disregarded that Fidel Castro was a brutal dictator with an atrocious record of human rights abuses and in 2008, he supported Russia's invasion of Ukraine. None of this is secret, yet the Prime Minister thought he would get away with glossing over 60 years of murderous reign by stating that Castro was a “controversial figure”. It is shocking, disturbing, and embarrassing for Canada. Instead of offering support to the Cuban people, an olive branch of assistance, he chose to recognize the fact that Castro was the “longest serving President”, although I do not recall there being an election during that time, and that he was “a legendary revolutionary and orator”. I quoted from some of his famous oratory. The more I talk about it, the more I cannot believe that anybody, never mind our Prime Minister, had the lack of judgment to release such a statement.

Aside from the Prime Minister's comments' making us look foolish on the world stage, I am concerned about the larger ramifications for our foreign and trade policy. Global relations are delicate, and international trade partnerships are interconnected with multiple issues. The president-elect Trump has made it clear he wants to tackle international trade issues. We can all recognize he and his administration are going to be tough customers to deal with. We do not need to make it any harder on ourselves heading into negotiations. There are responses from many American senators, Marco Rubio being one of them. He is of Cuban descent and he took to Twitter to question whether our Prime Minister's statement was real or a parody; and said that if it was real it was shameful and embarrassing.

Why would we care what a Florida senator thinks? He is one of the group of 25 influential senators fighting for the United States to take action against Canada as part of the softwood lumber negotiations. I have a feeling that statements from the Prime Minister that anger Senator Rubio and thousands of his constituents will not build goodwill toward a fair softwood lumber deal.

In closing, the statement from the Prime Minister was inexcusable. It was inappropriate, and embarrassed Canada on the world stage. Not only did it not do anything to give hope to the people of Cuba, it attempted to gloss over 50 dreadful years of communist dictatorship. I would urge the House to adopt this motion before us today and help bring some dignity back to Canada. Further, I hope that, moving forward, the Prime Minister can think more about ensuring Canada's best interests, and less about honouring his family's past affairs with dictators when making statements on our behalf.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending December 10, 2016, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is the following one. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.