Benoît Sauvageau

[The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 9th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by pointing out to my hon. colleague for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that I understand, since he is a former environment minister, that he would get carried away about a bill affecting the environment.

Quite simply, my question is a kind of follow-up to the question asked by our colleague from the Reform Party. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, through you, to point out where in my speech I formally support the sale or production of MMT. That is not what I am saying.

If this product is as toxic or dangerous as he suggests, why is the bill aimed at banning its importation, thus opening the door to actions under NAFTA? The Minister of International Trade has also said this. Why is its importation banned, and why is its production, use and consumption in Canada not banned as well, through another department and another bill?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will probably take less than one minute. I am really happy to hear that my Reform colleague is proud we can agree on something. One more step and we can agree on sovereignty and partnership.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I agree with my colleague for Laurentides that we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but we would still be better off trying to find a better alternative.

Obviously, I support all research and development on an electric car or another more environmentally friendly vehicle, but I would also like to comment on the remarks of my hon. friend.

If in fact he is right when he says that MMT is bad for human health, for the environment, for cars and all the rest, why was it not declared a toxic and dangerous substance? What the Liberals are trying to do is simply to prevent the importation of MMT in

Canada, period. We will be able to go on producing it, selling it, using it and what not, but not importing it.

If what the hon. member says is true, he should advocate a total ban on the use and sale of MMT.

As my colleague said, we are suggesting a six month moratorium so they can bring some coherence into what they think and say. After that, we will take concrete and coherent measures.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to answer the two questions put by the hon. member.

First, I am somewhat surprised that he would ask me to prove that ethanol is a good product, given that he says, without any proof to support his claim, that MMT is not a good product. I should ask you to prove to me that MMT is a good product.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims that MMT is harmful to one's health, that it contributes to smog, that it is harmful to the ozone layer and that it creates problems when diagnosing automotive systems. Where does he get his information, regardless of how accurate it may be? Let him prove his claims in this House.

If the EPA came to the conclusion that MMT is not harmful to one's health and to the environment, and if major automakers cannot come up with a sound study confirming that MMT is harmful to the exhaust system of cars, how can the hon. member say that MMT is harmful?

The Bloc Quebecois is only asking the member to prove that he is right. And we are not the only ones. Sometimes, when we form the opposition we may wonder whether we oppose a measure just for the sake of it.

But this time I am not the only one opposing this measure. Even the Minister for International Trade, whose letter I was not allowed to table in the House, wrote to the Minister of the Environment to tell him this: what you are doing is dangerous; first, because it is not a proven fact; second, because this bill is not the appropriate measure, since it deals with trade, not health; and third, because it violates at least four or five articles under NAFTA.

I will reply to the member's question by asking him a question of my own, as the Minister of Finance often does. First: does this bill violate three or four articles under NAFTA, yes or no? Second: can you, or your government, prove to me that MMT is harmful? Third: if you do this, I will answer your question about ethanol.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, like my colleagues did earlier, to oppose Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill, as its title indicates, seeks to prohibit the importation of certain manganese-based substances, specifically MMT, in Canada, and their interprovincial trade.

The debate on this bill is very interesting, because this is a rather unusual piece of legislation.

It is unusual in that this government attempts to prohibit the use of MMT, not through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as one would expect, but through a roundabout means, at the commercial level, by using a false pretence, namely the harmful effects of this product on health and on the environment.

Instead of prohibiting the sale of MMT in Canada, or simply saying that this is a toxic or dangerous product, the government is trying to legislate to prohibit the importation of this product and its trade between the provinces. This is a blatant violation of NAFTA and interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. It is strange however that a company could produce and sell MMT in a province without violating in any way the provisions of Bill C-29.

If the government is so afraid of the alleged toxic effects of MMT, why did it not completely prohibit its use, instead of restricting its importation and its interprovincial trade?

If the Minister of the Environment had any proof of MMT's harmful effects on health or on the environment, he would have drafted his bill differently but, unfortunately for him, the minister does not have any such proof. Incidentally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, also tried to prove that MMT is harmful to one's health, but it failed in its attempt to do so.

Until last year, the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline was prohibited in certain American states. However, in April 1995, Ethyl Corporation, won a legal battle against the EPA. The U.S. court of appeal for the district of Columbia ruled that the EPA had not proved its allegations to the effect that MMT is harmful to one's health.

As for the auto industry, it was not able to prove that MMT is harmful to cars' anti-pollution systems. The EPA did not appeal the decision. Therefore MMT is now allowed in some American states. In the circumstances, I wonder why the Minister of the Environment assumes he could prove this product is harmful.

Furthermore, on December 6, 1994, Health Canada published the results of an independent study on the so-called risks connected with the use of MMT. The study concluded that the use of MMT in gas did not constitute a health risk for any section of the Canadian public.

Finally, a number of international and Canadian scientific organizations have all concluded that low levels of manganese, as in the case of MMT in unleaded gas, do not represent a health risk.

Therefore, contrary to what the Minister of the Environment seems to think, for the time being there is no hard evidence for banning MMT. Consequently, Bill C-29 is redundant until such time as respected and serious studies provide evidence of a negative impact of MMT on health and the environment.

To prohibit MMT and replace it with another product such as ethanol, for instance, which does cause environmental problems, is merely deferring the problem. It would be better to do a number of serious studies before passing a bill than to do so after the fact.

The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, very concerned about the health of Quebecers and Canadians, as it is about environmental issues, and that is why we want these studies to be done before prohibiting MMT.

I might as well say right now that the bill in its present form will always be unacceptable, since the Minister of the Environment wants to regulate the market, not the environment.

And in that case we have some serious questions about the real motives of the Minister of the Environment for going ahead with Bill C-29, although he knows perfectly well that the bill will generate considerable costs for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, including a likely increase in the price of gas, loss of jobs in the oil industry and the cost of a possible request for compensation under NAFTA.

It may be that privately, and I am sure unconsciously, the present Minister of the Environment, like his predecessor, has realized that the product that would replace MMT-by the way MMT is manufactured exclusively by Ethyl, an American company-is ethanol, which, coincidentally, is manufactured using corn, which is grown mainly in Ontario. We note that ethanol creates environmental problems.

However, there is one aspect the minister has not yet understood, although his colleague for international trade may have tried to explain it to him. Bill C-29 goes counter to a trade agreement we signed with the United States and Mexico: NAFTA. Under this agreement, the Canadian government does not have the right to restrict trade and allow goods to be produced only within its borders, as it intends to do with this bill.

By banning interprovincial trade in and the importation of MMT, the bill before us today requires that all MMT sold in Canada be produced in this country. Furthermore, the minister wants to stop

the importation of a product that is not necessarily harmful to the environment by hindering the free flow of goods. By violating NAFTA, the federal government lays itself open to a compensation claim as provided for in NAFTA.

In a letter dated February 23, the Minister for International Trade warned the Minister of the Environment that Bill C-29 violates some of NAFTA's basic principles and that, if this bill is adopted, Canada might receive a compensation claim under NAFTA. But the Minister of the Environment dug in his heels, preferring to expose the Canadian people to possible, even probable prosecution involving millions of dollars. I feel like quoting an excerpt from this very eloquent letter. The Minister for International Trade feels that, and I quote:

"An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO and the NAFTA: (1) it would constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports, particularly if domestic production, sale or use is not similarly prohibited; and (2) it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current scientific evidence".

The Minister for International Trade concludes by asking his colleague to drop Bill C-29. The possibility of a lawsuit looms closer every day since a notice of intent to submit a claim was formally filed September 10 by Ethyl Corporation from the U.S. Ethyl is asking for US$201 million in compensation. A claim may be submitted within 90 days of the notice of intent.

This claim process under article 1116 of NAFTA has already been used in the past in two other areas. In fact, two other notices of intent to submit a claim under article 1116 of NAFTA have already been filed against Canada this year and are still pending. One is from a Mexican pharmaceutical company called Signa for $50 million, and the other is from Waste Management Inc. for a secret amount.

The U.S. company feels that its Canadian subsidiary will be hurt by Bill C-29 and that is why it is asking for compensation under article 1116 of NAFTA. This article provides that an investor of a party may submit to arbitration a claim that another party has breached an obligation under NAFTA and that the investor has incurred loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach.

Some say that NAFTA allows the Canadian government to pass legislation aimed at protecting human, animal or plant life and health. The exception procedure under NAFTA is complex and the Canadian government must at least be able to demonstrate that the substance in question has an adverse effect and that there is indeed a need to restrict this substance. The Canadian government could not do that in the case of MMT.

The tragedy is that, if Ethyl wins and the Canadian government has to pay the company several millions of dollars in compensation, this money will come out of the pockets of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.

Ethyl Corporation, the sole manufacturer of MMT and sole exporter of this substance to Canada, claims that the Canadian government was in breach of its obligations under NAFTA on three counts: article 1110 on expropriation and compensation; article 1106 on performance requirements; and article 1102 on national treatment.

Under the expropriation provisions, Ethyl complained first about a loss of goodwill because Canada tarnished its reputation both nationally and internationally by saying without proving it that MMT is harmful. The American company also complained about the expropriation of its Canadian investments since Bill C-29 would preclude the commercial use of MMT by Ethyl Canada.

Moreover, Ethyl claims that the bill would create a preference for national content by authorizing the production of MMT in Canada, which violates article 1106 of NAFTA. International law requires governments to pay compensation each time they expropriate.

Finally, Ethyl claims that article 1102 dealing with national treatment was violated because it is discriminatory for the Canadian government to prohibit the import of MMT knowing full well that Ethyl is the sole manufacturer of this product.

In closing, how much is the government prepared to pay in compensation? As the Minister of the Environment so eloquently said, in response to a question I asked him on September 25, a U.S. multinational corporation should not dictate what the Government of Canada should do in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise. However, such a corporation has every right to remind the Government of Canada of the trade agreements it has signed.

Considering the enormous cost for Quebec and Canada taxpayers due to the absence of any advantage in prohibiting MMT in the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment, I can only ask members to vote against Bill C-29, thus avoiding a financial disaster in Canada.

In closing, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to table a letter written by the Minister of International Trade to the Minister of the Environment.

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, later on in my speech I will explain to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade why I was so surprised when he said that the government was producing a measured response. I would like to elaborate on this aspect later on, because I think the expression "measured response" means one thing to our party and another thing to theirs.

The government has tabled five minor changes, five minor amendments to Bill C-54, which was tabled in two stages, seven months later. My they are quick, those Liberals! The American government acted seven months ago by imposing extraterritorial measures, and now, seven months later, we are discussing an amendment before we adopt our own legislation.

The five amendments proposed by the Liberal Party are minor amendments, and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade pointed out earlier, the Bloc Quebecois will support those amendments as, I assume, will our Reform Party colleagues.

However, since these five amendments have been divided in two blocks, the first two amendments made us wonder about this direct reference to the Helms-Burton act, or should I say its formal name, in Bill C-54.

Had the government given this more thought or taken a more practical approach, had it said the following in amendments 1 and 2: "bills extraterritorial in nature, pursuant to schedule 1", as it appears in the bill, there would have been no need to open Bill C-54 if in the future-and we should adopt legislation with the future in mind-other countries implement extraterritorial measures.

By introducing these first two amendments to Bill C-54, the Liberal Party is, as it were, painting itself into a corner. In other words, if there is more legislation of this kind, we will have to come back to the House, reopen Bill C-54, which will be law by that time, to add these extraterritorial bills to the schedule and amend these two amendments.

We tried to influence the Liberal Party somewhat by making this suggestion. We got these amendments, be it somewhat late. We in the Bloc Quebecois understand that it is very important to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses. That is why we will go along with the case by case approach, as described, and we will agree-let us hope it will not be necessary-to reopen the act if we are faced with further extraterritorial bills.

I repeat, the amendments tabled by the government are really technical amendments. That is why we cannot object, but we cannot improve on them, because these amendments are intended to make Bill C-54 refer specifically to the Helms-Burton act. They said it was a mirror of the Helms-Burton bill.

The changes proposed in the amendments do not alter the substance of the bill, but rather help clarify it. Anyway, as I said in my first speech on Bill C-54, at second reading, we will vote for the bill since its thrust is to protect Canadian and Quebec companies doing business in Cuba.

However, as I said before, we are wondering why the Canadian government has waited seven month to take action. We know that first it trails behind the US foreign policy, second there is the American presidential campaign, and third international foreign policy.

Just when, to all intents and purposes, dangers have disappeared from the political map, the Canadian government says: "the American president has decided to postpone the implementation of title III of the Helms-Burton act, which could penalize Canadian and Quebec companies; since it does not cause too much harm, we might consider doing something about it". This is the kind of rigour, or vigour, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are showing here.

However, even with the five amendments introduced this morning by the government, title IV, under which relatives or descendants of employees of Canadian or Quebec firms may be banned from entering the United States-as is currently the case of the Sherritt corporation-is still in force.

There is no mention of title IV in these amendments. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that we did not want to do like the Americans who, under the Helms-Burton act, are trying rather clumsily to block Canadians doing business in Cuba from entering their country. We do not want to do the same thing.

Then why did the government call Bill C-54 a mirror image of the Helms-Burton act if it does not want to do the same thing? The parliamentary secretary said: "As much as possible, we oppose-". I will respectfully mention that, talking about what is possible, his government and himself could have appealed to a NAFTA panel since July.

Everybody agrees, the Helms-Burton act contravenes NAFTA. Everyone is now in agreement with that. Since July, the Liberal government could have appealed to a panel to have the Helms-Burton act declared invalid. The Canadian government knows that, since Bill C-54 cannot be amended to defeat title IV, the only way to do that is to ask a panel to declare the Hems-Burton law invalid.

The Canadian government has had this bargaining chip in its hands since July. It is clear it will not use it before the next elections in the United States. Meanwhile, we see what is happening to Canadian companies like Sherritt and others. Are we going to wait for other business managers, and even their families, to be denied entry in the United States before we contravene title IV?

In conclusion, we will support these five amendments to Bill C-54 because we want to protect Canadian companies and Quebec companies doing business in Cuba. However, we also want to reiterate, to restate our dissatisfaction with the federal government, which acted first too late and then, too quickly.

[The Ethyl Corporation, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that, if the federal government goes ahead with Bill C-29, in spite of his department's warnings, it could end up having to pay Ethyl Corp. $275 million coming from Canadian taxpayers?

[The Ethyl Corporation, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have the same problem as earlier, but still.

In February, the Minister for International Trade wrote to his colleague, the environment minister, to warn him that Bill C-29, which prohibits the importation of MMT, runs totally contrary to Canada's obligations under NAFTA and the WTO.

Considering that Ethyl Corp. is about to make a $275 million claim under NAFTA if Bill C-29 is passed, can the minister tell us how he will ensure that Canada will win its case before NAFTA?

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say it was very kind of the parliamentary secretary to accept to switch spots with me. He agreed to do so for personal reasons and I am most grateful.

Before commenting on Bill C-54, I would like to take a moment to commend the chamber of commerce of Bois-des-Filion, in my riding, for holding a conference breakfast that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and myself attended this morning. As you can see we do get around quite a bit. A great deal of energy and professionalism went into organizing this event. I want to congratulate the president, Alain Éthier, and everyone involved in the operation of the chamber of commerce, for so successfully delivering the merchandise.

Moving to the heart of the subject, that is to say Bill C-54, as presented by the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As you probably noticed from the previous speech made by a member of the Bloc Quebecois, we have no intention of stopping this bill from passing second reading.

The reason for this is quite simple: the Bloc Quebecois is against this American initiative to limit Canadian and foreign companies' freedom of trade. It is illegal and it has prompted the Bloc Quebecois to ask over and over these past few months that the federal government take more vigorous steps than public criticism in the press in reaction to such an attempt by the U.S. to extend to Canada its embargo against Cuba.

It is clear in our minds that it is essential to do everything in our power to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses trading abroad. This is why we will support Bill C-54. However, even if we do not oppose this measure, we have some reservations and we are somewhat puzzled about the efforts made so far by the government regarding the Helms-Burton issue.

It is clear to everyone that the measures taken by the U.S. are totally reprehensible. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, better known as the Helms-Burton law, is unanimously condemned as unacceptable, both in Canada and in countries such as those of the European Union, the West Indies, the Caribbean and others from Latin America and South America.

One would have expected the international community to react against this attempt by the U.S. government to subject the whole world to its foreign and trade policies.

One would have expected greater leadership on the part of Canada to fight the actions of the U.S. government, first because our country is a major economic partner for Cuba, but also because of the strong economic ties between Canada and the United States. Instead, the Canadian government opted for the soft approach-time will take care of things-preferring to publicly condemn these measures, rather than take concrete and effective action.

The action, or lack of, deemed to be the most effective by this government is an incomplete and, more importantly, tardy bill. Whereas under NAFTA, the government could have called a special panel hearing since July 29. In fact, I wonder if the government could even have used the NAFTA procedure from the very beginning, in March or April. But instead of using this option, the government preferred to wait and start reacting once the damage was done.

Since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has strongly condemned this American legislative measure with its extraterritorial effects, and it has urged the Liberal government to take strong, quick and decisive action. However, the government has not met our expectations or answered our questions, far from it. It has been

slow in taking action and the solutions proposed today are far from being complete.

Let me briefly remind the House of the history and the basis of the Helms-Burton law. Following Fidel Castro's takeover in Cuba in 1959, the United States decided, in 1963, to impose an economic embargo against that country. From then on, it became illegal for American companies to do business with Cuba. Over the years, American economic sanctions against Cuba multiplied, until recently the American government passed a law preventing foreign companies from trading freely with Cuba, thus flouting international law and the sovereignty of states.

In 1995, the American senate tabled a bill to strengthen the embargo's sanctions. However, in 1995, the presidential campaign had not begun, and agreement on the bill was far from unanimous. At that time, even the American president opposed it because, in his view, certain measures went too far, such as the ban on entering American territory, and the right to prosecute.

The situation changed when two civilian aircraft belonging to Cuban exiles were shot down over the Straits of Florida. Following this unfortunate incident, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act was passed by the American congress and signed by President Clinton on March 12, 1996. The act strengthened the embargo and imposed reprisals against all companies that do not respect the American embargo against Cuba, and that are using expropriated American property or interests, and this is after Fidel Castro's victory over thirty years ago, should anyone have forgotten.

There are two titles worthy of note. First, title III entitled Protection of property rights of United States nationals . This title allows an American company to prosecute foreign companies profiting from investments expropriated by the Castro regime. The act permits the assets of such companies on American soil to be seized. Although this title was suspended by the American president on August 1 for a period of six months, before it could take effect, the fact remains that if the suspension is not renewed, this title could take effect in February 1997.

It is important to remember that there is also title IV, which has been in effect since August 1. This title is entitled Exclusion of certain aliens , and makes it possible to bar the entry into the United States of company directors who have bought or invested in expropriated American properties and their families.

Until now, directors of the Canadian company Sherritt International Corporation and members of their families have been barred from entering the United States. It should be noted that the President of the United States has the power to suspend titles III and IV, but has used his discretionary power only for the most controversial measure, which is title III concerning the right to prosecute.

The Bloc Quebecois has always believed that a strong reaction to the Helms-Burton law was called for, in order to send a clear and unambiguous message to the U.S. government that its behaviour is unacceptable and that we will not give in to its imperialism.

Now, a few words about the extraterritorial legislation on Iran and Libya. Unfortunately, the Liberal government was not very vociferous in its opposition to the U.S. government's repeating the same offence by passing another piece of legislation with extraterritorial impact, this time blocking trade with Iran and Libya. On July 23, 1996, the United States Congress unanimously passed the 1996 legislation on sanctions against Iran and Libya. Its purpose is to discourage companies from making major oil and gas investments in Iran and Libya. The Canadian government ought to be opposed to this in principle, not its technical agreements but the principle.

The Helms-Burton and 1996 laws on sanctions against Iran and Libya have a direct impact on the spirit of international trade agreements. These acts violate the principle of the sovereignty of states and their territories, recognized by international law.

Although I am taking care not to oppose the federal government's attempt to counteract the effects of the Helms-Burton legislation, I feel that Bill C-54 can be summarized succinctly: too little, too late. Too late, because the Helms-Burton law has been in effect since March, and the government has waited until now to respond to the U.S. threat.

Too little, also, because its effect is incomplete. First of all, it addresses only title III, with respect to legal proceedings. C-54 does nothing about title IV, which means that at the present time the Canadian government is doing nothing about the only provision in the legislation which affects Canadian citizens, namely blocking their entry into the U.S. While it has had the possibility since July 29, 1996, of calling a special committee under NAFTA, it has refused, for obscure reasons. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will let us in on those reasons shortly.

Bill C-54, which we have before us today, modifies an existing act, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. Let us touch briefly on that act. It came into effect 11 years ago, in 1985. It was enacted by the Mulroney government to respond to possible legal actions by foreign governments or tribunals in order to interfere in Canadian jurisdictions.

It was amended twice: in 1990 and in 1992. In 1992, the act was amended in response to the US Torricelli law, which was extraterritorial in nature dealing with trade with Cuba.

This act contains two parts, one dealing with legal actions and execution of judgments, the other one requiring compliance with Canadian laws over harmful foreign legislation and setting fines.

It is very important to note that so far the current legislation has never been applied. And yet, since 1992, it has required Canadian corporations, including subsidiaries of US companies, to comply with Canadian laws and, therefore, ignore the US embargo on Cuba. On June 18, 1996, during Question Period, I put a question to the Minister for International Trade regarding American Express. I asked him then why he had not fined this corporation, since the legislation on foreign extraterritorial measures gave him the authority to prosecute Canadian companies and subsidiaries of foreign companies which comply with foreign legislation in contravention of Canadian law.

American Express, in the United States, had given unequivocal instructions to its foreign offices, including in Canada, to honour the American embargo on Cuba. Even though officials at the Department of International Trade have been aware of the situation for two years, the international trade minister told us in June he knew nothing about it. And, as of last June, the government had taken no action against American Express.

And what has happened since? The minister had three months to take action under the former act and he did nothing. Therefore, one wonders if the amendments proposed in Bill C-54 will serve any purpose. Is this yet another smoke screen?

Since the act has never been used, we have every reason to believe that the legislation amended by Bill C-54 will also remain unused. The minister himself said this morning that the government hopes this legislation will remain unused. Moreover, given that the Helms-Burton law could become a dead letter after the American election, in November, Bill C-54 is definitely a case of too little, too late.

In reply to my question on June 18, the Minister for International Trade said that the intent of the amendments he wanted to make to the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act was to neutralize the effects of the Helms-Burton law, adding that this was a last resort measure.

The minister also said, like he did this morning, that he hoped Canada would never have to resort to this measure. The Canadian government gave itself time to see what it would do, before showing the true colours of its bill.

The federal government repeatedly claimed that Canada strongly and vehemently opposed the Helms-Burton law, but it did not take any concrete measure. The Liberal government strongly condemned the illegal actions of the United States, but when the time came to counteract the American government's measures, it never rose to the occasion. The government was just buying time.

We will support Bill C-54 even though we have reservations about its usefulness. We will do so only because we want to protect Quebec and Canadian businesses. However, we want to put it on the record that we are not pleased by the Canadian government's lack of effective action.

By not refusing to use the process provided under NAFTA to have the American law invalidated, this government is shamelessly hurting dozens of Quebec and Canadian companies doing business with Cuba. Canadians and Quebecers expect more strength on the part of their government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members for listening to my comments.