CONTENTS
Friday, September 20, 1996
Bill C-54. Motion for second reading 4485
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4485
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4494
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4495
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 4495
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 4497
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4497
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4498
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4498
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4498
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4501
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4501
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4502
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4503
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4506
Bill C-325. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4506
Motion to concur in 26th report 4507
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4507
Bill C-54. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4507
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4511
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4513
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 4518
Bill C-261. Motion for second reading 4519
4485
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 20, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-54, an act to amend the
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek the unanimous consent
of the House that the first 40-minute time slot accorded to the
government, notwithstanding the standing orders, be split between
two members as opposed to one speaker as is normally the case. I
believe you will find unanimous consent for that proposition.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the members of the opposition
allowing leave for a joint presentation of this legislation by myself
and the Minister for International Trade.
In the last several months Canadians have been heavily engaged
in a variety of debates about the imposition of the Helms-Burton
law by the United States Congress.
The legislation being presented to the House today at second
reading is basically a defensive measure to allow Canadians to
protect themselves against parts of that act and to demonstrate that
we will provide a basic tool kit for Canadians to ensure that their
interests are protected. In the amendments there are a number of
technical features with which the minister of trade will deal.
(1005)
At the outset I want to address the fundamental principle that is
at stake in the legislation. The Helms-Burton bill is an attempt by
the United States Congress to unilaterally decide the rules of the
game for other countries. That runs counter to the basic principles
on which an international economy or an international society can
work.
We have debated in the House in the past weeks the importance
of a fundamental rule of law to govern the actions between
individuals. The rule of law is also important in governing the
relationships between nations if we want to develop an open
international economy for trade, investment, telecommunications,
commerce and culture. We have learned our lessons over the last 40
or 50 years that the best way to do that is to come to an agreement
on basic laws that we agree to, basic principles that we adhere to. If
there are to be changes to those, nations come together to negotiate
and discuss them and arrive at some consensus.
The minister of trade has been actively involved in the
development of a World Trade Organization. It is an enormously
important development for the world. The whole premise is that
there have to be rules by which countries abide. If one country,
especially an extremely powerful country, perhaps the most
powerful country in the world, begins to adopt a unilateral
approach that it can declare on its own, without any consideration
for the rights of other individuals or states, then it begins to break
down the international system that we have laboured so diligently
in the last half century to build.
It is ironic that the United States has over that 50 years been a
leader in developing those rules. Not only has it been a leader, but it
has been a beneficiary. Perhaps no country in the world has gained
more of its economic strength by helping to open up the
international system. Yet at the very time the rhetoric and the
pronouncements in various fora around the world by United States
representatives of a need to put rules into globalization and ensure
that we expand and augment our openness, its Congress passed a
law which basically tells Canadians: ``We will decide for you what
your policy will be in relation to a third party. And if you do not
adhere to what we decide is right, then we will penalize your
companies and your individuals''. It makes absolutely no sense. It
is totally contrary to the interest of the international community
and is certainly contrary to the interests of Canada. I would dare
say, it is contrary to the interests of the United States.
It is interesting that in a recent Angus Reid poll which was done
in the United States, 64 per cent of Americans who know about the
Helms-Burton bill support the right of Canada to have its own
independent policy vis-à-vis Cuba. That has been our point. We
have not argued the question of whether the United States policy
4486
toward Cuba is right or wrong. We do not agree with it. We have a
different approach. But it is certainly their right how they want to
deal with another country.
We will use all avenues and venues to talk with the United States
and other countries about how we can work together to improve
and make the system in Cuba more open. For the United States to
tell us how to carry out our policies and if we do not agree with
them, to impose a penalty, is an enormous step backward both in
our relationships and also in terms of the wider international
community.
Therefore, it is important that the House in the legislation send a
message that Canadians will not accept that kind of unilateralism
and that we will stand firm to protect the interests of our
companies, the interests of our citizens and the interests of Canada
to be able to maintain its independent sovereign right to decide how
to do its international business.
I say that in the confidence of knowing that on both sides of the
House there has been basic support for this approach. It is a good
example of how, when we unite as a country on a matter of
fundamental importance, we can speak with a very strong voice.
(1010)
One of the most important developments during the debate on
the Helms-Burton legislation is the way that not only has the
country united-provincial governments have been in support, the
public has been in support, members of this House on both have
been in support-we have been able to mobilize a very active and a
very effective campaign to counter Helms-Burton.
The United States has become virtually isolated on this. In the
Caribbean, in Latin American countries, in Europe and in Asia
there is total condemnation of the bill. That is due in some large
part by the leadership shown by Canada.
The Prime Minister started that when he went to the Caribbean
nations just weeks after the imposition of Helms-Burton and was
able to get full agreement from the Caribbean countries. The
Minister for International Trade has been working actively with his
colleagues in Mexico and other members of the trade organization,
in NAFTA and WTO.
Our secretary of state for Latin American affairs was an effective
floor manager at the OAS at which time a resolution was passed 30
to 1 condemning the United States for its actions. Those of you who
are historians of the OAS would know that is a very unusual
happening and one that was taken notice of by the United States
because it demonstrated that the United States had stepped across
the boundary of what is a fair, equitable and useful system.
As a result of our unity in this matter we have been able to
provide real leadership in the international community and to
provide a very strong message. I think the message has been
received.
One of the things we can take some satisfaction from is that in
title III, which is the part of the Helms-Burton bill which gives the
right to U.S. companies to sue foreign companies that they believe
may have been involved in confiscated property in Cuba, the
United States president has deferred the implementation of that
part of the act as he has a right to do under the legislation. He has
not totally deferred it.
Canadian companies are still accruing liability under that portion
but a deferment on a six month by six month basis is not good
enough. The act has to be changed to eliminate that position
altogether. One of the very effective ways of doing that is by this
House passing this legislation. It will demonstrate that any
American action in U.S. courts, first, will not be recognized by the
our authorities, and, second, give the right to Canadian companies
to counter sue. We can go into more details on that and I know the
minister of trade will deal with that extensively.
That is the reality we will now put in our arsenal, the right to
counteract. It will provide as well a further signal to the
international community that other nations will do the same. Our
friends in Mexico have already proposed similar legislation.
Certainly Europe is considering similar legislation. Once there is in
effect an international alliance in which the legal instruments are at
hand to enable companies to provide that defensive responsive
posture, I believe that once the U.S. election is concluded and
things settle down and they begin to review these matters, then the
United States administration and I trust that Congress will take
another hard, second look at Helms-Burton and realize just what a
serious mistake they have made.
We welcome the points of view of our various members but this
legislation is a very important and very significant statement on
behalf of Canadians and also a very significant statement on behalf
of other countries around the world. The direction to become
unilateral arbiters of what is right and wrong is not given by divine
right to one state alone. We must begin to work in the area of
co-operation, consensus building and rule making in the
international community. That is how countries like us survive and
that is how the international community will survive.
(1015 )
Before I turn this over to my colleague, I want to make one other
important observation. We do not simply by our opposition to the
Helms-Burton bill in any way ignore the responsibilities of
Canadians to begin to conduct our relationships with Cuba in a way
that will promote and encourage a more open system. I can say to
the House we are actively engaged in developing discussions, dia-
4487
logues and initiatives that down the road we believe will help to
work in that country, to have a more open market system
economically and a system of government that will provide more
transparency and accountability.
We in no way withdraw from our responsibilities as a member of
the international community to help promote human rights,
democratic development and more accountability particularly in
our own hemisphere. We happen to believe that our approach of
engaging in that kind of active involvement with the Cuban people
and the Cuban government is a much more effective and useful way
to proceed.
It is not simply a matter of Helms-Burton by itself. It is also the
right to maintain, develop and promote a more active engagement,
to build bridges with the Cuban government and the Cuban people.
In that way we can help make transitions in our own hemisphere
and promote the fact that we are able and willing to work with our
fellow countries in this hemisphere in the promotion of a better
system of government, better economic development and a system
in the hemisphere that will recognize the rule of law.
I strongly recommend these amendments to the House. I am very
pleased to turn the debate over to my colleague, the minister of
trade, for his comments. I hope we can quickly conclude this
debate and send the kind of statement and message which I think
Canadians would like us to do.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are certain pieces of legislation that one
would prefer not to be putting forward and this bill falls into that
category. However, Canada has been compelled to strengthen the
provisions of the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act because of
the actions taken by the United States in passing the Helms-Burton
law.
[Translation]
No one is looking for confrontation, no one wants to take the risk
of aggravating the dispute.
[English]
But certain fundamental principles must be respected. The
freedom to maintain our own foreign policy and trading
relationships is one of them, as my colleague the Minister of
Foreign Affairs has so correctly pointed out. Canadians have the
right to expect that their government will act to respond to threats
to our sovereignty and this government is fully prepared to accept
that responsibility.
Helms-Burton is wrong on many levels. I will deal with a few of
these today. At the most fundamental level it is objectionable
because it attempts to enforce uniformity of approach and to deny
the freedom to other nations to make up their own minds and
implement their own policies. It says: ``Our foreign policy must be
your foreign policy; our trade relations, your trade relations; our
friends, your friends; our foes, your foes; and if you do not agree,
our laws become your laws'' .That is wrong.
Many years ago President Kennedy said of the relationship
between our two countries: ``The geography has made us
neighbours, the history has made us friends''. That is true. We
welcome that relationship. We welcome that friendship. History
has indeed made us friends, but it has not made us the 51st state.
We are not subject to American laws and we are not obligated to
follow their rules. Our foreign policy and our trade policy are made
in Ottawa, not in Washington. That is something this nation has
always declared and is something this government will always
defend.
Both Canada and the United States are trading nations, not only
with each other but with the world. The Americans have always
played a key role in promoting and supporting freer trade around
the world. That commitment stretches as far back as President
Woodrow Wilson and was reaffirmed as recently as 1994 by
President Clinton at the Summit of the Americas in Miami. There,
led by the host the United States, we launched the free trade
agreement of the Americas which seeks to build bridges to the
newly emerging economies of Central and South America and the
Caribbean.
(1020)
Americans know that trade is bringing the world together as
never before. With the free exchange of goods and investment
comes a greater openness to new ideas and new approaches. Again
and again history has shown us that closer trade links lead to closer
relations between nations. So freer trade and a clear system of rules
to enforce it are important objectives and ones that this government
is fully in support of. However, recently we have seen disturbing
indications that the American commitment to freer trade may be
flagging. First there was the isolationist rhetoric which
reverberated throughout the American presidential primaries and
now there is Helms-Burton.
Those of us who are committed to tearing down barriers and
opening up opportunities cannot be selective in our approach. We
cannot defend this principle and then defy it in practice. As the
leader of the movement to freer trade, the United States cannot say:
``The world should follow this path except when we tell them not
to''. It cannot oppose a system that it says is closed and
anachronistic by passing laws which imitate that system. It cannot
oppose isolationism by isolating selective adversaries.
Canada and the United States no doubt share a common
objective in Cuba and that is in democracy, economic reform and
respect for human rights. The difference is in the best way to
achieve the result. The Americans believe in isolating Cuba; we
prefer to engage Cuba. History will have to judge which approach
is better. I would only note that the American policy has been in
place now for
4488
30 years. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter,
Reagan and Bush have all come and gone but Fidel Castro remains
in power.
Why this particular approach to Cuba? The United States has
profound differences with China and some other countries as well,
but that does not stop them from doing billions of dollars worth of
trade with China. No one would suggest that because the United
States carries on trade with China they disapprove any less of
certain Chinese policies. So why this double standard with respect
to Cuba? The confusion does not end there.
On June 21 the state department's co-ordinator for Cuban affairs
said that Helms-Burton is designed to discourage foreign
investment in Cuba. That is what he said. It was a candid,
straightforward statement of fact. Yet just last month the
president's special envoy to Cuba told an Ottawa press conference
that the United States was in no way telling Canadians to stop their
trade or investment with Cuba. There was no gun to our head.
Rather, he went on to say that Canadians should invest in a strategic
way that would help to advance democracy in Cuba.
It would seem that trade and investment with Cuba are okay as
long as they meet U.S. approval. This is what happens when policy
is made on the run in response to election year pressures. It is no
way to conduct sound long term policy. It is a throwback to the old
days when governments believed that trade should be controlled
according to circumstances and not according to agreed upon rules.
It is a look back, not a step forward.
There is another aspect of this legislation which is troubling in
that it affects both friend and foe alike. Helms-Burton has taken a
U.S.-Cuba problem and made it a much broader international trade
and investment issue. Two sections of the act are particularly
offensive. Title III allows U.S. citizens with claims on expropriated
property in Cuba to sue foreign nationals, such as Canadians, in the
United States courts. If the company has no assets in the United
States that it can seize upon, an American could try to come to the
Canadian judicial system and ask the courts to enforce the ruling
and seize assets here. Two months ago President Clinton suspended
this right to sue for six months. He can change his mind though at
any time. As long as Helms-Burton is on the books, the threat of
lawsuits exist.
(1025 )
Title IV of the act allows the U.S. government to deny entry to
executives of companies which the U.S. state department deems to
be trafficking in property subject to a U.S. claim. This ban extends
also to the families, the children of these executives.
The special envoy said that there was no gun to our head.
However, it seems to me that there are two guns: one is title III and
the other is title IV. Both are fully loaded but one of them, title III,
has the safety catch on until it is decided by the Government of the
United States to release it.
Helms-Burton is also regressive in other ways. At a time when
our hemisphere is coming together as never before, Helms-Burton
seeks not to integrate but to isolate. With initiatives such as the
Miami summit and the free trade area of the Americas, we have the
chance to tie the disparate elements of this hemisphere into a new
relationship, one built on openness and the free exchange of ideas,
individuals and products. Helms-Burton runs counter to this
impulse and would erect barriers, not bridges, create resentments,
not relationships and introduce tensions, not trusts.
Finally, Helms-Burton is unacceptable because it flouts long
established international legal practices for settling disputes
between nations regarding claims by foreign investors who have
had their property expropriated. These established practices have
served the world well in the past. By choosing to ignore them now,
Helms-Burton sets a dangerous precedent.
If the U.S. behaves in this way today, what is to stop other
countries from adopting similar measures tomorrow? If such an
international free for all ensues, we will undo much of what has
already been achieved in bringing trade under international rules.
For all of these reasons, Canada has objected to Helms-Burton.
We have raised this matter to the highest levels of the American
administration. I have met with my Mexican and American
counterparts for consultations under chapter 20 of NAFTA.
Canada has also raised this matter with other trading partners
both within the World Trade Organization and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. In fact in the current
negotiations going on at the OECD on the multilateral agreement
on investment, we are seeking protection against just this type of
measure. We are certainly not going to be letting up on our efforts
there.
Led by Canada's opposition to Helms-Burton, both the European
Union and Mexico are drafting legislation which is similar to these
FEMA amendments. Other nations are considering doing the same.
Nor is the criticism and concern just coming from outside the
United States. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.
National Association of Manufacturers have urged the President
not to implement title III of Helms-Burton. The United States, they
said, benefits as much as anyone-which is true-from strong,
stable and reliable rules regarding trade. In other words, even the
business associations which represent many of the companies that
might be able to sue under title III are opposed to its applications.
They know the dangers. They know what is at stake.
4489
All of this pressure both from within the United States and
abroad helps, but there is still more we can do on our own which
is to make the changes that are necessary to the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act.
[Translation]
We believe the amendments before this House are an appropriate
response.
[English]
The amendments that we are proposing will strengthen FEMA in
two ways. It will permit the attorney general to block any attempt
by a foreign claimant to enforce a judgment under a law such as
Helms-Burton, and it will give Canadians recourse to Canadian
courts if awards are made against them in American courts. In
other words, Canadians can apply in our courts to recover or claw
back from the American claimant an amount equivalent to that
awarded against them by the American court.
(1030)
Let us take the example of a U.S. national that wins a suit under
Helms-Burton against a Canadian in an American court. The
Canadian has no assets in the United States. The U.S. national
would have to ask a Canadian court to enforce the judgment. The
Attorney General of Canada would now be able to issue an order
blocking this process under the amendments we propose. If the
American court ordered the Canadian to pay damages, he or she
could sue the American in the Canadian courts to recoup the full
amount of the award. This amount plus costs in both countries
would be applied against the American assets in Canada.
One of the problems we have encountered in the past is the
refusal by Canadian companies to comply with FEMA because the
penalties from the foreign country are higher than those extracted
by our own law. In order to increase the chances of compliance we
are increasing financial penalties under the act from a maximum of
$10,000 to $1.5 million.
The amendments would also allow the attorney general to place
foreign laws that he considers objectionable on the list under
FEMA. This listing would give the government greater flexibility
and would provide for a quicker response time in defending
Canadian interests.
All of the amendments we are proposing are moderate and
defensive in nature. It is our hope that they will never need to be
employed. They are a reactive antidote if we need them, but it is
vital that they be available to Canadian companies in order to do
the best we can to help them protect themselves should this ever be
required.
I call again upon the United States to remember the principles
for which they have fought and through which such progress has
been achieved. I ask them to remember the benefits that freer trade
has brought them and others in the past, and the still greater
promise of freer trade in future.
[Translation]
We have come too far and made too much progress to stop now.
[English]
We have broken down too many barriers to begin constructing
new ones. We must not sacrifice those principles to expedience. Let
us work together to expand the circle of opportunity by expanding
the benefits of freer trade. Let us work together to engage, not
isolate, Cuba and all the other Cubas around the globe so that the
freedoms, the hopes and the opportunities of freer trade will be
brought to all people in all parts of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to participate in the debate at
second reading of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act, which has been a while in coming.
By finally introducing Bill C-54 after months of stalling, the
Liberal government is again putting up a smoke screen by trying to
prove to Quebecers and Canadians that Canada will defend their
freedom to invest and trade anywhere in the world.
I say ``trying to prove'', because what is both laughable and sad
in this extraterritorial measures saga is that the carelessness and
wait-and-see attitude the Liberal government stubbornly clung to
in the several months preceding the introduction of this bill could
have been more costly for our business people. This situation is
very troubling, because the Liberal government let way too much
water flow under the bridge before responding to a law with
extraterritorial implications passed by a foreign country but
directly affecting our business people.
And this foreign country is not an obscure, little known nation
led by a dictator or located far away from Canada, but our main
trading partner and international ally, the United States of America.
The U.S. government, which bills itself as the champion of free
enterprise, will always amaze the international community by
enacting laws such as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act, better known as the Helms-Burton law. What is surprising
though is that this is not the first time that the U.S. has passed this
kind of legislation and that we have to react to it.
(1035)
In 1985, to impose an embargo against the small central
American country of Nicaragua, the American government passed
4490
legislation with extraterritorial implications that could have
adversely affected the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.
The Republican administration claimed that the American
legislation would apply to any foreign company whose operations
might have repercussions in the U.S. or on American companies.
In response to the American embargo against Nicaragua, in
which the U.S. wanted to involve the international community,
Canada passed Bill C-14, an act respecting foreign extraterritorial
measures.
Note that the provisions of this act were never used, which may
well be the case again with Bill C-54 to amend the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act in response to two new pieces of
American legislation.
Under conservative pressure from the Republican majority in
Congress, the Democrat administration just approved two pieces of
legislation allowing Americans to sue companies in Quebec,
Canada or anywhere in the world. The first one is commonly
known as the Helms-Burton law and is designed to extend the
embargo against Cuba, while the second one is the Iranian and
Libyan economic sanctions law of 1996.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated earlier, the U.S. is
certainly quite free to impose sanctions on any country if it deems
it appropriate to do so, but we will not permit a country, any
country, to pass extraterritorial legislation affecting companies
operating out of another sovereign state.
In the present case, we must recall the context in which this
American legislation was passed. The Helms-Burton law is the
political expression of the American response to the Cuban air
force shooting down two small American civilian aircraft for
presumably violating Cuban airspace.
As for the legislation imposing sanctions on Iran and Libya, two
countries suspected of supporting international terrorism, it was
passed after a TWA airliner mysteriously crashed just after taking
off from New York, this summer.
However, regardless of how justified the American
administration might be in adopting sanctions against these
countries, we cannot accept that the United States, or any other
country, can unilaterally pass laws affecting Canadian businesses
and nationals outside their boundaries.
The Helms-Burton law and the legislation seeking to extend
sanctions against Iran and Libya not only violate every
international agreement on trade liberalization-including the Free
Trade Agreement, NAFTA and the Uruguay Round agreements
establishing the World Trade Organization-they also do not
promote the type of harmonious, productive and positive relations
that close allies such as Canada and the United States should
maintain.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said earlier, we cannot accept
that the Americans can go ahead and use international trade
agreements when it is convenient to do so, while adopting
unilateral measures such as these when it suits them.
It is as much a matter of principle as it is an economic issue,
given that Canada's economic relations with Cuba are relatively
limited. In 1995, imports from Cuba totalled $320 million, while
Canadian exports to that country reached $250 million.
Obviously, such an arrogant and authoritarian attitude on the part
of friendly countries is not conducive to a relation based on trust
and dialogue. This is why we feel that these two new American
laws are totally unacceptable.
The U.S. government seems prepared to risk offending friendly
countries for the sole purpose of destabilizing the Cuban, Iranian
and Libyan regimes. We are always surprised to see how relentless
our American neighbours can be when they target certain members
of the international community, on the grounds of noble and
generous principles that they conveniently forget in other
situations.
For instance, the United States is much more permissive with
China and Vietnam where democracy and human rights are
concerned than with Cuba. But China and Vietnam are, need I
remind you, growing markets, which make principles that more
flexible.
(1040)
On this issue, I must say that the Canadian government is
marching to the beat of the same drummer as the American
administration. However, lamentable cases like that of Trân Trieu
Quân, a Canadian citizen sentenced to hard labour in Vietnam,
must continue to make us aware that an increase in trade does not
necessarily entail more respect for human rights.
Anyway, upon closer examination, you realize that there are two
sections at the heart of the Helms-Burton law. First of all, section 3
permits American nationals to prosecute in the American courts
any foreign corporation which has benefitted from real estate or
facilities that used to belong to these American citizens and that
were confiscated by the Cuban government following the 1959
revolution.
It is as if, when they left the country, those corporations retained
a right to their properties and facilities in perpetuity ensuring that
no one else could ever benefit from them.
And then there is section 4, which denies entry into the United
States of managers or majority shareholders of foreign
corporations along with their spouses and under age children
allegedly trafficking-as the law defines it-in U.S. property
confiscated by the Cuban government.
4491
The problem with Bill C-54, which the House is debating today,
is that, on July 15 of this year, the American president exercised
his discretionary power to suspend title III concerning legal
proceedings. He can renew this suspension every six months if
he deems it to be in the national interest of the United States.
Therefore, Bill C-54 is nothing more than a symbolic measure
for the time being since its sole purpose is to neutralise the effects
of title III. This way, the Canadian government can have the
impression that it bared its teeth, that it stood up courageously for
businessmen from Quebec and Canada, but this unexpected show
of courage came only after the government had made sure the
Americans did not intend to enforce this provision.
However, it is revealing as well as disturbing to see that title III
of the Helms-Burton law banning people from travelling to the
United States is in force and that the Canadian government has not
included any protective or retaliatory measures in the bill before us
today.
The federal government is giving the impression that it is
reacting strongly and diligently when it knows its actions are of no
consequence, but it continues to show the same lack of courage
when effective and significant measures need to be taken.
It is therefore very surprising to see that the Liberal government
waited for the American president to exercise his discretionary
power to suspend title III for a period of six months before going
ahead with Bill C-54.
When it announced last June 17 that it was going to table a bill to
amend the existing Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, the
government already knew that the president was going to suspend
this title.
I was happy to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying earlier
that suspending the application of Title III was not enough for
Canada, that what Canada was calling for was no less than the
amendment and even the outright withdrawal of this legislation and
of Title III, which more particularly concerns us.
But something has been overlooked. Title IV of the
Helms-Burton legislation has prevented a number of Canadian
nationals from entering the United States since August 1. To date,
at least seven people, essentially members of the management of
Sherritt International Corporation, have been affected by the
application of this title. And what is the federal government doing
about it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It waits for the other shoe to
drop and ceases all action, probably for fear of ruffling the feathers
of our American neighbours.
This Toronto based Canadian company holds shares in Cuba in
the nickel mines, in petroleum development, and in the agricultural
and tourist sectors. Its completely respectable commercial
activities have made the directors of this company persona non
grata on American soil. Yet, these people have never committed
any crime, either in Canada or in the United States. They have no
criminal record. They are simply guilty of having invested and
conducted business in Cuba.
(1045)
For example, how would the U.S. government react if the
Canadian government decided to apply this type of legislation to
American nationals?
Even if it is not always in agreement with the United States'
political and trade choices and priorities, the Canadian government
has never gone so far as to consider American nationals as
criminals on its territory solely on the grounds of nationality. Bill
C-54 is, therefore, incomplete because it counteracts only one
portion of the Helms-Burton law, which is currently inoperative.
The step that now becomes necessary, if the Canadian government
really intends to protect the interests of Quebecers and Canadians,
is to call for the striking of a special group to settle the dispute
under NAFTA.
Even though in recent months a number of federal departments
have made strong representations to protest the consequences of
the Helms-Burton law, even though the American president has
suspended for six months the right of American nationals to
institute legal proceedings under Helms-Burton, and even though
the Liberal government is proudly presenting Bill C-54 today, the
Helms-Burton law is still in existence, nevertheless, and is causing
serious harm to citizens of Quebec and of Canada, and is liable to
cause still more in the coming months.
What is the government waiting for, under these circumstances,
before bringing this dispute before NAFTA?
Even if Canada has risen to object to the Helms-Burton law in
such international fora as the World Trade Organization, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the
Organization of American States, it still must take concrete legal
action.
Canada has some formidable allies in its fight against the
Helms-Burton law. Mexico, for example, also a signatory to
NAFTA, is equally affected by application of this act. Already the
Mexican telecommunications group Domos has seen five of its
directors refused entry into U.S. territory because of its
investments in Cuba, which are in excess of $700 million.
We urge the government to submit the Helms-Burton act to
competent authorities under NAFTA, in association with Mexico
which is also affected by this legislation.
Frankly, I must admit I have doubts about the determination of
the government to protect efficiently the interests of Quebecers and
Canadians. We may actually have before us a bill aimed at
protecting their interests but we have reasons to believe that it will
probably never be used.
4492
Indeed the Minister of International Trade himself has candidly
admitted in the House, on June 18, that the legislative measures
proposed by the government would only be used as a last resort
and that he hoped he would never have to use it.
By seeking to avoid a confrontation with the United States at all
costs the Liberal government will hurt Canadian citizens.
However, we do support a clause of Bill C-54 which requires
Canadian businesses to abide by Canadian laws. In a news release
dated September 16, the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade announced, and I quote: ``The Government is
also amending FEMA to update penalties so that Canadians will be
less likely to abide by objectionable foreign laws and more likely to
follow Canadian law''.
We have already mentioned in this House the case of a company
operating on Canadian territory which scrupulously applies the
American embargo against Cuba. I am referring to American
Express, whose case has already been mentioned to the Minister of
International Trade. The Canadian branch of American Express has
violated Canadian law for many years, since it still follows the
guidelines of its head office which prohibit doing business with
Cuba.
We have a letter sent by American Express to a resident of
Quebec. In that letter, the addressee is informed that the American
head office and all subsidiaries throughout the world abide by U.S.
government regulations. I will read you part of this letter:
[English]
``We regret that you are unable to use travellers cheques in Cuba.
This is due to U.S. government regulations prohibiting the
exportation of goods and services in Cuba. These regulations apply
to all companies incorporated within the United States and their
foreign branches and subsidiaries''
(1050)
[Translation]
The Minister of International Trade said previously in this House
that he would look into the case of American Express, and the
official opposition is still waiting for him to do so. It is shocking to
see that subsidiaries of American companies established in Canada
abide by laws and directives emanating from a foreign government.
Under the amendments proposed in Bill C-54, a company
located in Canada that observes the law of a foreign jurisdiction
instead of Canadian legislation may be liable to financial penalties
in excess of those prevailing today. Penalties that before were
about $10,000 could now be as high as $1.5 million. In similar
cases, the United States imposes fines of up to one million dollars
in U.S. currency.
Passing legislation alone is not enough. It must also be enforced.
If companies located in Canada do not abide by Canadian law, then
we must make sure that law is enforced.
In concluding, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the position taken
by most of our foreign partners who are opposed to the
Helms-Burton law and the law imposing sanctions against Iran and
Libya. We believe that the Canadian government should stop
claiming it maintains its independence vis-à-vis our main ally if it
is not prepared to act accordingly.
Since the government proposes to authorize non-recognition of
foreign judgments against companies or individuals in Quebec and
Canada, and since it suggests increasing the penalties for observing
foreign laws instead of Canadian legislation, we do support the bill
to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.
However, we feel that we should go one step further by asking
for a special dispute settlement panel under NAFTA. The Minister
for International Trade told us last March that Canada would ask
for a consultation under Chapter 20 of the North American Free
Trade Agreement. By pursuing this, the government will ensure the
invalidation of legislation that contradicts all the efforts deployed
in recent years to achieve free trade.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin my speech on Bill C-54 by stating that the Reform
Party will support this legislation, although I believe it is only a
half measure to resolve this dispute.
My advice when this matter first arose was to take this to a
dispute resolution panel under NAFTA and get the Helms-Burton
act overturned. Had we moved on this quickly we would be well on
our way to settling this dispute once and for all. A dispute
settlement mechanism was negotiated in NAFTA. It is in place and
we should not be afraid to use it.
It is clear that Helms-Burton is in contravention of the NAFTA
agreement with United States. Helms-Burton is also an affront to
Canada's right to set its own foreign policy and to continue trading
and investing in Cuba. We cannot allow this American act to go
unchallenged. Passing Bill C-54 is one more defensive action that
we can take, but a much more effective one would have been to
take the Helms-Burton bill to a dispute resolution settlement under
NAFTA. I repeat that this should be done immediately, not after the
American election in November.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that under the
Helms-Burton bill liabilities continue to accrue. This is a stopgap
measure, we support it to that extent, but we believe that it should
be settled once and for all.
4493
We must take a firm stand. We cannot allow the United States
to push us around as it has on softwood lumber, as it has on wheat.
Now it is telling us where to invest and do business. If we keep
letting the Americans get away with these bullying tactics we will
only encourage them to keep threatening us.
Just two days ago there was another report in the press that the
acting American trade representative and the agriculture secretary
had issued a joint statement that they were going to use U.S. trade
laws to keep our wheat exports from growing. Canada capitulated
to the Americans in 1994 and agreed to caps on wheat exports, at
1.5 million tonnes. Things have been quiet this past year because
U.S. wheat supplies grew and Canadian prices were no longer
competitive. Clearly that action is contrary to the free trade concept
that Canada wants to establish throughout the world, a market
economy.
We have been one of the forerunners, and rightly so, in
negotiating free trade deals and I believe that we have to ensure
that countries play by the rules. This year we have a bumper crop
and the Americans are afraid that our wheat will once again
become attractive. Various American interest groups have seen us
buckle time and time again. That is a very bad precedent and
encourages only further strong arm tactics. I believe we have to use
whatever avenues we can to fight Helms-Burton and other attempts
to fetter free trade.
(1055)
Bill C-54 makes certain amendments to the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act which allow the Canadian
government to stymie some of the more aggressive aspects of the
Helms-Burton act. They are good as far as they go.
I would like to get into the specifics of the Helms-Burton act and
how the proposed amendments to FEMA will help defang that
legislation. The Helms-Burton act allows U.S. nationals who have
claims on expropriated property in Cuba to sue Canadian
companies and people who traffic in that property. Trafficking is
defined quite broadly in the act to include things like holding an
interest in confiscated property, engaging in commercial activities
using confiscated property or participating in profits through
another person who is trafficking in that confiscated property.
Under Helms-Burton a U.S. national who has a certified claim to
expropriated property can start an action in a U.S. court under title
III. U.S. officials have said that almost 6,000 claims of
expropriation have been recognized by Washington as being
legitimate. Of those, about 800 were above the threshold of
$50,000 in commercial value in 1959 when Fidel Castro took
power. Many of these are not subject to claims by U.S. nationals
any longer.
It is true that President Clinton has waived until January certain
provisions allowing suits against foreign firms. We cannot take for
granted that he will do so again. The legislation is there and it is
there to protect ourselves. Further, we should start an immediate
action under NAFTA to resolve this issue once and for all. As we
heard earlier liabilities continue to accrue.
Under Helms-Burton, once court proceedings begin and a U.S.
court is presented with a certified claim it can award up to three
times the damages claimed by the U.S. national. If the Canadian
company refuses to pay the damages that are awarded the
Helms-Burton act allows the U.S. national to ask Canadian courts
to enforce this judgment.
Here is where the amendments to FEMA kick in for the first
time. The new and improved FEMA will allow the attorney general
to declare such an order cannot be recognized or enforced in
Canada. That is a step in the right direction.
If the Canadian company has assets in the United States,
Helms-Burton allows the U.S. court to seize and sell those assets
and pay the awarded damage to the U.S. national. Here again the
strength in FEMA will step in. It will allow the Canadian company
to recover in Canadian courts any amounts that have been awarded
in the United States.
However, a glitch in all of this is that the U.S. national would
have to have assets in Canada to be counter seized. I do not know of
many U.S. nationals who can sue under Helms-Burton that would
have assets in Canada, certainly not a whole lot. Therefore we are
going to be questioning this and making some recommendations in
committee on how this may be improved.
Helms-Burton is meant to intimidate foreign individuals and
companies from investing in Cuba and carrying on any business
activities there. Here again an amendment to FEMA shows the
Americans that the Canadians have backbone. We are going to raise
these penalties from $10,000 to $1.5 million on Canadian
companies that refuse to trade with Cuba for fear of U.S. sanctions.
For instance, if a company was planning a business venture prior
to the passage of Helms-Burton but got cold feet later, it could be
fined for allowing the American legislation to influence its
decision. I have read that the RCMP has conducted about two
dozen investigations of complaints that subsidiary companies in
Canada were violating earlier provisions of FEMA not to let
American head offices influence their trade with Cuba. I
understand that there have been no prosecutions to date.
It is easy for a subsidiary to say that it walked away from a sale
to Cuba for valid commercial reasons that have nothing to do with
Helms-Burton. That is why I believe that making these
amendments to FEMA, although good, are only a stop gap
measure. We must try to get Helms-Burton overturned.
4494
The aspects of Helms-Burton that Bill C-54 does not address
is that provisions for barring entry into the United States of senior
officials of selected Canadian companies. Clearly these are in
contravention of NAFTA. Article 1603 of the NAFTA trade
agreement specifically states that each party shall grant temporary
entry to business persons who are otherwise qualified for entry
under applicable measures relating to public health and safety and
national security. What is happening here is that the senior
officials of these Canadian companies would not be in
contravention of NAFTA and we should make that case very
clearly.
Does the United States have the right in the wake of NAFTA to
stop healthy law-abiding Canadian business people from entering
that country? I do not think so. Not after we signed NAFTA. It is
clear that it does not.
The Speaker: My colleague, I must interrupt you. You will have
the floor immediately after question period. I understand that you
have approximately 30 minutes left.
It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
4494
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, at the age of 93, Rose Ouellette, affectionately
nicknamed ``La Poune'', a legendary figure in Quebec burlesque,
passed into history at the end of a long career spanning three
quarters of a century.
During the most painful depression years in the 1930s, this lady
so close to the people gave her audience a ration of good humour
that carried them through the harsh reality of their daily lives.
Beyond the stage, her friends and neighbours at the Chez-nous des
artistes confirm that Rose Ouellette was generous and jovial.
Making frequent appearances at the Cartier theatre, Dominion
theatre, National theatre, Mocambo, Café de l'est, she was a pillar
of Quebec culture. Together with her stage partners, Olivier
Guimond, Juliette and Arthur Pétrie, Paul Desmarteaux, and Jean
Despré, she touched Quebecers' hearts.
Madame Rose, our people will remember you for ever.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to share a letter which was forwarded to me by a constituent,
Mr. Doug Leitch, Sr. The letter reads:
This country was built by its people, not the government. Let's get the country
back in the hands of the people through less government. Let the citizens determine
how they will live and determine their own destiny-not a few people in Ottawa.
This means empowering that level of government closest to the
people to deliver the services, allowing people to make their own
decisions versus government making them for them. It means a
smaller federal government of 250 MPs, not expanding it to 301. It
means less duplication and overlapping and red tape of federal and
provincial government services. It means that governments should
govern the country at arm's length, not compete directly with their
citizens and businesses through selective subsidies and grants.
Finally, it means less power to the politicians and more power to
the people.
* * *
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we look to
children as the future of our society. Why then do some members of
society treat children as chattels rather than treasures?
One million children under 18 work as prostitutes in Asia and
another one million children worldwide enter the sex trade every
year. These are shameful statistics. This is an international
problem, one we must eradicate not only in Canada but in the rest
of the world.
A first step is to pass Bill C-27, which would assist in the
apprehension and prosecution of those who seek out and use child
prostitutes, whether the crime is committed inside or outside
Canada. This law will protect children from those who prey on
them.
I call on the government to initiate other measures as well which
would serve to protect our most important natural resource, our
children.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past two months I have met with business
leaders, representatives of chambers of commerce, boards of trade
representatives and municipal officers in the six regions of New
Brunswick. These meetings were co-ordinated through the efforts
of New Brunswick's industrial commissions and provided an
opportunity for round table discussions focusing on jobs and small
business.
Through these presentations we were able to discuss what has
been accomplished to date and exactly what must be done in the
future in order to attain our goal of continued growth in small
business and jobs.
(1105 )
While we have met or exceeded our deficit reduction goals and
achieved over 600,000 new jobs in Canada, there is still much to
4495
be done. These regional meetings were helpful in developing new
initiatives so that new opportunities may be created.
I would like to thank the industrial commission managers and all
participants who made the round table meetings in New Brunswick
such a great success.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to bring to your attention the major
expansion of a leading edge Fredericton company.
Formal Systems Inc. has announced it will create 100 new jobs.
These jobs are being created with the help of a $750,000 repayable
loan from ACOA as Formal Systems undertakes activities leading
to the development of new technologies. These technologies will
address the date change at the turn of the century which is less than
1,000 working days away.
Computers are set up for a two digit date and when the clock
turns to the year 2000, the computer will read the date as being the
year 1900, resulting in obvious disruptions in everything from
billing phone calls to calculating interest. Most computers are not
set up to adapt properly to the date change. Formal Systems will
develop an automated conversion tool set to remedy this problem.
New Brunswick companies are once again showing they have
the solutions, the technology and the drive to lead the way in
meeting worldwide information technology requirements.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two years
ago this week, Sarah Kelly, a young constituent of mine from The
Pas, was brutally murdered by a man known to be a dangerous
offender. After this tragedy I joined my constituents in mourning
the loss of this young life and in calling for tougher laws to deal
with dangerous offenders and repeat sex offenders.
This week, two years after Sarah's death, the Minister of Justice
introduced Bill C-55 which targets dangerous offenders and sex
offenders. I believe that this legislation will honour Sarah's
memory by helping to prevent tragedies like this in the future.
I call on all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on July
31, the Canadian Minister of International Trade and the Israeli
Minister of Trade and Industry signed a free trade agreement
between Canada and Israel, which is to come into force on January
1, 1997.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois applauds the signing of this
treaty, which will give our businesses greater access to the Israeli
market. However, although it concerns a host of companies across
Canada, it should be pointed out that this agreement was negotiated
behind closed doors, without any real debate or public consultation.
We strongly condemn this lack of openness on the part of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We believe
it is the duty of the federal government to keep the public informed
of what is at stake when negotiating trade matters with other
countries. This is the least one should expect from a so-called
transparent government.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the minister of
immigration took a hands on approach to her portfolio this past
summer by getting out into the field and witnessing Canada's
refugee laws at work.
And what did the minister discover? Lo and behold, she was
amazed to learn that some refugees were not legitimate. She was
shocked to learn that when a Chilean claimed refugee status
because he was unable to find work in his native Chile he was
allowed to remain in Canada.
The minister has since announced a crackdown on bogus
refugees and a plan to revamp the Immigration Act. At last a
government minister has finally decided to listen to the Reform
Party and has found out that what we have been saying in this
House for the past three years has been right all along.
But I hear the Liberals have been inspired by the unemployed
Chilean who had claimed refugee status. Since the Liberal strategy
to resolve our unemployment problems has failed, they are likely
considering sending the one million unemployed Canadians across
the border to claim refugee status in the United States.
4496
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on a topic of great
importance: breast cancer.
Statistics tell us that in their lifetime, one in nine Canadian
women will be diagnosed with this disease. They also tell us that
one in every three women diagnosed with this disease will die.
However, the statistics do not begin to tell the real story behind this
disease: the fear, the pain and the uncertainty.
(1110 )
Two constituents of mine, Paul and Mary Knowles, understand
fully the terror of this disease. Mary is a breast cancer survivor.
Recently the Knowles published a book entitled Close to the Heart,
an anthology of Canadian poetry and short stories supported by
poets across this country. All the proceeds from the sale of this
book will go to the Canadian breast cancer research initiative.
I congratulate Paul and Mary Knowles for their hard work and
dedication to this cause. I encourage all Canadians to give
generously to the fight against this terrible disease.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to draw the attention of the House to the issue of
commercial signs in Ottawa, which has an impact not only on the
francophone community in Ottawa but also on national unity.
Must we always remind the stubborn people on both sides of the
linguistic war that Canada is a bilingual country with two official
languages? Ottawa business people are certainly not required by
law to put up signs in French. Still, simple courtesy requires them
to put up signs in both French and English, just as Montreal shop
owners ought to have signs in both official languages as they are
allowed to under the law.
Canada prides itself on its ability to adapt to the differences
between people. Everyone must contribute, otherwise the Canadian
ideal will die.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
September 20, 1996, the Bloc leader said, and I quote: ``As far as I
am concerned, the Bloc's mission is not to sell the idea of
partnership to the rest of Canada''.
Yet, on June 16, the Bloc leader had this to say, and I quote:
``-as we speak, I have a task force that is looking at how we could
co-ordinate our efforts in the rest of Canada to explain the
partnership portion of our political program that is consistent with
sovereignty''.
[English]
The only thing that is clear in the contradictions of the Bloc
leadership is that they invite Quebecers to follow them blindly
without really knowing where they are going.
Once again for them, the end, sovereignty, justifies the means.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently
inaugurated her department's new web site on the Internet.
According to her press release, a video camera will transmit images
of the Parliament buildings on the World Wide Web 24 hours a day.
The minister justifies this expenditure by arguing ``that the
Peace Tower is one of the most widely recognized symbols of
Canada, just like the beaver and the maple leaf''. Perhaps she
wanted to announce the imminent appearance on our screens of
interactive maple leafs and beavers.
What the minister is not telling us is the number of loonies
taxpayers will have to shell out to promote the beaver. This new
web site is nothing more than another element in the strategy of her
colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to promote
artificially and at great cost a feeling of belonging among
Canadians.
Since the referendum, the people of Quebec know that Canada is
living on borrowed time, but what we did not know is that its
Parliament has now become a virtual reality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week in question period the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food quoted both myself and the member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.
He quoted the two of us from a CBC Radio report saying that
calls to our offices showed a majority of callers wanted the CWB to
retain its monopoly. That is true, but calls to one's office are hardly
a scientific survey and are a country mile away from a plebiscite.
However they do indicate a high level of concern on both sides.
That concern is that the minister is fiddling while the industry is
4497
burning. He did not get the answers he wanted from his own grain
marketing panel so now he is digging himself a hole like a gopher
on the run.
Farmers on both sides of this issue are becoming agitated. I warn
the minister that this inaction puts him at risk of losing all the good
things about the CWB.
I also warn the minister of fence sitting. It is going to get hot on
that part of the anatomy that meets the rail. At least Reformers are
listening to what farmers are saying.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that, after more than ten
years of sustained efforts and investments totalling several billion
dollars, the federal-provincial program called St. Lawrence Vision
2000 is starting to yield results.
(1115)
Indeed, at a press conference held in Montreal, officials
representing the Canadian and Quebec governments announced
that the discharge of waste by the 50 largest polluters in the St.
Lawrence has been reduced by 96 per cent.
Other measures are currently being implemented and will affect
about 50 additional businesses located on other affluents of the
river.
The cleaning up of the St. Lawrence is not completed, far from
it, but given these results, we have every reason to be proud of what
we have achieved. This is an incentive to keep up our efforts to
eventually give people a clean river they will be able to enjoy
safely.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, September 21, will be a great day in Oakville when my
constituents will welcome home and honour our four Olympic
athletes: our boxer Domenic Filane, our cyclist Eric Wohlberg, our
paddler Gavin Maxwell, and our sprinter Donovan Bailey.
After a breakfast with a representative group of children, the
four Olympians will proceed through town in a motorcade to a big
rally in a waterfront park. CBC Newsworld will cover the rally live
at 12 noon.
I want to invite you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House,
and indeed all Canadians to share the joy and pride that will
explode in Oakville tomorrow. Join us by watching CBC
Newsworld at noon.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated that he has no intention of
removing the GST on reading materials because he cannot afford
the loss of $140 million in revenue.
Yet the minister can afford the obscene MP pension plan, the
Deputy Prime Minister's flag propaganda machine and the $1
billion buyout offered to Atlantic premiers to join the
harmonization scheme. This is despite a personal pledge from the
Prime Minister and the Liberal Party policy to remove the tax on
reading.
This government continues to pay lip service to encouraging
literacy while taxing it. The harmonization scheme will force
Atlantic Canadians to pay $15 on a $100 science textbook.
In twisted logic, to further promote literacy, the government will
be collecting GST on special 50 cent stamps being sold by Canada
Post. The corporation will donate five cents of every stamp sold to
a literacy fund while the government collects four cents on the
same stamp.
This government clearly lacks integrity, not only on failing to
remove the tax on books, but on taxing literacy itself.
_____________________________________________
4497
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance seemed proud of the
Liberal majority report on the family trust scandal, a report he said
he applauded. However, the former auditor general, Mr. Dye,
maintained that Liberal members failed to understand the
watchdog role of the auditor general, and the auditor general
himself stated this week, after the report was published, that his
position had not changed. Thank goodness, because that is what he
is there for.
I have this question for the Minister of Finance. Although it is
obvious that Liberal members made a terrible mistake in this report
by attacking the auditor general, why does the Minister of Finance
insist on endorsing the report? And I repeat the question that was
asked yesterday: Who is this government trying to protect?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the majority report is very favourable. Actually, there are plenty of
very favourable comments on work done by the auditor general. I
admit that they disagree with the auditor general on one particular
point. However, a standing committee of our House has the right to
criticize or to disagree with an employee of Parliament, whether, as
4498
I said yesterday, he happens to be the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada or the auditor
general.
The hon. member asks me why we endorse the majority report. It
is because the report endorses the vast majority of remarks and
comments made by the auditor general. That is why.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to say that a committee has the right to express its views
does not prove anything. After all, in a democracy we have the
right to be wrong. It is not a sin.
We know the government is wrong, but we are asking whether it
could act responsibly to do something. Because as far as important
issues go, it is no accident that all editorial writers, at least those in
the French newspapers, are saying this does not make sense.
(1120)
The former auditor general says it does not make sense, and the
current auditor general says so too. The consensus is growing. And
of course we agree. ``On a minor point'', the Minister of Finance
says. Actually, on May 9 this year he said:
-we certainly said clearly when we came to office that there were weaknesses in the
taxation system that needed to be corrected. We have supported the actions of the
auditor general in this area and will continue to do so.
That is what we are asking the government to do. What we are
asking is this: Once again, whose interests are they protecting by
not responding to the judgment made by the auditor general? They
say it is only a minor point, but we think they disagree on the main
point made in the auditor general's report.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general's main point is that the problem today is how to
treat capital gains when someone, an immigrant, a person, a trust, a
company, or partnership wants to leave Canada.
That was the auditor general's main point, and the majority
report endorsed it, saying that action must be taken. We agree, and
we intend to take that action.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the loophole is still there. The auditor general said so and
they are trying to rap the knuckles of the auditor general because he
did. They are telling the auditor general: You should have left that
alone.
I have the impression that the Minister of Finance took
Camouflage 101 with the Minister of National Defence. They are
sitting side by side, and I am sure they are comparing notes. I want
to ask him why he endorsed what the committee had to say about
the auditor general. Who gave the order to cover up this scandal?
The Prime Minister or some generous party supporter who might
want to use this loophole?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is ridiculous. The government asked the Standing Committee
on Finance to consider the auditor general's report and to give us its
opinion on the main point: How do we treat capital gains when an
immigrant wants to leave the country?
The majority report was very thorough in the way it dealt with
this point, and the government intends to take action. It is certainly
not our policy to cover up the situation. We wanted to shed some
light on the matter, and the majority report did so, and we intend to
act.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance asked the finance committee to
look into the problem but not to take a partial look. When will the
Minister of Finance start looking out for all Canadian taxpayers,
not just Canada's ten wealthiest families.
In its report, instead of plugging the tax loophole that allowed $2
billion to be transferred out of Canada tax free, the Liberal majority
on the finance committee throws the door wide open for wealthy
Canadian families. It concluded that this scandal was legal, thus
upholding a decision made by Revenue Canada that may cost
Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he recognize
that his acceptance of this report, yesterday and again today, flies in
the face of the recommendations of the auditor general and allows
huge assets to be transferred out of the country by wealthy
Canadian families that end up not paying taxes in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that capital gains considerations may be a concern
for wealthier families. But they can also be of concern to families
with lower incomes.
I mentioned yesterday the case of the widow of an immigrant,
who decides to go back home. If she happens to be a shareholder in
a small private company, she too will be affected because, in every
case, the question is: How do we deal with capital gains when an
individual, any individual, leaves the country? It could be a retiree
who moves to Florida, as many do. That is the question, a very
serious question that must be considered thoroughly.
(1125)
The hon. member raised the issue of loopholes. I have a list three
pages long of loopholes that we have closed since taking office.
The point of the matter is: how to ensure that the tax system is fair.
That is our objective. I wish the opposition would at least
contribute to the debate.
4499
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister referred to tax planning and forward
averaging. We have nothing against that. We have a problem
however with such vehicles and provisions of the Income Tax Act,
which the minister refuses to change, being used to transfer
millions of dollars to the U.S. or elsewhere tax-free. Something
is wrong. Everyone has to pay taxes to Revenue Canada, but when
it comes time to deal with the rich friends of the Liberal Party,
nothing is done. Something is wrong.
My question to the minister is as follows: Is this report not being
concurred in to protect the interests of those in high political
circles, with the approval of the Minister of Finance?
[English]
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, in the three years
we have been in office we have closed more loopholes, more
openings in the tax system than any previous government. As a
result of our actions the tax act is more fair. Wealthy Canadians are
paying far more taxes. I have three pages of measures which we
have taken to deal with this.
This issue is not one that only applies to rich Canadians. It
applies to Canadians of very ordinary circumstances who for one
reason or another decide to leave the country, whether it is to retire
in another country or return to the country of their birth. These
people ought to be treated fairly. They ought to be treated in a way
that does not deprive the state of taxation.
At the same time we have tax treaties with some 60 countries.
We are operating in a way that the OECD has established. Our
system is tighter than the vast majority of other countries. I am sure
members opposite do not want us to act in a way that would be
unfair to ordinary Canadians. That is why we asked the finance
committee to look at the issue and they did. That is why we have
said we are going to act quickly on their recommendations.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, double standards and conflicts of interest abound in
the Somalia inquiry. The defence minister is interfering with the
inquiry at every turn. He has allowed General Boyle to receive
preferential treatment by giving the government's own dream team
of lawyers' access to confidential military police reports and,
possibly the biggest conflict of interest of all, the designing of the
Somalia inquiry mandate.
Will the defence minister confirm that General Boyle played a
part in the drafting of the mandate and the terms of reference of the
Somalia inquiry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the terms of
reference for that inquiry originated in my office in consultation
with departmental officials.
They were amended by me at a late stage to ensure certain things
were put in which I thought were germane to the efficacy of the
inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry are mine and I take
responsibility for them. I think they have been widely
acknowledged as being comprehensive, all encompassing and they
will get to the bottom of the matter.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister again for not
answering my question. I wanted to know if General Boyle was
involved in the drafting of the mandate and terms of reference.
Not only is the government hiding behind the inquiry, it is
interfering with it at the same time. The Prime Minister attacked
the inquiry in the most flagrant fashion. His next barrage went to
the noble members serving in the Canadian Armed Forces who
choose to leave. These men practice leadership and responsibility
with accountability. The Prime Minister attacked them. Does the
Prime Minister think it shows moral fibre to attack retired generals
who were honourably serving this country?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anyone has
been interfering with this process it is the hon. member and his
colleagues. As I said yesterday to his colleague from Beaver River,
they have reflected on evidence, impugned motives of individuals,
and made all kinds of wild accusations in the House.
(1130 )
This demonstrates the reason why we had to have the inquiry in
the first place, to take it out of the partisan atmosphere of the House
of Commons, to put it in a judicial setting, an impartial setting so
that everyone could be heard fairly and all the evidence could be
examined clearly and thoroughly.
The hon. member is the best advertisement for the reasons why
we set up the inquiry: to take the partisan aspect out of it. All the
hon. member and his colleagues have done in the last number of
months is to turn this into a partisan issue. I do not believe that the
people of Canadian appreciate that very much.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will judge the government on
this issue.
The minister would have us believe that the cuts to national
defence have caused the low morale in the forces. It was not budget
cuts that shredded documents. It was not budget cuts to that lied to
the military police. It was not budget cuts that broke the Access to
4500
Information Act. It was General Boyle and this minister and this
government approves of it.
Why will he not admit that it is the Liberal government's lack of
integrity and lack of ethics, not the lack of money, that is hurting
our Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems quite
obvious that as the days go by, the hon. member is becoming more
and more hysterical about this problem. We prefer to deal with
things in a calm and rational way and let the inquiry do its work.
He talks about the people of Canada judging us. Mr. Speaker, if
you look at the opinion polls, the people of Canada have judged his
party already and they have found it totally wanting on just about
every issue that affects Canadians and it will be the same thing on
this problem.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Canadian Judicial Council voted unanimously in
favour of removing from the bench Mr. Justice Bienvenue, a judge
of the Superior Court of Quebec. Last July 5, the justice minister
indicated clearly that he was awaiting the council's
recommendations before taking action regarding Mr. Justice
Bienvenue.
Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether or not he agrees with
the recommendation of the Canadian Judicial Council that Mr.
Justice Bienvenue be removed from the bench?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the
formal decision from the Canadian Judicial Council. We expect it
perhaps today or next week.
When I have received the report, it is my intention to discuss it
with my colleagues in order to decide on the next step.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the board of inquiry recommended that Mr. Justice
Bienvenue be removed from the bench, and now the Canadian
Judicial Council has endorsed this recommendation. What is the
minister waiting for to take action, and why is he stalling? It is in
the news, everyone knows about it, it has been in the news for a
long time now.
What is the minister waiting for to table a resolution, right now
or early next week, in order to close the final chapter on this case
and ask the House to remove Judge Bienvenue from the bench?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will not have to
wait long but the process will be followed. That process involves
me receiving the official notification of the council's decision, it
involves me consulting with my cabinet colleagues and then taking
action. That is exactly the way we are going to approach this
matter.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
saw after General Boyle's speech on Wednesday that he has now
invented an entirely new military phrase. It goes like this: ``If you
cannot stand the heat get out through the kitchen''. Now it is okay
for the general to avoid scrutiny but the minister cannot avoid the
scrutiny of this House and the questions that have been asked.
The minister was asked: ``Was General Boyle involved in
drafting the terms of reference for the Somalia inquiry?'' Was he
involved? Yes or no?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered the
question fully in my first answer.
The terms of reference which I tabled in March 1995 were a
reflection of the government's thinking in trying to get to the
bottom of this. A number of people, a number of officials, worked
on these terms of reference in conjunction with the deputy minister
and the judge advocate general. The point is that these terms of
reference belong to the government. They reflect the government's
thinking clearly.
(1135)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously this is question period and not answer period.
I want to say this again slowly so the minister understands. We
are asking a simple question on ministerial accountability. We are
asking, was General Boyle involved in the drafting of the
guidelines for the Somalia inquiry? Was he involved, yes or no?
Tell the Canadian people.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are the
people who ask about ministerial responsibility. I am the minister. I
take responsibility for those terms of reference.
They reflect the thinking of the government. They were drafted
by officials in the department in conjunction with the judge
advocate general on my authority and I take responsibility for
them.
4501
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, Guy Bertrand announced, before a select group of
VIPs close to the highest echelons of the Liberal Party of Canada,
that he wished to pursue his legal crusade against Quebec's
attaining sovereignty. Last May, the minister stated that the main
reason for the federal involvement in the Bertrand court case was
the position the Government of Quebec had taken.
Now that the Government of Quebec is withdrawing from the
case, could the minister tell us what could now motivate his
intervention alongside Mr. Bertrand?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last Monday in response to
the same question from another hon. member, we intend to decide
what we will do within the next few days.
I hope to have an answer on the government position on this by
next week.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking of the
Bertrand litigation, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Mr.
Johnson, told the daily Le Soleil, and I quote: ``I find it is not
appropriate to start up the legal squabbling over sovereignty all
over again''.
Can the minister tell us whether he shares that opinion?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said from the outset that
there are important legal principles to be considered. This is both a
political and a legal matter.
We said also that we would take whatever steps that may be
necessary to fulfil our commitment. If there is to be another
referendum the question will be clear, the discussion will be full,
the process will be fair, the consequences well understood and that
all Canadians will have a role to play in deciding the future of their
country.
Those are our objectives and we shall take what steps are
appropriate to achieve them.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence has been asked very clearly
whether General Boyle was involved in drafting the terms of
reference for the inquiry. The minister has not indicated the names
of any officials who were involved. By inference General Boyle
was involved in drafting the terms of reference.
Would the minister confirm that, if not, confirm very clearly that
he was not involved?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great
respect for the hon. member for Lethbridge. He should know after
all his years in government something about parliamentary
democracy in this country.
There is ministerial responsibility. We do not attack, we do not
berate public servants on the floor of the House of Commons, no
matter who they are.
Questions are asked of the government. The government is
accountable for all of the actions within the respective
departments.
I have answered the question two or three times. I, and I alone,
take responsibility for the terms of reference on behalf of the
government. I consulted cabinet colleagues and it was a
collaborative effort in that particular-
Mr. Hart: Then he'll have to go.
Mr. Harris: Cover up, cover up.
Mr. Hart: Resign.
Mr. Collenette: -it was a collaborative effort on that particular
score. In a parliamentary government the ministers and the
ministers alone take responsibility. Those terms of reference are
comprehensive, they are thorough and they will get the answers
Canadians want.
(1140)
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
say very clearly to the Minister of National Defence that by not
answering the question there is a cover-up.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we must not impute motive in our
questions. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word
``cover-up''.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it in that
context.
My question is very straightforward to the minister. Will the
minister table the names of those officials who were involved in
drafting and recommending the terms of reference for the inquiry
so that it is clear to the Canadian public who is involved and so that
we clarify the matter that there was no conflict of interest and that
there was no inferred, assumed or perceived cover-up in any way?
Would the minister table those names next Monday in the
Parliament of Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon.
member and his colleagues ignore a fundamental principle of
4502
responsible government in the parliamentary context. I would
invite him over the weekend to go back and look at some textbooks
to see how our parliamentary system has evolved.
The fact is that ministers elected by the people are responsible
for the actions within their own department. I and I alone am
responsible for those terms of reference.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The latest in a long list of scandals involving the armed forces
was made public yesterday on TV. Several senior officers at the
Valcartier base have developed a system involving embezzlement
and kickbacks. Worse yet, it is alleged that this practice, which has
been going on for at least 15 years, is common place in several
other military bases across the country.
Given the fact that this kind of systematic fraud is part of the
already long list of scandals we know about, what is the Prime
Minister waiting for to clean up the armed forces command,
starting with the defence minister and his protégé, the chief of
staff?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
allegations of fraudulent practices at CFB Base Valcartier have
been known for some time and have been the subject of some
investigations. A number of people have been charged and other
charges are pending.
Again, we have to let the investigative and judicial processes
take effect. Obviously we are concerned when anything of this
nature occurs, especially since the allegations are that these
practices have been going on at least for ten years.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this latest
scandal, which is costing taxpayers a fortune, is in fact part of the
ongoing waste of public funds in the department nine months after
the appointment of General Boyle. For instance, over $31 million
are literally squandered every year as the result of an inefficient
pay system.
Can the Prime minister not see that this is the direct consequence
of his insistence on keeping General Boyle? The armed forces are
floundering while the general is wasting time fixing up his blunders
with his lawyers.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in
answer to earlier questions, this is a department that needed much
reform in its administrative practices. Apparently now we have had
allegations of fraudulent practices which obviously cannot be
accepted and cannot be tolerated. They have been investigated.
There are charges that are about to be laid and some that have
already been laid. Actions have already been taken against at least
one individual.
The key thing is that once the information comes to light, no
matter how disquietening, one must act and act with alacrity. That
is what the department is doing in this particular case.
* * *
(1145 )
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition seems so preoccupied with taking over the work of the
Somali inquiry that everybody seems to have forgotten our hard
working men and women serving in Bosnia.
I wonder if the minister could tell the House, when he attends the
meeting of defence ministers of NATO next week in Norway, what
our position will be on the continuing commitment of Canadian
men and women to Bosnia.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously this is
a matter that will be the subject of cabinet discussions. My
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will be leading that
discussion.
I am glad the hon. member made a tribute to the hard work of the
men and women now serving in Bosnia.
The Canadian government's position has always been that we
want stability in that region. That is why we committed 1,000
troops to the IFOR force. It is quite obvious to most people that
some continuation of the force will be required once IFOR's
mandate terminates. That will be the discussion between ministers
next week.
Once it is determined what is required, Canada will have to
decide whether we shall continue to participate and at what level.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have had a
regiment disbanded, we have had key people, witnesses, taken out
of the country at the last minute. We now have a general who
appears to have an obvious conflict of interest.
Will the minister file now a list of those people who were
responsible for drawing up the frame of reference for the Somalia
inquiry?
4503
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this says
something about the mentality of the members of the Reform
Party. They are not content just to attack ministers. But that is fair
ball because we run for office and we have to defend our policies.
The mentality of the Reform Party is not to stop with the
politicians, which is an acceptable part of our democratic process.
These people want to attack public servants who are doing their
job, public servants who are unable to defend themselves here on
the floor of the House of Commons like I am.
This is why the Reform Party approach is being rejected by
Canadians every single day.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this minister talks
about ministerial responsibility. He also talks about accountability.
He also talks about perception. Right now it is perceived by all
Canadians that we now have a conflict of interest in the very terms
of reference of the Somalia inquiry.
Why will this minister not answer, yes or no, was General Boyle
involved in setting the frame of reference for the Somalia inquiry?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have
a perception of the Reform Party as one that does not understand
parliamentary traditions. It does not understand that public servants
work for the government and do not have the right to defend
themselves in a political arena.
I think the hon. member would be much more comfortable
sitting in the House of Representatives in Washington than he is
sitting in the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last week, we learned that there are still large amounts of
PCB-contaminated sediments on the site of the Irving Whale
wreck. Before the operation to lift this barge, concentrations of 400
to 900 parts per million had been found in contaminated samples.
Given the substantial and troubling presence of PCBs, what does
the minister intend to do in the very short term to correct this
situation, which directly threatens all the fishery resources in that
part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me first thank my hon. friend for the question. It is an
issue that we are taking very seriously. As the member knows,
there was overwhelming support from both the people of P.E.I. as
well as Isle de la Madeleine in terms of ridding the ocean of this
environmental hazard. There was overwhelming support for lifting
the barge, as we did earlier this summer.
Following the lifting of the barge a number of boats stayed for a
number of days doing remediation in terms of the footprint area at
the bottom of the ocean.
(1150 )
We did take a total 20 samplings after the barge was raised, 35
before, and in a number of small instances there were a number of
samples of PCBs that were certainly of concern. Sampling
continues to take place so that we can ascertain the extent of these
samples with the possibility that there may be further remediation.
Both my department as well as the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans are working on it. In the first days of October there may be
further developments that if there needs to be further remediation
that we do so before the winter season comes upon us.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about a sediment contamination level of 10,000 parts per
million. The situation is extremely serious.
Can the Minister of the Environment assure us that the PCBs will
be recovered before the winter so that the fishing industry will not
be threatened next year?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned, there were some 70 barrels of sediments
around the footprint that were collected and brought into the
Halifax port and are being destroyed. The sample which contains
the 10,000 parts per million is one sample near that footprint area.
We are talking to scientists as well as to technicians on it because
we have to determine whether it is a small concentrated sample
which is showing this 10,000 parts per million or whether it is a
larger extended area.
As soon as these officials from both my department and DFO can
ascertain the extent of that sample, if it requires further
remediation and bringing up further sedimentation, that is exactly
what we will do. I have certainly given clear instructions that if that
is an option we will do that before the winter comes upon us.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister talks about ministerial
responsibility and gives the House a big speech on that.
4504
Ministerial responsibility is void without ministerial
accountability. General Boyle wrote the terms of reference for the
Somalia inquiry. Will the minister accept the accountability of his
own department and offer his resignation now?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am relieved. I
have been waiting for two days to be asked to resign by the hon.
member and it has come at last.
What we have to look at is what the members of the Reform
Party are trying to do with this independent judicial process. They
are trying to politicize it.
I have tried not to be partisan this week in dealing with an issue
which is tough, tough for the government and tough for everybody.
However, we see over there desperation politics. Their leader is
under assault. Their spokesman from Calgary West or Calgary
Centre has not been in the House. They have three or four members
who will not even support the leader of the Reform Party. This is an
absolute and total attempt to politicize what should be an impartial
process.
We are seeing the Reform Party undertake tactics that are not
worthy of this Chamber.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is asking the questions that are on
the minds of Canadians. That is our job. Why does the minister not
do his job and accept ministerial accountability?
If we were to find out that another person who was a witness in
front of the inquiry wrote the terms of reference, the government
lawyers would be screaming blue murder. Today we find that
General Boyle has written the terms of reference for the Somalia
inquiry at the same time that he is a witness before that very
inquiry.
This is a conflict of interest. The minister has said he is
accepting ministerial responsibility. Accept ministerial
accountability and do the proper thing for Canada, resign today.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is on the
minds of Canadians at a time when the unity of the country is
threatened, when we are facing the challenges of globalization, is
why a group of members in the House of Commons comes in here
every day to try to politicize a process that is supposed to be devoid
of politics.
(1155)
That is what is on the minds of Canadians.
I have answered the question with respect to the role of ministers
in responsible government, the role of public servants. I would
invite the hon. member to analyse his own question because there
is illogic in the actual question the way it was posed.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week the Minister of Justice introduced measures to
protect Canadians against violent long term offenders. It is an
initiative that I applaud.
However, Canadians who are concerned about rising violent
crime among young people want to know why the minister is not
applying these new tough measures to young offenders.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, which was tabled this
week, is an important step toward safety of Canadians in their
communities. It targets adult offenders, those at highest risk to
reoffend, sexual offenders. It empowers the court to impose a
period as long as 10 years after the end of the prison term of
supervision to ensure that those at highest risk to reoffend are under
some degree of control in the communities.
This regime would apply to a young offender transferred to and
sentenced in the adult court. It does not apply in youth court. As the
hon. member knows, the chair of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs is now completing a comprehensive
review of the Young Offenders Act.
One of the matters under consideration is how better to deal with
violent young offenders. I am certain the committee will look
carefully at the question, whether these principles have application
in the youth justice system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last Tuesday, the Canadian AIDS Society and the Canadian
HIV/AIDS Legal Network tabled a study showing that the number
of HIV-positive inmates in Canadian prisons had risen by 46 per
cent between 1994 and 1996.
Does the Minister of Health intend to make vigorous
representations to his colleague, the solicitor general, to convince
him to take urgent measures to stop the spread of AIDS in Canadian
prisons?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member raises a question that has a number of
recommendations for the Ministry of Health.
4505
We hope to be working more co-operatively with the solicitor
general and move on the recommendations that have been
announced both in terms of research and in terms of surveillance.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since it has already been two years since a committee of
experts submitted to the government specific recommendations on
the kinds of measures needed in prisons, can the Minister of Health
explain to us why his government has done nothing in the past two
years?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have to say I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's
question.
In point of fact, there has been a lot of work by both respective
departments. The Department of Health as well as the solicitor
general have moved on a number of issues.
However, the recommendations which have been contained in
the report that has been released emphasize that there has to be
more focused work as it relates to research. We intend to do that.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the justice minister but I would like to advise the defence
minister that we will be back on Monday.
The worst thing our justice system can do is imprison someone
for a crime they did not commit. Two and a half years ago, I asked
the justice minister to examine the lengthy delays experienced with
the processing of 690 applications which are based on evidence of
wrongful imprisonment.
The justice minister said at that time: ``We will be announcing in
the next few months changes in the system to ensure that all such
applications are dealt with fairly and as quickly as possible''.
I have not heard any announcements in the last two years. Has
the new system been put in place?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the question put to me on
that occasion by the hon. member, the Department of Justice
organized and then published a set of procedures governing section
690 applications, making it clear to applicants what was required of
them and also making clear the steps that would be followed inside
justice in processing such applications. We have followed that
procedure since and I think there has been a real improvement in
the way they have been dealt with.
(1200)
I am very much aware that these applications have to be dealt
with as quickly as possible. We are talking about people who are in
prison, for the most part. At the same time, it is a personal
responsibility of mine to read the file, to review the submissions
and to come to my own independent judgment not only about what
is to be done but the reasons for doing it because of the value of
precedent these cases set.
We do the best we can with the resources available. I will
provide the hon. member with a copy of the guidelines or the
procedure we published, and I know he will have a continuing
interest in these matters.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Wilfrid
Beaulieu has been waiting for word on his 690 application from the
justice minister for over two years. Richard McArthur has been
waiting longer than that.
It is unbelievable that Clifford Olson, a serial child killer, is
guaranteed a review of his parole ineligibility by this government
while the Beaulieus and the McArthurs wait almost indefinitely at
the pleasure of the justice minister in the face of evidence that a
miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
When can Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. McArthur expect a decision on
their 690 applications?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true to say that the application
in the case of Wilfrid Beaulieu was made about two years ago.
However, that does not mean that much time has elapsed since we
had all the material on which to base the decision.
It was only earlier this year that I received the full report after
the evidence was put in the hands of Mr. Beaulieu's lawyer for
comment. It was only earlier this year that I received a draft from
the counsel involved with recommendations. In the interim, I have
reviewed that in detail. I have looked into further aspects of the
matter about which I had questions, and I intend to deal with that
matter in the weeks to come.
I have taken on the practice when I release reasons in these cases
to append a chronology so the public will know about the period
since the original application was taken up. Often it is requesting
additional information that we need, often it is awaiting responses
from counsel for the applicant. All the time that has elapsed is not
necessarily on the account of the Department of Justice.
That having been said, they have to be dealt with quickly.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the acting Prime Minister.
4506
Late last night after the late night news, I received a phone call
from a constituent of Kamloops, a longstanding Liberal who said
that he felt that he had been bitten by his own dog.
He reminded me that on page 89 of the red book it says that a
Liberal government will be committed to stable multi-year
financing for national cultural institutions such as the CBC.
Was he metaphorically bitten by his own dog?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question because
it gives me a chance to underline that there are some positive things
there.
Although the CBC is undergoing some streamlining and
reductions, other departments are doing likewise. I should point out
that although we have had some reductions, there is still $800
million to be allotted to the CBC in our budget. There is a
production fund of $200 million that it will able to tap and it is
going to a completely 100 per cent Canadian programming.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government keeps boasting that it has created 208,000 jobs
to date in 1996 yet there are many Canadians who are still hurting.
Is the government so complacent because of its high rating in the
polls that it is prepared to ignore the plight of over a million
Canadians who are unemployed?
Does the government have any new plans for job creation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
person whose total knowledge of the Canadian political scene was
in watching question period today would find it passing strange,
given that the prime preoccupation of Canadians is economic
growth and an increasing quality of life, it is only a member of the
Liberal Party who has asked a question about what Canadians are
truly concerned about.
(1205 )
The hon. member is right. The number one priority of the
government is giving Canadians jobs and a better standard of
living. It is for that reason that interest rates are now down by over
4.5 percentage points and since we took office we have created
over 750,000 jobs.
It is for that reason that we have an open skies policy which has
brought in tourism and has created a multitude of jobs in imports. It
is for that reason that we have lowered tariffs which have made the
Canadian productive centre much more competitive. It is for that
reason that our trade missions have been so successful. We have
invested in technology.
_____________________________________________
4506
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 26th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding associate
memberships of various committees. If the House gives its consent,
I intend to move concurrence of the 26th report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Crown Liability
and Proceedings Act to ensure that inmates serving penitentiary
sentences will not be able to sue the federal government or its
employees.
Specifically this legislation would prohibit lawsuits to be filed
by inmates against the federal government for matters arising as a
result of or during their penitentiary sentence.
There is an urgent need for this type of legislation in Canada
today. This legislation, if adopted, would put a stop to the
outrageous practice of prisoners engaging in frivolous legal actions
against Canadian taxpayers. I would encourage all members of the
House to carefully consider this legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, having checked with government and Reform members I
think you would find unanimous consent to amend Motion M-240
in my name to read as follows:
4507
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give RCMP officers the
right to unionize and to bargain collectively under the Canada Labour Code.
It was an error.
The Deputy Speaker: Since the hon. member has consulted
with members of all the other parties, is there unanimous consent
for this correction?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that the 26th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1210)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
petitioners request that Parliament support a binding national
referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask
Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government
funding for abortions on demand.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
present three petitions. The first asks Parliament to enact Bill
C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the
earliest opportunity, to provide in Canadian law that no criminal
profits from committing a crime.
This petition is signed by 43 of my constituents.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second and
third petitions ask Parliament to pass Bill C-201 which would
ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while
impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the
severity of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this
crime.
These petitions are signed by 375 of my constituents.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
to present to Parliament a petition signed by 360 people in my
riding of Red Deer.
The citizens pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that
the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired
or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity
of the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward this crime.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table two petitions that raise the question of human rights
and violence and terrorism.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table today.
[English]
The first petition signed by residents of the riding of
Hull-Aylmer is opposed to the inclusion of the phrase of sexual
orientation in the human rights act.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from a number of people in the
riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell supporting an initiative by
the hon. member for Scarborough West, namely Bill C-205.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition comes from the constituents of
Hull-Aylmer. It has to do with the indivisibility of Canada.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth petition is from the people of Hull-Aylmer
again and it is against the inclusion of the sexual orientation phrase
in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the petition calls for Parliament to support Bill C-205.
This bill amends the Criminal Code and Copyright Act with the
objective of preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes
through the sale of books, video tapes and other such means related
to their crime.
_____________________________________________
4507
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54,
an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
4508
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, before
we were interrupted for question period I was speaking about the
aspects of Bill C-54 which do not guarantee the rights of
Canadians and therefore the need to have a NAFTA dispute panel
settle this issue once and for all.
One important aspect was that Bill C-54 does not have any
provisions against the Helms-Burton bill for barring entry of senior
officials of selected companies doing business in the United States.
Bill C-54 does not cover a number of questions and these are
questions that need to be settled at a NAFTA panel. Does the
United States have the right to seize assets of Canadian companies
in the United States? Clearly not. Article 1110 states that no party
may expropriate an investment of an investor of another party in its
territory or take a measure tantamount to the expropriation of such
an investment.
(1215 )
Here is another NAFTA article to take to the dispute panel.
Article 1105 states that each party shall accord to investments of
investors of other parties treatment in accordance with
international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full
protection and security. No one can tell me that Helms-Burton is
not in contravention of that provision of the NAFTA.
I know that the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade have been looking at whether the Cuban
legislation, the Helms-Burton legislation, is in violation of U.S.
international trade obligations as they relate to the World Trade
Organization. A senior American State Department official said
last year that the bill essentially meant that the United States was
asserting its jurisdiction over transfer between two non-U.S. parties
of land or assets situated outside the United States. The official
argued that went well beyond the accepted international practice
and would be difficult to defend under U.S. law. I make the point
that it would be more difficult to defend under the World Trade
Organization.
I am sure foreign affairs lawyers have advised the minister as to
which dispute resolution forum is best. Let us go with it. Let us
stop pussyfooting around on this issue and putting tit for tat
legislation in place. Nowadays when a bully bullies us we do not
have to put our tail between our legs and run. We do not have to get
bloodied in the fight either. We can take that bully to international
court. Let us take the Americans to court to see if we can get the
Helms-Burton bill overturned.
The United States is a very important trading partner of Canada.
It is not only our trading partner, it is our friend. We have about $1
billion in two-way trade per day crossing the 49th parallel.
However, that does not mean the Americans can take their dispute
with Cuba beyond their international borders. I make the point that
the United States has every right to challenge Cuba and to put trade
sanctions of a binational nature in place. However, it is simply not
within the international parameters of good citizenship or
international trade to take that outside its borders and apply it to
countries such as Canada.
I would like to talk a bit about our trade and investment relations
with Cuba. Canada maintained full relations with CUBA after the
1959 revolution which brought Castro to power. Even though the
country has largely a state owned economy and cutting through
paperwork is tiresome and frustrating we continue to do business
there. Last year Canadian exports to Cuba amounted to $108
million. This was mostly food products, chemicals, industrial
machinery and transport equipment. Our exports were up more
than 130 per cent last year. Imports from Cuba amounted to $194
million. This is largely made up of sugar, raw nickel products and
fertilizer.
In all, 37 Canadian companies have offices in Cuba and
Canadian businessmen are involved in as many as 30 joint venture
projects with Cuban partners in areas ranging from minerals,
petroleum, processed food and others.
Canadian companies have arranged to build over 4,000 hotel
rooms at 11 different sites in the next ten years. These are valued at
over $500 million and will feature golf courses, riding stables and
yacht berths. Of course, Cuba is a very important and favoured
winter vacation location for about 120,000 Canadians who travel
there each winter.
There are continued prospects for Canadian companies to hunt
for gold, drill for fertilizer and mine for nickel. A particularly
interesting development is that Canadian firms are involved in
biotechnology ventures with Cuban institutes.
At the same time we are trading with Cuba, I believe it is
incumbent on the Liberal government to work to help that country
bring about democratic reform. It is interesting to note that
although we have been trading with Cuba for over 30 years the
Minister of Foreign Affairs said today that we need to encourage
democratic reform. Where has been that effort in the past?
The Minister for International Trade said that we should not have
an isolationist policy like the United States does with Cuba; that we
need to engage it. I concur completely.
It seems strange that it takes a bill like the U.S. Helms-Burton
bill to cause interest in Canada helping to bring about democratic
reform in Cuba. We should be making every effort to work with
Cubans very closely through our trade relationships to encourage
them to work toward a more democratic country.
4509
(1220)
Trading with Cuba is good business for Canada and good
business for Cuba. I also believe that keeping trade alive is the best
way to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba. The trade
policy we are following with Cuba is the same one the United
States is pursuing with China. Keep trade channels flowing and
eventually the political situation will open as well. I believe we
should be doing more to encourage that. In any event, we insist on
our right to make our own decisions regarding trade and
investments with Cuba and any other country. The United States
has every right to take action against Cuba but its fight must be
maintained with Cuba and not with us.
The Reform party supports Bill C-54 as a first step to repelling
the Helms-Burton legislation but it is only a stop-gap measure. Let
us take this to a dispute resolution under NAFTA. If we do not
insist on our rights we will only encourage the Americans to keep
pushing us around. It is time for Canada to test the United States'
resolve. Will it be part of these international trade agreements and
the rules that govern them or not?
I also believe it is time to test this Liberal government's resolve.
The U.S. is testing Canada at the World Trade Organization on our
policy on split run magazines. It has tested us at NAFTA. What is
this government afraid of? It is time to test this government's
resolve. Does it believe in the trade agreements it has signed,
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization? Is it prepared to see
them through? It seems to me we have worked very hard. Canada
has been a leader is setting international trade agreements in place
and rules to settle these disputes. It is ridiculous that we do not use
them to settle matters of this nature.
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
I have agreed to switch spots with my colleague, the hon. member
for Terrebonne, so that he could speak now. I will speak after.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): 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.
(1225)
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
4510
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.
(1230)
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.
4511
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.
(1235)
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.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. members of the official opposition and the hon.
member of the Reform Party who spoke in support of Bill C-54
today. This bill to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
is part of the continuity of Canada's firm, active and measured
campaign worldwide and in the U.S. to convince the American
administration and the American Congress to withdraw the
Helms-Burton law and to change the course of action they have
taken with this legislation.
Canada has lead this campaign in every international forum on
this issue, at the World Trade Organization, the European Union,
the Organization of American States and many other multinational
organizations, where we have taken the lead in opposing this law.
The bill we are introducing today is a further element in our
campaign to convince the U.S. to reconsider and withdraw their
law, which affects their trade relations with many other countries.
(1240)
[English]
It is indeed regrettable that these amendments are necessary. Our
trade and political relations with the United States on the whole are
very strong, but we cannot ignore the U.S. Helms-Burton act. It
clearly interferes with business between Canadian companies and
Cuba.
Basic principles of international law are at stake here. In effect
the U.S. is unilaterally extending its reach into business between
other countries. We cannot accept that quietly. We have to respond.
We must give Canadian companies the means to protect
themselves. That of course is what we are doing in this legislation.
I want to underline that this is responsive legislation. We are
responding to a U.S. initiative that affects Canadians. We did not
choose to start this quarrel.
4512
Someone might say that a clash was inevitable because Canada
and other countries have followed a different path than the United
States in dealing with Cuba. My answer is that disagreement with
our Cuba policy does not justify Helms-Burton. There are other
ways under international law for the U.S. to resolve its dispute
with Cuba.
Helms-Burton is indeed a disturbing development in U.S.
foreign policy. I am aware that the U.S. administration had strong
reservations about Helms-Burton before the shooting down of a
U.S. civilian aircraft by Cuban planes in February.
I am also aware that in July President Clinton did suspend the
right of U.S. companies to sue foreign firms under the claims
provision of Helms-Burton for six months. I note that the
President's special envoy, Stuart Eizenstat, said in Ottawa that the
U.S. is in no way telling Canadians to stop trade and investment
with Cuba.
But Helms-Burton remains a threat to Canadian businesses
dealing with Cuba. The legislation is on the books. It does give
President Clinton or his successors the power to permit filing of
claims by U.S. companies against Canadian or other foreign firms.
The U.S. has already informed some Canadians that they will be
denied entry to the U.S. because of this law.
It is also unfortunate that Helms-Burton is not an isolated case.
The President has signed into law the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act
which again thrusts the United States into the trading relationships
of other countries. The details of the two laws are different but the
principle is the same.
Are these signs of a change in direction in U.S. foreign policy?
Do they mean that the U.S. is ready to put aside the normal rules of
international trade to achieve its own ends? I would like to answer
no. I would like to say that the long U.S. tradition in support of
open trade and internationally accepted rules is as strong as ever
but I am not so sure.
There are some good signs. President Clinton has publicly
endorsed the World Trade Organization and the U.S. is using the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism to resolve some trade
disputes. It has participated actively in a number of international
negotiations in such areas as telecommunications and financial
services, and it continues to press for more open trade around the
world.
On the other hand, the U.S. has had a tendency to throw down the
gauntlet in recent international trade negotiations. In some cases it
has left the impression that it will not settle for less than the whole
ball of wax. As well, the momentum of the free trade clause seems
to have slowed, at least in the U.S. Congress. An example is last
year's decision to refuse fast track authority to the president to
negotiate admission of Chile to the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
I do not want to overstate this. The U.S. is one of the most open
and generous countries in the world. More than 95 per cent of
Canada-U.S. trade flows freely without any impediment. The U.S.
continues to show in the G-7 and other international meetings that
it wants to work jointly with its partners on economic and political
issues. I am convinced that remains the wellspring of U.S. policy.
But we cannot allow measures such as Helms-Burton to pass by
without resisting. It is only by being firm and by working
co-operatively with other countries that we can ensure
Helms-Burton does not become a pattern. That has been a key
element of our policy throughout the Helms-Burton debate.
(1245)
On the domestic side, we are introducing these FEMA
amendments as our response to what is clearly an infringement of
Canadian sovereignty. The main purpose of these amendments of
course is to give Canadian companies the tools to defend
themselves if U.S. courts rule in favour of American claimants who
sue them under the Helms-Burton act.
Under the FEMA changes, Canadian firms can attempt to recoup
these damages by suing the American companies in Canadian
courts. There are other changes which give the attorney general the
authority to block application of unreasonable U.S. laws in
Canadian courts. I hope these changes will help deter American
firms from acting against Canadian companies under
Helms-Burton. At least it will give them something to think about.
We are not limiting our action to the domestic front. Canada has
played a leadership role in developing a co-ordinated international
response since the President signed the Helms-Burton act into law.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade and the Secretary of State for Latin America have raised the
issue with colleagues in other countries and in international
organizations. It has been discussed with visiting leaders from
other countries. This co-ordinated international action is having
some effect.
Mexico is introducing similar legislation to ours. The European
Union is considering action through the World Trade Organization.
The Organization for American States has asked the
Inter-American Juridical Committee to investigate whether
Helms-Burton is consistent with international law. These actions
taken together may contain the damage of Helms-Burton. Beyond
this my hope is that this experience will have an impact on
legislators in Washington and that this will discourage such
extraterritorial measures in the future.
We cannot however rely on hopes. We must take concrete steps
to protect our interests. That is the purpose of these FEMA
amendments and that is why I support them.
4513
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I speak to Bill C-54 which expands the FEMA
legislation to give Canada the capacity to counter the
Helms-Burton bill. I think we would all agree that the
Helms-Burton bill is heavy handed, unilateral, coercive and
indiscriminate. Helms-Burton breaks international law and it
contravenes NAFTA.
As the Reform Party foreign affairs critic I can state without
reservation that our party's quarrel is not with the United States
which is our friend, trading partner and ally, but it is only with the
Helms-Burton bill itself. In fact, given Canada's tremendous
relationship with the United States, it was surprising to all of us
that Canada should be targeted as it was.
I would encourage Canadians however to consider this more of a
nuisance caused by the coming presidential election than any true
reflection on Canada-U.S. relations. I think all of us and previous
speakers have reviewed the history behind this: the killing of
civilians, certainly the number of voters of Cuban descent that exist
in Florida, and of course the Helms-Burton lobby that has gone on
for a number of years in the U.S. It is also hopeful that after the
election in the U.S. this annoyance will disappear.
Nonetheless, as parliamentarians we cannot ignore the fact that
Helms-Burton exists and remains a threat to Canadian sovereignty
and trade. That is why we must take action. In the opinion of the
Reform Party, the government should have already filed the
grievances with the NAFTA dispute panel. Therefore I cannot say
that we totally agree with the approach the government is using.
However, we will be supporting Bill C-54 even though it seems to
be a bit of a tit for tat and could even be questioned legally.
(1250)
My colleague from Peace River, who is Reform's trade critic,
has already covered most of the specific elements of Bill C-54 and
their objectives. I agree with the analysis of my colleague and
instead of repeating the same points I would like to talk briefly
about promoting democracy in Cuba which I believe is part of this
and probably, had this been approached more strongly, the U.S.
politicians might not have gone along with the Helms-Burton bill.
One thing I would like to make clear is that Reform's support for
Bill C-54 and our vocal opposition of Helms-Burton in no way
signals approval of or support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. In
fact, Reform shares the view that Cuba would be much better off as
a democracy.
We have to remember that Cuba is the last country in our
hemisphere to reject democracy. Therefore, we should really
channel more of our foreign policy efforts toward promoting Cuban
democracy. Not only would we be helping the people of Cuba, but
such a constructive approach would show our neighbours south of
the border that our goals are the same even if our methods are
different from the ones they choose to use.
I think again, as the foreign affairs department has indicated, that
being involved is the best approach to having influence. Whether it
be China or Cuba, I believe that to be true.
I think as well however, when we hear people talking about
Cuba, that we must remember the number of human rights abuses
and the number of problems that do exist in Cuba. We cannot be
selective about what we say about one country as opposed to
another, which often is the case.
If Canada becomes a leader in the fight for democracy in Cuba, I
am very confident that Helms-Burton will cease to be a problem. I
really believe that it is a rather extreme bill and it is put forward
because of the extreme action that was taken by Cuba in the
shooting down of the planes as was mentioned.
Toward this end, Canada should assert itself in meetings of the
Organization of American States and make sure that promoting
democracy, institutional reform and human rights reforms in Cuba
is the priority for the OAS. Let us face it, once Cuba becomes a
democratic country it could be a very positive force within the
Caribbean. I feel that Cuba has a great deal of potential, but in
order to achieve this potential and direct it toward positive goals,
the people of Cuba have to become their own political masters.
Political change in Cuba will only spur economic revitalization.
While Canadian-Cuban trade has continued despite the
American embargo, I think the business opportunities in a free
Cuba would far outstrip those which exist today. For example, the
lifting of the U.S. embargo alone would allow for a rapid economic
expansion in Cuba. As a country emerging from communist rule,
Cuba will not only need Canadian consumer products and
technology but our service sector will also prosper. The Canadian
advantage in areas like banking, insurance, wireless
communication and high technology will stand us in good stead if
Cuba can modernize its economy.
We need a vision of this sort of thing and I believe that this
government does not have that vision going into the 21st century. I
believe that causes all of us a great deal of concern with the status
quo type of positions we seem to take. We basically feel we can
solve our job problems simply by infrastructure programs. We do
not really look to the tremendous number of jobs that would exist if
we were promoting democracy and ourselves around the world.
We should note as well that Cuba is beside Haiti, the other
country in our hemisphere with the greatest social, political and
economic problems. I cannot help but think that a prosperous,
stable and democratic Cuba would help Haiti's long term
development. Proximity makes Haiti and Cuba ideal trading
partners. I would hope that a democratic Cuba would also be able
to shoulder some of the load that Canada has been forced to bear
with respect to assisting Haiti these last several years.
4514
(1255)
All of these possibilities however require a political change in
Cuba. Without democracy, Cuba will remain an international
outcast and it will continue to earn the wrath of the Americans. We
must always remember that Cuba is only 90 miles away from the
U.S. border. Because of that proximity, the threat is obvious to all
Americans.
In conclusion, I do recognize the need for Bill C-54 and we will
be voting for it. I do hope members of this House will agree with
me that Canada should do more than just fight against the
Helms-Burton bill. We should also fight against dictatorship and
fight for building a democratic future for the people of Cuba.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was about to make an aside that my friends in the
Reform Party are in good form as usual. It is always good to have
their support for something like this, the Foreign Extraterritorial
Measures Act, which I am pleased to support. I congratulate both
the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade on this particular initiative. It is an important one and one I
can gladly give my support to.
I think all of us were-chagrined is the nice word-disgusted by
the Helms-Burton initiative of some months ago. Apart from the
fact that it flies in the face of everything we understand about the
rule of law, about the territorial integrity of sovereign nations, it
also says volumes about the arrogance of the people who would
advance that kind of legislation.
I had the occasion fairly recently to be outside the country in
Asia. There they cannot often tell the difference between an
American and a Canadian, until they are told. They are anxious to
know the difference. It is amazing and heart warming the reception
one gets once they learn one is a Canadian and not an American.
I am not on an American bashing initiative today. I just wanted
to make that observation because I could make a long speech on
how much I admire the aspects of the American system. I did my
graduate work at Boston University many years ago and I have
many good friends in the United States.
At the same time I think all of us who have travelled
internationally first of all are amused but second are puzzled that
certain Americans so readily cultivate or lend credence to this aura
of arrogance and that they know best. There are two sets of rules,
one for the Americans and one for everybody else.
(1300)
The bill before us is intended to strengthen the act to allow
Canada to respond to attempts by the United States to infringe on
our sovereignty. It is an objective which I believe will find support
on all sides of the House. The amended bill will allow Canadian
companies to oppose the financial claims aspect of Helms-Burton.
It will allow Canadians to recover in Canadian courts any amounts
awarded in Helms-Burton actions in United States courts plus any
costs associated with both the Canadian and U.S. court actions.
As my friend the Minister for International Trade was saying
earlier today in his speech in this Chamber, we as Canadians share
the objectives of the American government in so far as Cuba is
concerned. Yes, we want to see democracy there. Yes, we want to
see more respect for human rights there. So do the Americans.
What we disagree on is the way to get there. The Americans have
been trying the old isolation policy for at least 170 years, going
back to the early 1820s, without much of a track record. It has not
worked very well. It certainly has not worked in Cuba. One only
has to look at the parade of American leaders who have come and
gone since this policy was implemented. Mr. Castro still remains.
One only has to look at the hypocrisy of the Americans in
dealing with Cuba versus how they deal with other countries.
Surely the Americans have a few axes to grind with other countries
in the world. The U.S. has certainly made it known that it has a very
big human rights axe to grind with China. However, we do not see
the Helms-Burton initiative being taken, being advanced or being
suggested in relation to that country.
I have often felt that the American stance toward Cuba was more
motivated by spite and by pride than by common sense. If it had
been motivated by common sense I submit the policy would have
been different. It would have been more effective in its results than
it has been to date. The results show no promise of change. There is
no indication that the American approach to Cuba is going to bring
any more results than it has over the last 30 years.
Even that comment is beside the point. It is not our role as
Canadian parliamentarians, as Canadian citizens or as the Canadian
government to tell the Americans what to do. We have not spent
much time doing that. My comment a minute ago was not intended
in that direction. I have no allusions they would listen anyway, but
the fact is we should not be telling them what to do. That is the
point. While we do not attempt to tell them, they think it is quite all
right for them to tell us. They think it is all right for them to
implement legislation which would seek to have impact beyond
their borders. They can make whatever laws they see fit to regulate
activities in their country and their citizens. That is what
government is all about, what a good part of it is all about.
(1305)
The moment they step over the line, the moment they say
``Canada, we respect your sovereignty only as long as you do
things we like'', that is the day we have to stand up and be counted.
I applaud the ministers responsible and the administration for this
amendment to the act which would give some teeth to our efforts to
4515
respond to the Helms-Burton initiative and other initiatives should
they come along.
Let us have a quick look at what the minister and especially the
attorney general will be able to do once this amendment becomes
law, as I certainly hope it will. The attorney general will be able to
issue so-called blocking orders declaring that judgments handed
down under certain foreign laws will not be enforced or recognized
in Canada if the attorney general believes the legislation violates
international law.
Second, once the amendment to the act is implemented, the
attorney general will be able to allow Canadians to recover in
Canadian courts amounts awarded under these foreign rulings, plus
any costs associated with these court cases in Canada and the
foreign country; a so-called clawback.
Third, the attorney general will be able to issue and amend in the
future with the agreement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs a
schedule listing items of objectionable foreign legislation that in
the opinion of the attorney general violate international law.
It is a good piece of legislation and I am delighted to support it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-54, which is meant to
offset the extraterritorial effects of the Helms-Burton legislation on
Canada and Quebec. In fact, we support the action by the Canadian
government to protect businesses and corporations in Canada and
Quebec, against retaliatory measures taken by foreign countries.
Unfortunately, we see that our neighbours the United States
resort more and more often to threats of retaliation against
businesses in third countries, even against friends like Canada, in
order to isolate countries they have differences with.
The present case involves a political dispute between Cuba and
the United States, which is deteriorating into a trade war with
extraterritorial consequences. Furthermore, the Helms-Burton
legislation could jeopardize the efforts of many countries,
including the United States, to further free trade. Finally, we cannot
tolerate any country dictating the foreign policy of another.
Bill C-54 is certainly the first step in a reply to the American
legislation, but the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal
government still have a lot to do in this matter.
Let us see what factors brought about Bill C-54 so that we really
understand its scope, utility and shortcomings. The President of the
United States signed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act, commonly called the Helms-Burton legislation, into law in
March 1996.
(1310)
This law is aimed at stopping foreign businesses that own or use
American nationals' properties or interests that were expropriated
by Cuba from doing business in that country, on pain of retaliation
by the United States. Canada, as well as Quebec, and many
countries and organizations such as the OECD, the European Union
and the Organization of American States, have already positively
opposed to this law, which imposes American jurisdiction outside
U.S. territory on non-American businesses and people.
The Helms-Burton law contravenes the principles of
international law and the sovereignty of countries on their own
territory. The Bloc Quebecois believes the American government
would vehemently oppose any form of external interference in the
conduct of its affairs. The same applies to Canada. It is therefore
important to counter the Helms-Burton law so that the principles
established by trade practice relating to disputes between states be
respected.
Through Bill C-54, the Liberal government proposes to amend
the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act of 1985 to
counter the effects the Helms-Burton law would have in Canada
and in Quebec. But we must ask ourselves if this response will be
sufficient. Will Canadians and Quebecers doing business with
Cuba be able to find in it the means to protect themselves against
potential American legal action?
To answer this question, let me comment on the titles of the
American law that are prejudicial to businesses in Canada and in
Quebec, and the measures proposed in Bill C-54 to counter them.
There are two titles in particular in the Helms-Burton law which
affect Canadian and Quebec interests: titles III and IV. Title III
allows American citizens whose property was expropriated during
the Cuban revolution to bring legal action against anyone,
American or not, who has invested in the properties they used to
own in Cuba. This title was to come into effect on November 1, but
the U.S. president has decided to suspend its application until
February 1997. Nearly 6,000 lawsuits in this connection are
already pending, a good number of them, no doubt, involving
Canadian or Quebec companies.
As for Title IV, which came into effect this past August 1, it
blocks entry into the U.S. of any person who has invested in
expropriated American properties in Cuba. In Canada, the directors
of a Toronto firm, as well as their family members, have already
been refused entry into the U.S. under this section.
4516
We feel that the problem lies in the fact that the amendments
to the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act proposed in Bill C-54
are not complete and are a bit late in coming.
I have just referred to the fact that two specific titles of the
Helms-Burton law threatened Canadian and Quebec interests: titles
III and IV. Although Bill C-54 addresses the effects of title III,
implementation of which is suspended until after the U.S.
presidential elections, it proposes nothing to help the cause of
Canadians and Quebecers affected by title IV, which is the one that
has already caused problems to some Canadians.
The Bloc Quebecois wonders why the Canadian government
refrained from taking any action to deal with the ban on entry and
residence in the United States, which, as you know, penalizes the
executives and shareholders of these companies as well as their
spouses and minor children. Why did the government fail to react
to this section of the Helms-Burton law?
We all condemn the U.S. Helms-Burton law and deplore the
unfortunate impact it may have on the good relations we have with
our U.S. neighbours.
We must not forget, however, that this law was not passed
yesterday, and that is the problem. It has been one year and seven
months since the red flag went up, so the government knows what
will happen if it does not act promptly.
(1315)
In February and in the fall of 1995, the Helms-Burton bill was
introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In
March 1996 the Prime Minister finally expressed his opposition to
this legislation, and it took six more months for him to transform
his verbal opposition into a bill.
We are familiar with the delay involved in the NAFTA process
for dispute settlement. However, today it is clear there is no excuse
for waiting any longer. That being said, the U.S. election should not
prevent the government from taking action. That is why we urge
the Minister for International Trade to ask for a special panel to be
charged with settling this dispute under the auspices of NAFTA. If
it refuses to take action to have the U.S. law invalidated under the
auspices of NAFTA, the Liberal government will continue to
expose Canadians and Quebecers to the adverse effects of the
Helms-Burton law, especially title IV.
After expressing its opposition verbally during the past six
months, it is perhaps time for the Liberal government to starts
some concrete action towards the invalidating the U.S. law.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ten
clauses making up Bill C-54 have been pretty thoroughly covered. I
will therefore take the opportunity provided by this bill to reflect
on some of the important questions facing the international
community.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the
Soviet Union, a wind of liberalization and globalization of trade
has swept the planet. And I imagine that, for the world's greatest
economic power, the United States, it must be extremely frustrating
to see that Cuba, a tiny country in Latin America, is standing in the
way of this free trade movement.
Cuba is to the United States as David was to Goliath. For over 30
years, the Americans have tried by all the means at their disposal to
bring down the Castro regime, but success has so far eluded them.
They undoubtedly thought that the liberalization of trade
sweeping the planet would also sweep away the dictatorship in
Cuba. However, I think they are reading it the wrong way. Instead
of applying an even tighter embargo against Cuba, if they had taken
the opposite approach a number of years ago, the Cubans
themselves would probably have taken steps to throw off this
dictatorship.
But the reaction of the Cuban people now that they are feeling
oppressed by the United States is to stand behind their leader, and
this is why the regime continues on, despite everything. It could
have been completely different, of course. The whole Cuba-U.S.
matter could have been different.
I remember a television program reviewing some of the main
failed appointments in the history of mankind. What happened
between Cuba and the U.S. was one of these failed appointments.
The host of the show pointed out that, months if not weeks before
President Kennedy's assassination, a French reporter had been
hired to act as an intermediary between Fidel Castro and President
Kennedy in organizing what would no doubt have been a historical
meeting, which would probably have led to the resolution of this
huge conflict between the two countries.
(1320)
However, we know what happened in November 1963. President
Kennedy was killed and the program host reminded us that Fidel
Castro was crushed by this news, because he hoped the
confrontation with the United States was coming to an end.
Of course, there is a direct link between the Helms-Burton
legislation and the election, we must not delude ourselves about
that. Just as we can almost be sure that there is a link between the
United States' recent intervention in Iraq and the upcoming
American elections, and that is unfortunate.
Obviously, this legislation is, or at least was, to strengthen the
embargo around Cuba, in order to attract the votes of Spanish
Americans.
4517
Helms-Burton is an anachronistic measure since it goes against
the tendency toward freer trade that has emerged over the last few
years. Think about the length of the negotiations known as the
Uruguay Round which led, in 1993, to the creation of the WTO.
They lasted seven years. They were supposed to give us freer
trade. Think about the NAFTA negotiations under the leadership
of, if I am not mistaken, the United States. And here we are today
faced with a piece of legislation that goes completely against this
strong tendency toward freer trade.
Helms-Burton is an example of the inability of the United States
to accept the fact that smaller countries also have rights and
privileges. After the free trade agreement was finalized, we had the
case of Norsk Hydro, a Quebec company, when the United States
tried in every way it could to counter the effects of free trade and
was finally successful.
We are all familiar with the softwood lumber story. The
agreement was signed to promote free trade between Mexico,
Canada and the United States and subsequently, the United States
tried in every possible way, either directly or indirectly, to revise
the content of the agreement. Finally, Canada was obliged to sign a
schedule that would limit exports of softwood lumber to the United
States for five years.
I will finish with a fable by La Fontaine. If we look at the U.S.
attitude to trade, it is just like the fable of the wolf and the lamb. A
little lamb was drinking water in a river, and the wolf was drinking
up river. The wolf accused the little lamb of making the water
murky, and the lamb answered: How could I, since I am down
river? The wolf answered: If you did not do it today, you did six
months ago. The lamb answered: I had not been not born six
months ago. The wolf added: If you did not do it six months ago, it
must have been your parents. The fable ends with the wolf eating
the lamb. I think this is a little like the attitude of the Americans to
measures they themselves created. They are just sabotaging the
agreements they signed of their own free will.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
understand that the hon. member Okanagan-Shuswap will be
seeking the floor to make a speech.
(1325 )
I think you would find unanimous consent that the House not see
the clock at 1.30 p.m. to permit the member to make his remarks,
within the 20-minute rule that usually applies, and that after that
the House proceed with the question prior to going to private
members' hour.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit the
member to speak for 20 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, relations between our southern neighbour and major
trading partner, the United States and the small country 90 miles
south of the United States, Cuba, have been a roller coaster for
nearly 100 years. Ever since 1898 when U.S. forces invaded Cuba
and forced out the Spanish, it has not been unheard of for Canada to
have to ride that roller coaster.
The legislation before us, Bill C-54, is needed because that roller
coaster ride continues today. To put the legislation into perspective,
I believe it is useful for us to look back briefly over some of the
highest hills and deepest dives which that roller coaster has
followed.
For four years, from 1898 until early into this century the U.S.
military occupied and ran Cuba. When the U.S. imposed the Platt
amendment giving itself the right to dictate Cuba's foreign policy
and to have the U.S. military intervene in Cuba's international
affairs, that situation continued for more than a generation. Only in
1934 did American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt give up
the powers which the U.S. had given itself in the Platt amendment.
Eventually both American corporations and U.S. organized
crime had a strong base of operations in Cuba, until a bushy
bearded revolutionary named Fidel Castro seized power in 1960.
It shows Canada's special relationship with Cuba when we note
that when Castro expropriated Cuba's banks at the start of his reign,
he exempted just two, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Royal Bank,
both Canadian. Apparently a copy of the document by which the
Cuban government bought ScotiaBank's Cuban subsidiary now
reposes in the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia in downtown
Toronto.
In 1962 intelligence reports revealed that the U.S.S.R. was
installing ballistic missiles in Cuba capable of hitting U.S. and
Canadian targets. Then U.S. president John Kennedy announced an
American naval blockade of the island.
The Canadian government was asked with barely 90 minutes
advance notice to move Canadian Armed Forces to an alert status
called DEFCON 3. Our defence minister at that time, Douglas
Harkness, quietly did so. But the Diefenbaker cabinet was torn and
debate sizzled for a couple of days.
However, Soviet ships approached the American imposed
quarantine zone later in that week. Prime Minister Diefenbaker
authorized the alert on October 24, and it was announced in the
House on October 25, 1962.
Many of us recall the international sigh of relief a few days later
when the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to dismantle
and remove those threatening ballistic missiles from Cuba. Many
people feared that the world was teetering on the brink of nuclear
war over the Cuban situation in 1962.
4518
In 1985, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, FEMA,
became law in Canada. It was designed to defend Canadian
interests against attempts by foreign governments or courts to
apply unreasonable laws to Canada. FEMA currently gives the
Attorney General the authority to prevent compliance in Canada
with extraterritorial laws or court rulings which infringe on
Canadian sovereignty. However, its penalties are lower than
penalties threatened by new legislation in the United States for
people doing business with Cuba.
Since FEMA was passed, and especially over some 35 years
since Fidel Castro tossed out a right wing dictator to take over the
Government of Cuba, many thousands of Cubans have escaped Mr.
Castro's communist dictatorship and have gone to live in the U.S.
state of Florida. Some estimates place the total of Cuban exiles
living in Florida as high as one million people.
On February 24 of this year four people among those Cuban
exiles, part of a group called Brothers to the Rescue, who were
American citizens, were shot down by Cuban MiGs in international
airspace and they died.
(1330 )
About 50,000 Cuban exiles, many with pictures of the dead
taped to their chests, filed into the Orange Bowl Stadium a few
days later for a memorial service. There they heard an emotional
speech from the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine
Albright, who warned Cuba that the U.S. would not tolerate further
attacks against Brothers to the Rescue.
Among other things, Albright promised: ``America will protect
its citizens in international waters and in international skies. We
will tighten sanctions against the Government of Cuba and we will
deploy every diplomatic means to bring democracy to the people of
Cuba''.
Despite the protest from Canada and Mexico, and from many
others around the world, the Helms-Burton bill was signed into law
by U.S. President Clinton on March 12.
In protest, members of the European Parliament adopted a
resolution that urged the European Commission ``to investigate the
effects of the extraterritorial provisions of the bill on European
businesses''.
The resolution also urged the EC to strongly consider
challenging the bill as ``a serious infringement of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, World Trade Organization rules
and international law''.
Not long ago, officials of some Canadian companies which
invested in Cuba received an official notice from the U.S.
government that they and their families would not be welcome in
the United States.
In the months since the Helms-Burton law was passed, debate
has raged in Canadian newspapers regarding what Canada's
position should be concerning Cuba and the Castro Communist
dictatorship.
Many people point to the fact that Canada imposed sanctions on
South Africa and that our current foreign affairs minister, the
member for Winnipeg South Centre, proposed that economic
sanctions should be imposed against the Government of Nigeria.
Others have questioned why Canada has spent so much time,
effort and money, including most recently sending in Canadian
troops as peacekeepers in another Caribbean country, Haiti, to try
to make and keep the peace upon the return of ousted President
Jean Bertrand Aristide, and yet we are willing to do nothing to help
defeat Fidel Castro.
Is American policy regarding Cuba so different from Canadian
policy about Haiti? I believe the answer must be no. Nevertheless, I
also believe it is extremely important that this House pass Bill C-54
to bring FEMA up to date after the passage of the Helms-Burton
bill in the United States.
My reason is one of pure Canadian patriotism, I believe,
although others would no doubt call it plain being ornery.
The fact is, as a proud, certified western Canadian or, as the
Liberals like to call us, redneck, I do not appreciate another
country's telling Canada how to run our foreign policies. I may not
agree with Canadian foreign policy but that is for us, this House
and the other place representing the Canadian people to decide.
Canadian foreign policy toward Cuba or any other nation must not
be dictated by another country and enforced by severe penalties by
the legislators of another country. Therefore I urge my hon.
colleagues to join me in voting for Bill C-54.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion unanimously agreed
to. Therefore, the bill is referred to the foreign affairs and
international trade committee.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
4519
4519
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1335)
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-261, an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the
death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Let us start on this bill by being very clear about Bill C-261 is
about and what it is not about. It does not propose directly to
reinstate capital punishment in Canada, nor does it propose that the
death penalty be the only penalty for first degree murder. Let us be
really clear about that.
It does propose that the Canadian public be asked for its opinion
on the subject of capital punishment. Let us ask the public what it
thinks. Canada is our country. It belongs to the people, not to a
political elite who know better than ordinary people.
This bill simply says ``refer this matter to the electorate'', ask
the public what it wants. I hope that is not asking too much of our
parliamentary system. Ask the public what it feels.
Bill C-261 says put the question to the public in a referendum.
So that it is not too costly it proposes that this referendum question
be put to the public at the time of the next federal election. In this
way at the same time that a voter casts his ballot for a member of
Parliament the voter can also express an opinion on the capital
punishment question. What could be easier and what could be less
costly? Referendums themselves can be costly but this way not so.
Let us look at the question that would be asked in such a
referendum. It would ask simply: ``Do you agree that if a person is
found guilty of first degree murder the judge or jury should have
the option of sentencing the person to life imprisonment or the
death penalty?'' It is important to understand that an option is
available.
Obviously if there were any doubt whatsoever about guilt, even
after a finding of guilty, the sentencing authority would err on the
side of caution. On the other hand, in extreme cases and where
there is no question whatsoever of guilt, for example in the Clifford
Olson and Bernardo cases, the sentencing authority would have the
death penalty option available.
Who should decide this question, our leaders, our elites or the
people? The resistance out there to even asking the question tells
me two things. First, our leaders and our elites in this country do
not trust the judgment of ordinary people. Second, the elites think
they know best. More than that, they are absolutely convinced they
know best.
During the 1993 election I had many constituents in my riding of
Nanaimo-Cowichan discuss this subject with me on their
doorsteps. They were concerned that if elected I might go to
Ottawa and vote my opinion on this, as other subjects, rather than
representing them and their opinions. These constituents cited the
case of Tommy Douglas, a distinguished parliamentarian and one
of my predecessors as the member of Parliament for my riding.
(1340)
Apparently a survey in Nanaimo-Cowichan and the islands
found that over 80 per cent of the electorate favoured keeping the
death penalty. Tommy Douglas, a respected man though he was,
returned to Ottawa and voted for the bill which eliminated the
death penalty because it went against his conscience.
Understandable, perhaps, but it raises the question of an MP's first
obligation.
That is why the Reform Party has a policy on matters of morality
or personal conscience. Our policy is that when such questions of
morality arise our MPs should do three things. First, whenever
asked, advise constituents of his or her personal beliefs. Second,
ascertain the will of the majority of the constituents on that issue.
Third, vote to represent that majority.
It is because of this policy that I have taken concrete measures to
find out what the majority of my constituents wanted in this case.
Using a tele-vote system in this last year which allowed all
constituents to register their opinion in a secret ballot, I found that
the majority of my constituents, and I suspect this is reflected by
the majority across Canada, favoured the return of capital
punishment. That expression of opinion directly to me from my
constituents is what has led to the preparation of today's private
member's Bill C-261. That, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy in
action. It takes us a step closer to some direct democracy.
There are some in the House and some in the country and some
in my constituency who do not like the concept of direct
democracy. Perhaps some of these do not like democracy, period.
But I think the majority of people do.
Let us look at the educational benefits of having a question such
as this decided in a referendum advertised well in advance. Unlike
the United States we do not know the date of our election. That is
another Reform matter that we should correct. Nevertheless, we do
know there will be an election in Canada within the next two years.
Passage of my bill in the House would mean that the public would
4520
have an indeterminate, because of our system, but nevertheless
substantial period of time in which to debate the merits and
drawbacks of capital punishment.
I address this comment to the so-called elites. Passage of my bill
would allow them ample time to put forth their point of view. There
is no reason for them to fear the public. Get out and tell it your
thoughts then listen to what it has to say. They might learn
something and the public might learn something and I think all
would profit. The more facts or even the more opinions we have,
the better the quality of our decisions is likely to be. Education is a
beneficial byproduct of all referenda and specifically a benefit of
this bill.
(1345 )
The public should be heard. Let us hear the views of those totally
opposed to capital punishment and the views of those who would
use it too freely. The public is not stupid; it is possessed of much
common sense. The public can hear extreme arguments and find a
middle road position with which it is comfortable.
It is important that this matter get to a vote. I would like at this
point to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have this
bill made votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have this
made a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Obviously there is not unanimous
consent.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, the nays from the Liberal side of the
House indicate the problem we have with democracy in Canada in
1996. It is a problem we have had for a number of years. The
Liberals are afraid of allowing the public to express its opinion.
They are afraid of members of Parliament expressing their own
opinions rather than the opinion handed down by their elite, by
their whip, by those who know best within the Liberal Party who
say: ``That is not party line. Do not vote that way''. They are afraid
of open votes.
I will conclude on that note. Let us leave it open. We still have a
few more minutes for debate. I hope that those on the other side of
the House are listening and that they open their minds a bit. It is an
important bill for Canada and for Canadians. We know pretty much
where the majority opinion is on this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan indicated at the outset of his remarks that he
wished to share his time with the hon. member for Prince George
George-Bulkley Valley. I do not believe there is a provision in our
rules for the proposer of a private member's bill to do that.
Therefore, it will have to be done by unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan be permitted to share his time with the hon.
member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.
Prior to the election in 1993 when we were going through the
exercise of getting to know everyone, there was one thing I made
sure I did. There was a certain number of issues which could be
considered moral issues or personal issues. I felt the obligation as a
candidate to ensure there was no doubt where I stood on things.
One of the issues was the issue of capital punishment. I made it
very clear to my constituents that I, as a candidate for the Reform
Party, personally favoured the return of capital punishment. I told
everyone who asked. I even made an effort to publicize it so there
would be no confusion as to where I stood. I was elected. I was not
elected on that issue, but on the excellent platform which was put
forward by the Reform Party.
At the end of the day, it is not what the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley believes in which should be the main
determining factor of how I vote in Parliament or how I debate, it
should be that of the people who elected me.
I have done poll after poll in my riding on various things. One of
the polls asked the question: Would you favour a binding national
referendum on the issue of capital punishment? In my riding 71 per
cent said yes, 17 per cent said no and the balance was unsure.
Seventy-one per cent said yes. It gave me a good indication that my
constituents for the most part, a huge majority, agreed with my
personal opinion on the subject.
(1350)
It is interesting to note that just recently I gave an interview in
my riding. We were talking about Clifford Olson and his being able
to apply for early parole, something the Liberals have allowed to
happen. Let that be clear to Canadians watching today. Clifford
Olson, this mass murderer is eligible to have a hearing on early
parole. He is able to do this because of the Liberal government and
the Liberal governments that preceded this government, whose
philosophies are supported by this government and the Minister of
Justice, and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was the
Minister of Justice back in the government that allowed Olson to
have this opportunity.
Let us never forget where this Liberal government and its
predecessors stand on the issue of crime and punishment. No
matter what the Minister of Justice is putting through in this House
with bill after bill that tinkers with the justice system, the Canadian
people will not be fooled as to the philosophy of this Liberal
government.
4521
Getting back to what I wanted to say, we were talking about
Clifford Olson and the fact that he can apply for a hearing. I made
the comment that if I had my way, Clifford Olson should possibly
get a suspended sentence, like at the end of a rope. My assistant
in my riding office said: ``You can't say that''. I said: ``Why not?
The vast majority in my riding thinks the same way I do''. He
asked how I knew that and I told him we would do a little test.
A person that I knew came in and I said: ``I think you are capable
of doing a straw poll for me this afternoon, would you do it? Just go
out and ask people, and do it demographically-young people,
middle aged people, older people, men, women-this question: If
you had the opportunity to pull the lever on Clifford Olson would
you do it? Ask it in as unbiased, non-influencing manner as you
can''. He asked 37 people just strolling up the street. Of those 37,
31 said yes without hesitation; four said they agreed he should be
put to death but they did not think they could do it; and two said
they were not too sure about that. That is consistent with the
thinking not only in my riding but in ridings all across the country.
This Liberal government and the Liberal and Tory governments
before it, despite the widespread call from Canadians to give us a
vote on this subject, have refused to allow a referendum on it. How
can a political party that forms a government, whether it be
Liberals or Tories, sit in this House, meet in caucus knowing that
Canadians want an opportunity to vote on this issue and arbitrarily
and unilaterally make the decision not to allow the vote? That is not
democracy. That is not what this House is all about.
I understood, and maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice when he speaks will correct me on this, but I
always thought that we came here to represent the people of
Canada. I ask him if he will address the question: Do we come here
as members of Parliament to represent the people of Canada? I
hope he will answer that question. If that is true, if that is why we
are here, then why do we not have a national binding referendum
on the issue of capital punishment?
(1355)
The Canadian people over the years have responded an average
of 68 per cent. Polls consistently taken since the 1960s show that
Canadians favour the death penalty. Sixty-eight per cent of the
population on average since the 1960s have clearly indicated that
they favour the return to capital punishment.
A much higher percentage of the Canadian people want at least
the opportunity to vote on it. The Liberals will not give them that
opportunity; they will speak against this. The Tories would not give
them that opportunity. The Liberal government before them would
not give them that opportunity.
We get back to the question of why they came here. Did they
come here to support some Liberal philosophy that they have
created on how to deal with first degree murderers who commit
horrendous crimes? Are they here to support Liberal philosophy on
people who kill people, on premeditated, savage murderers? Is it
Liberal philosophy that should determine how they should be
punished? I do not think so. This government, as previous
governments did, has an opportunity to support this bill and see
what the Canadian people want to do.
In closing, I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be sent to
the justice committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
proposed bill be sent to the justice committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The
member's time has expired.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-261 which is
sponsored by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.
As Canadians, we regard as abhorrent and feel the pain and
suffering that the victims' families are forced to endure. While we
are rightly revolted by murder, the case has not been made
effectively to demonstrate that the public interest would be served
by restoring capital punishment for murder.
The public policy reality is clear. Since the abolition of the death
penalty for murder, the murder rate has gone done and not up. In
1975 before capital punishment for murder was abolished, the
homicide rate was at a certain level. In the years following from
1975 until 1994, the homicide rate never rose above that base rate
in 1975. In 1994 the homicide rate was two-thirds what it was in
1975.
The issue of capital punishment has been thoroughly explored at
the national level. In many debates in this House after extensively
debating the question of capital punishment between 1966 and
1976, the House of Commons on a free vote adopted a bill
abolishing capital punishment for murder in 1976.
The most recent debate in this House took place in 1987 when
the government of the day honoured an election commitment to
debate the reinstatement of capital punishment. After debating the
question at length in the House of Commons, it was decided on a
free vote that capital punishment should not be restored.
The arguments for and against are really no different today than
they were in 1987. Effective arguments can easily be mounted to
oppose the death penalty. Such arguments have been made in this
House over the years and I do not intend to repeat many of them
here today.
4522
Perhaps one of the most effective arguments however is the
concern about the possibility of wrongful convictions. Anyone
who would choose to deride this concern, to put it down, to put
it to the side, need only be reminded of two relatively recent cases
of significance, namely the wrongful convictions for murder of
Donald Marshall, Jr. and Guy Paul Morin.
(1400 )
Our justice system is designed by human beings, operated by
human beings and human beings, as we know, are prone to
mistakes and mistakes happen. Innocent people could be convicted
and sentenced to death.
We have these brave Reformers suggesting that we have the
death penalty. Is one of them ready to be the first mistake? Are they
ready to have one of their children or their spouse be the first
mistake? I know I am not ready for that and if I am not ready for it I
am not about to impose it on others. When you make a mistake,
oops just does not cut it. I am sorry is not good enough.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan indicated that if you
have any doubt about whether somebody committed the murder
then do not execute them. This just shows a profound ignorance of
the criminal law because if you have doubt that the person
committed the murder you would not convict him in the first place.
Mr. Ringma: Do you have any doubts about Bernardo?
Mr. Kirkby: This is typical of the Reform Party. Mistakes
happen when you are dealing with criminal law and I do not believe
that the Reform Party is taking that issue very seriously.
Reinstating capital punishment in the Criminal Code is offered
as a panacea by the Reform Party but it is hardly that. To focus on
capital punishment as an optional sentence for first degree murder
and to hold a national referendum on this issue really avoids
grappling with the larger fundamental issue of how to promote the
protection of society.
I want to turn my attention to the referendum issue. The bill
proposed that a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty
for first degree murder be held concurrently with the general
election that next follows the coming into force of these proposals.
Federal elections are extremely important opportunities for
Canadians to choose and elect their representatives and their Prime
Minister. Holding a referendum concurrently with the general
election could detract from the importance of the federal election.
It is therefore not a practice in Canada. As a matter of fact, there is
no procedure in place in the Canadian electoral system for holding
a referendum concurrently with a federal election.
The government was elected on a platform which did not include
the introduction of referenda concurrently with general elections,
nor did it include a further consideration of the issue of capital
punishment. While referenda are an important part of Reform
policy, our platform focused on augmenting the role of MPs as
decision makers on questions of public policy.
The question of participatory democracy, including referenda,
was addressed by a Commons committee not long ago. The
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was
mandated by the House of Commons to study various procedural
matters, including the examination of measures to achieve more
direct participation by citizens including binding referenda.
However, according to Mr. Patrick Boyer, former MP and author
of several books on referenda who appeared before the committee,
the referendum process should not be considered for every issue
that comes before Parliament. Although he argued that referenda
should be expanded to allow referenda on non-constitutional
issues, Mr. Boyer was of the view that some transcending national
issue which is greater than Parliament's current mandate and has
never been discussed in previous elections should be subject to
referendum.
What is the real reason for the referendum? Reformers say that
the polls tell them that Canadians want the death penalty.
Therefore, why would they ask for a referendum if they are so
convinced that Canadians want the death penalty? I will tell you
what the reason is. They are not prepared to be accountable for the
decisions taken, to stand up on their own and say I am in favour of
the death penalty. The reason they are not prepared to do that is
because when a mistake happens they want to sit back and blame
the Canadian public, play Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and say
you asked for Barabbas. They want to sit here and say: ``You voted
for it, Canadian public. The mistake, the innocent person who has
just had his life shortened is not our responsibility''. We on this
side of the House are prepared to take our responsibilities seriously.
I would suggest that they not hide behind this sham of a referendum
they are putting forward. If they want to change in the Criminal
Code to include the death penalty, let them have the guts to stand
up here and do it in this House.
(1405)
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a short point of order. I believe
that the parliamentary secretary inadvertently used the
unparliamentary term ``guts'' in referring to the Reformers and I
would like him to retract that.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe the word ``guts'' is an
unparliamentary word. I have not checked recently but I am quite
certain that word is not on the list. If the hon. member for Elk
Island, who is a fine scholar, could find the word ``guts'' as having
been found unparliamentary before, I will be very pleased if he
would. In the meantime we will carry on with the debate.
4523
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do agree with the government on this
point. The death penalty is indeed an issue, a decision one must
ponder very seriously.
There are, however, many other very important issues. If we
were to apply the principle developed by the Reform Party, should
the government consult the public via a referendum on every
important issue? For instance, abortion is a very important issue.
Does the Reform Party favour a referendum on abortion? Does the
Reform Party also want a referendum on how to reduce the deficit,
on peacekeeping missions we are taking part in?
Speaking of democracy, I believe that the voice of democracy
was heard in 1993, and will be heard again during the next federal
election. During an election campaign, we are asked what we think
of a given topic. I remember very well that constituents would
question me on the death penalty, in 1993, asking me: ``Are you for
or against the death penalty, Mr. Bellehumeur?'' My answer was:
``No, I am not in favour of the death penalty''. And I would then
explain why I oppose this concept. And yet, constituents in my
riding of Berthier-Montcalm voted for me. Therefore, today, I am
in a position to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents on
issues such as the death penalty.
We do not have to hold a referendum on every issue on which we
believe that the public may have a different view or, as the Liberal
member mentioned, simply to wash our hands of it. We have been
given the mandate, each one of us in our respective riding, to
represent our constituents and express the opinion which we
believe to be the majority's.
The Reform's approach in several areas, including capital
punishment, is, I believe, very simplistic. Once again, this past
week, we saw Reform members choose the easiest way out. They
do not like Bloc members, they find them too vocal, too intrusive,
so they would like to take away their official opposition status.
This past week, we heard them talk about dangerous offenders.
They want to leave them in prison as long as possible, to let them
rot in there. No matter what the minister suggests to strengthen the
law, it is never enough for Reform members, they always demand
more.
Their attitude is the same in the case of young offenders. They do
not know what to do with them, so they say: Let let us change the
Young Offenders Act so that the age limit will be nine or ten. That
is the easy way out. The same goes for first degree murders. What
would be the easiest thing to do? Restore the death penalty to get
rid of first degree murderers as quickly as possible.
The purpose of Bill C-261 before us is not to determine whether
we are for or against the death penalty.
(1410)
All the Reform speeches I have heard show clearly that members
of that party are for capital punishment. It is said very clearly, but
they will not come right out sand say so.
If we consider the whole issue of the death penalty closely, we
have to admit that, in 1975-1976, when Parliament studied the
question, it made the right decision and chose to abolish capital
punishment as many other countries have done throughout the
years. Several countries have abolished the death penalty and have
come to some conclusions.
Earlier, the parliamentary secretary read out some statistics, and
yes, the figures are very positive. I have here a very comprehensive
study, conducted between 1985 and 1996, which shows that, in
Canada, after the death penalty was abolished, homicide, murder,
manslaughter and infanticide decreased by 20 per cent. Therefore,
those who think that the restoration of the death penalty will reduce
the number of murders and other similar horrible crimes are wrong.
That is for Canada.
If we look at statistics for France, in the eighties, that country
also abolished capital punishment and the figures there are similar.
It is not because the death penalty can be imposed that crimes will
automatically decrease and vice versa.
What I often hear from Reform members and all those who
advocate a return to capital punishment is the famous theory of
deterrence, but it does not hold with the numbers we have before
us.
We also talked about the risks of convicting innocent people and
involuntarily putting them in the electric chair or some other
method of ending it all. This is one aspect must also consider. As
regards the inequality of justice, we need only look at what is
happening in the United States to realize that, when it comes to the
electric chair, justice is not necessarily the same for the rich and the
poor.
The rich can afford lawyers and a multitude of legal experts to
avoid the electric chair, while the most powerless before the system
are even more powerless and, quite often, cannot present a fair
defence, a defence that a rich person could have presented.
One point that surprised me is the uncertainty a return to capital
punishment would bring out in the justice system, and perhaps
Reform members do not know that. Again, when capital
punishment was abolished in 1960 and 1976, it was realized that its
abolition had a direct effect on the conviction rate.
Again according to statistics from Statistics Canada and experts,
I will read to you what one of them, a certain Mr. Mackenzie, has to
say. He says that in Canada, between 1960 and 1974, when capital
4524
punishment was in force, the conviction rate for a first degree
murder was below 10 per cent and, after capital punishment was
abolished, it increased to 20 per cent between 1976 and 1982, the
study period.
Why? Because the jury that hears the case knows that, if it
decides that Mr. X is guilty or that Mr. X has committed a murder,
he faces hanging, the electric chair or whatever. The members of
the jury want proof beyond a reasonable doubt and even more, so
that they often have a slight doubt about the individual before them
who could be sentenced to death.
(1415)
If the accused faced only a minimum sentence of 25 years, they
would say that he was guilty, but with capital punishment hanging
over him, they have doubts. They then decide that a unanimous
verdict is impossible and the accused is set free.
The numbers are there. Without capital punishment the
conviction rate is 20 per cent, compared to 10 per cent with capital
punishment. These figures must be considered. Obviously one does
not launch a philosophical debate across Canada before a federal
election without looking at these figures beforehand, without
realizing-unless they are completely irresponsible, which I do not
think is the case-that they did not consider these things before
launching this debate, before asking the government to hold a
referendum on this issue in the next federal election.
If not, I urge them to do so. At some point we get into a vicious
circle. The more we complain about a bad situation, the worse it
gets. The more we talk about the murder rate, the higher it seems.
We are creating a kind of public panic for no good reason. Yes,
murders and other horrible crimes are being committed, but I think
that the people of Quebec and Canada do not lean to the right as
much as the Reform Party does.
Reform members often claim to represent Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So
who has gone through the terrible ordeal of losing his or her child
and demands that the death penalty be reinstated.
In closing, I would like to talk about Isabelle Bolduc, who was in
the news over the summer. She was murdered by a killer on parole.
But her father, Mr. Bolduc, clearly came out against capital
punishment. He is working to improve rehabilitation and social
reintegration for inmates.
The problem may not be with capital punishment itself. The
problem may be with the enforcement of the current regulations.
That is what I want to say to the Reform Party today. I do not think
most of the people listening to us in western Canada share the
views of Reform members. I am convinced that only a minority
think the way Reformers do on this issue.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island has
brought a citation from Beauchesne's to my attention that the
expression ``has not got the guts'' was found in May, 1959 not to be
parliamentary. That is almost 30 years ago. He would have an
excellent point but for the fact that he was not in his seat when he
made the point.
The good point would appear to be cancelled out by the fact that
he was not in his seat. We will all, no doubt, take note of the fact
that there is a citation, as only a teacher can remember, in
Beauchesne's.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, from my
understanding of the ruling, I cannot use the word ``guts'' in my
speech. Is that true? Because it would fit nicely in my speech as I
address some of the points we have heard from the other side.
I rise today in support of my colleague's bill, the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan, private member's Bill C-261. Bill C-261 is
about giving Canadians an opportunity to voice their opinion on
one of the most contentious issues in Canadian history, the use of
the death penalty for first degree murder.
It is strange for me to hear my colleague from the Bloc who just
addressed the House say he is in favour of the democratic process
in their referendums, where the direction and the guidance and the
operation of the country is done by the will of a majority when it
comes to electing him to his seat in the House. But after he is
elected to his seat in the House he is saying to 69 per cent of the
people who are opting for a referendum or opting for a second look
at the death penalty: ``You do not know what is in your own best
interests, so you are going to have to trust me''. That is what the
member from the Liberal side has been saying.
(1420 )
They are saying to the people of Canada: ``You know what is in
your best interest when you elect me to the House, but after that, on
issues like capital punishment or other issues that impact on the
individual from a moral point of view, you have to leave those
decisions to me because I know what is best for you. You do not
know what is best for you, your family, your community or your
nation. That has to be left to the elites like us''. That is what this
member is saying and that is what the Bloc member has been
saying.
I do not want to focus my comments on the point of capital
punishment. I do not want to take up any more time of the House
debating the pros and cons of capital punishment. I chose today to
focus on the issue of democracy because this is the essence of my
colleague's private member's Bill C-261.
4525
Bill C-261 is an act to require a referendum on the restoration of
the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act. I support the
use of national referendums to determine the will of the majority
on issues of a moral or contentious nature. If the Liberal
government believed in democracy, if it truly believed the majority
rules in this country, it would support the use of national
referendums and support this private member's bill.
Liberal members would put aside their Liberal philosophies and
personal biases regarding the use of the death penalty and they
would allow Canadians through this democratic means to decide
the fate of first degree murderers.
The definition of democracy contained in the Gage Canadian
Dictionary is not unlike those found in most other dictionaries:
1) a government that is periodically elected and thus controlled by the people who
live under it. Under a democracy, the people rule either by direct vote at public
meetings or indirectly through the election of certain representatives to govern them;
2) the ideals and principles of such a government, such as equality of rights and
opportunities and the rule of the majority;
A democracy is formed by the will of the majority, not by
minorities, special interest groups or lobby groups. The majority
elects a government to establish laws and programs that protect the
lives and property, the liberties and the freedoms of all its citizens.
The greatest guarantee to the individual of these fundamental
rights and freedoms is found in the expressed will of a well
educated and informed majority.
Historically, these characteristics have formed the strongest
stabilizing force within society. A group of nations, supported by
their majorities, freed the world of the Nazi regime which denied
millions their liberties, their freedoms and their very rights to live
and own property.
It was the will of a majority of Americans who demanded
Afro-Americans have the freedom to vote over the objection of a
minority. It was a host of nations, supported again by their
majorities, that turned back the dictator Saddam Hussein.
Although history may provide exceptions, the greatest violations
of fundamental human rights have occurred at the hands of
minority groups and elite groups like those represented by the
voice over here. It has been nations governed by majority rule that
have established and maintained to the greatest degree the
fundamental rights of the individual.
The leader of the federal Tories ignored the determination of his
youth delegates on the question of capital punishment at their
recent convention. The Reform Party believes this issue must be
decided by the majority of Canadians in a free and open vote after
all aspects have been fully debated.
Our method is democratic. The Tory leader's method is not.
Neither is the method of the Liberal Party so far heard expressed
today in this debate.
The top down, autocratic leadership displayed by the Tory leader
and by this government is what gave rise to the Reform Party of
Canada in the first place and is the type of leadership that leads to a
violation of fundamental human rights.
The previous Tory-Liberal governments' undemocratic form of
leadership has plunged our country into a $600 billion debt hole.
This debt has been created, at least in part, by the establishment of
grants and programs aimed at special interest groups without the
consent of the majority.
The greatest threat to our social and economic stability of our
families, individuals and our nation is the unlimited power of
government to tax away our property and our wealth without our
consent.
(1425 )
The issue of Quebec sovereignty dominates in the provincial
legislature to their economic detriment. The Bloc keep pressing the
issue in the House despite the fact that the majority was heard,
despite the fact that referendums on Quebec separation produced a
no vote not once, but twice.
The reinstatement of capital punishment cannot be determined
by the Liberal government alone. We know only too well whose
side the Liberals are on in this contentious debate on capital
punishment. We know whose side they are on in the debate on Bill
C-45.
Unlike the Reform Party, the Liberal government and the leader
of the Tory party are not on the side of the murder victims and their
families. The Liberal government is on the side of the killers. This
was evident in its opposition to the private member's bill repealing
section 745 and in its support of Bill C-45 which continues to grant
first degree murderers an avenue for early release.
This was never more obvious than it was yesterday when the
parliamentary secretary accused us of exploiting the families of
murder victims, which, as I said in the House yesterday, was
beneath contempt. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River accused us of exploiting the families of murder victims for
political purposes. He said: ``The Reform are always interested in
talking about the effects on the victims''. Yes, we are always
interested in talking about the devastating effects of murder on the
families of murder victims. We have a duty and a responsibility in
talking about the horrifying trauma of victims' families knowing
their son's or daughter's killer may be released early as a result of
section 745.
I will have the hon. member and his colleagues know that I have
been contacted by families of murder victims. They have thanked
4526
me and all colleagues in the House for telling their painful stories
to Canadians and what section 745 means to them; for telling
Canadians how section 745, the Liberal made glimmer of hope for
the most sadistic people in our society, has made them relive their
nightmares.
If the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and his
Liberal colleagues do not want to talk about the victims, if they
want to remain in their ivory towers, oblivious to the real pain and
suffering which is occurring in the country, then so be it. We will
remain in touch with the people, the people's feelings and their
concerns.
In closing I say this: The reinstatement of capital punishment
ought not to be determined by the House, a handful of politicians; it
should only be determined by a majority of Canadians. This is the
nature of democracy, a majority rule, which most citizens have no
difficulty whatever in understanding.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me say that it gives me great pleasure to stand in
support of private member's Bill C-261.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary say that we did not have
enough intestinal fortitude to stand to say that we are in favour of
capital punishment. I am in favour of capital punishment for
certain crimes and I am proud to say that. What I am not proud of is
a government which refuses to give the Canadian people a say on
this. I am not proud of that. That is lack of intestinal fortitude on
that side of the House, not on this side of the House.
When the parliamentary secretary stands up and says such
things, I think of the hypocritical people who are involved. The
hypocrisy has never been so great. Bill C-261 is not about my
personal opinion; it is not about their personal opinions. It is an
opportunity to give the Canadian people a say which will be
binding on the government. It is a say for the Canadian people.
If I had my way I would say capital punishment right now. But
not this good government. Not this caring, sharing government that
only worries about self-preservation and its pension plan. No, not
this government. The Canadian people can stay out there and be
told nothing but what the government wants them to hear. It will
twist the facts. It will twist the statistics. It will come up with
numbers that mean absolutely nothing in the real world.
The worst of it is, there are many members on that side who
think the very same as we on this side but they are being controlled
from within. It is politics of the lowest degree in a country that is
supposed to be democratically ruled. When we do not allow our
populace to have a say in such matters, when we keep on shutting
our eyes and letting our folks walk the streets in fear because we
have a government that has no intestinal fortitude to give the
people a say, it is a disgrace.
(1430)
Members can sit there with smiles on their faces. Sooner or later
the people of Canada will have their say. I hope it is sooner rather
than later.
This is good legislation. It should have been deemed votable.
Government members can sit there and smirk all they want and
say: ``No, not us. We won't give the people a say in this because we
are here to rule. We are here to rule the people''. That is their
agenda. They have lost the common sense of what government is
supposed to be about. I am sorry the government has lost that. Like
the Conservatives before them and the Liberals before the
Conservatives, they think they are here to rule with an iron fist and
say: ``You will do what we wish and not what you wish we would
do to govern properly''. I find that outrageous.
The Liberals stand here time after time and say: ``We listen to
the people''. Hogwash. If they truly represented the people they
would at least allow them a voice on this issue. It is not up to
members of Parliament to force their morality on the people. It is
up to the people to force their morality on us. Sooner or later
Liberal members might learn that.
You are just a hired peon in this place. You are hired by the
taxpayers. You are hired to represent their wishes and their
demands. You can say you are elected. They pay your wages, do not
ever forget that-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member, like all
hon. members, will please address his remarks to the Chair, not to
you on the opposite side or on his own side.
Mr. Stinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you are right.
Members in this Chamber are hired. They are no better than
anybody else who walks the street out there. The taxpayers pay our
wages to represent them, not our wishes. That is where this
government and governments before have gone wrong. It is time
the taxpayers of this country demanded that politicians listen to
what their concerns are. We are sick and tired of it.
Mr. Ramsay: We have a $600 billion debt.
Mr. Stinson: That is right. We have a $600 billion debt. We look
after the criminals far better than we do the victims. It is a real
shame. I know in other countries what would happen to politicians
who think that they are better than the people.
Private members' business is something where a lot of members
go to a lot of work trying to bring a bill before this House which the
government is not going to address. Our biggest mistake in private
members' business is not allowing all bills drawn to be deemed
votable. Let us get rid of the politics in private members' business.
4527
Bill C-261 is living proof that when we came here one of our
commitments was that we would give referendums to the people
and we would abide by the people's decisions. That was a Reform
commitment. Members of the government ask: ``How can you do
that?'' They believe they are far smarter than the people and they
are so wrong.
When we came here after we were elected we all had these
ideals. Somehow it has been beaten out of them on the other side
and beaten out badly. They should remember. They still have to
look at themselves in the mirror when they shave in the morning. I
sometimes wonder how they can do it when they allow the things to
go on in this country that they have.
The right to give a referendum to the Canadian people always
seems to be on the agenda. This is not the first time it has come
before this House, nor will it be the last, until finally they are given
their wish and they are allowed to vote on this. I hope this
government at least gives them that right in the coming federal
election. Then they would be surprised at the people's voice.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
It being approximately 2.33 p.m., the House stands adjourned
until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.35 p.m.)