Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence
Ottawa, Tuesday, May 28, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:00 p.m. with a parliamentary delegation from Cuba.
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We have with us this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Cuba. Our guests are Mr. Luiz Ignacio Gomez Gutiérrez, Minister of Education; Mr. Antonio De la Liera Herrera, Member of Parliament; Mr. Sergio Pastrana Valera, Member of Parliament. Also with the delegation is His Excellency Bienvenido Garcia Negrin, the Cuban Ambassador to Canada, and Mr. Jorge Lamadrid, the Ambassador's counsellor.
The Honourable Minister will say a few words to us, through his interpreter, and then he will hear our questions.
Mr. Luiz Ignacio Gomez Gutiérrez, Minister of Education: Thank you for the warm welcome that you have given me and the delegation. We are part of a delegation representing the Canada-Cuba Friendship Group. This visit is in response to a visit from a Canadian delegation to Cuba a year and a half ago.
Canada's relationship with Cuba is very important because we are part of the same hemisphere. Our two countries have had a relationship for 50 years. Over that time, there has been an increase in commercial relations between Cuba and Canada. The increase in trade has increased to approximately $500 million this year in the areas of copper mining, petroleum and tourism. We expect that this business will continue to augment.
There is a great deal of interest in Cuba in acquiring Canadian goods and in exporting Cuban goods to Canada. There has been an economic transformation in Cuba, in an attempt to attain a better economy. There is some cooperation with CIDA in order to improve the banking and financial systems, and we expect to touch upon social areas such as education and health.
We have been going through economic difficulties because we have lost some of our markets. Our difficulties are also caused by a blockade imposed by the United States which has been augmented very recently. This is a commercial embargo, but the blockade is much more than just a commercial embargo. There is also an extraterritorial character. It affects all different aspects of life, such as the provision of food and medicine, and not just commerce.
This blockade is also impeding the flow of foreign investments into Cuba. The most recent embargo, which is the most absurd, is the Helms-Burton law that has been passed recently in the United States. The Canadian government has taken a very firm position against this law. This law affects Canadian interests and also Canadian sovereignty. Having to abide by a law that has been imposed by another country impedes the liberty of commerce and investments. This is the major difficulty that our country faces in being able to get ahead, and this is why we could qualify Cuban people as heroic.
Without the blockade, everything would be much easier and the economy could develop faster. Even though there has been a blockade, our economy has increased by 7 per cent. In 1995, the economy increased by 2.5 per cent.
We have managed to recover our sugar production; we have the highest numbers in the production of nickel and cobalt, where the association with Canadian enterprises has played an important part. We have also a higher production in petroleum and tobacco. Tourism in the first trimester has increased by 47 per cent compared to 1995. This increase is due to participation by Canadians in our market.
Even though there is a blockade, Cuba still has social indicators in terms of literacy that are the highest in Latin America. In the rest of Latin America, literacy is at a level of approximately 16 per cent. In Cuba, we have one teacher for every 45 inhabitants. Everyone has work. No school has shut down; no university has shut down. We dedicate 11 per cent of our national budget to education. The rate of infant mortality in Cuba is comparable to that in developed countries; it is below the rate of ten fatalities for every thousand births.
We have one doctor for every 200 inhabitants. Health and education are both free. The largest part of the national budget is dedicated to social security. Approximately 1.5 million Cubans have access to social security. Our country will not renounce these achievements.
We must, however, recover the economy. We have planned a deficit that is less than 4 per cent. This is all done with the consensus of the Cuban people. In the last parliamentary election, candidates needed 50 per cent of the votes to be elected. In these elections, it is the actual people who propose or suggest the candidates.
I would like to thank again the honourable senators for the reception that you have given us. We have been welcomed in the Senate and also in the House of Commons. I would like to thank you for the principles that Canada has in terms of their relationship with Cuba, and the respect that Canada has for their own autonomy and sovereignty.
The Chairman: Senator Stollery.
Senator Stollery: In April, we visited Europe, and during that visit there were very strong reactions concerning the policy of this blockade. What is the Cuban point of view with respect to the situation of Canada and the European countries, because it is not just Canada that is caught by this blockade? What is the reaction, as seen from Cuba?
Mr. Gutiérrez: It is known that on four occasions the United Nations Assembly has had reactions against the blockade towards Cuba. The only votes in favour of the blockade was that of the United States and one or two other countries. In terms of this new law, there is no country in the world that has supported the position of the United States. The European Union has condemned the law, and they have been looking for different mechanisms of sanction to suggest to the World Trade Organization.
Many other countries have commercial relationships with Cuba, especially Mexico, who are also part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico has taken an energetic position against the Helms-Burton law. Most other countries are in the same position as Canada, as individual countries and also in terms of the different blocks that they make up.
The Chairman: I should tell you that we have two political parties represented in the Senate. There is the Conservative Party, whose members happen to be sitting, for the most part, on my right, and the Liberal Party, whose members are suitably to my left.
Senator Atkins: We may have a better idea later today of the extent to which the Americans intend to express their view, following a meeting in the United States between our minister, the Mexicans and the U.S. Secretary of Trade. The speculation is that it is not very hopeful that the Americans will budge one single bit. The other factor is that June 11 is fast approaching. That seems to be a date where the Americans intend to show what their real interpretation is of the Helms-Burton law.
If there is an opportunity for the Canadians and the Mexicans to appeal to the Americans through NAFTA, do you feel that there is any hope they may soften their position?
Mr. Gutiérrez: We know that Mexico and Canada are firmly against the law, but we also know that the President of the United States has a veto. Apparently there is no precedent to this situation in the United States, or indeed in the rest of the world.
Generally, external policies in the United States can be modified by the acting government. However, this law prohibits their Secretary of State from doing anything in terms of changing their position. We know more or less what the positions of Canada and Mexico will be, or should be, but it is difficult to know how the Americans will react. Obviously, important countries such as Canada, Mexico, the European countries and Japan take the position that sovereignty cannot be violated, and that it would be impossible for the American government to apply the law. Other countries in the world cannot permit one country to take control.
Senator Atkins: I believe the general consensus is that the President will not soften his position as long as there is an election forthcoming. I do not think you will see any changes at least until after November.
Mr. Gutiérrez: It is hard to tell.
Senator Atkins: Do you think the Americans would treat the Mexicans in the same fashion as they are treating Canadians with regard to the way in which these two countries do business in Cuba?
Mr. Gutiérrez: Mexico has a lot of investments in Cuba, for example relating to the telephone system. They have declared that they will maintain their investments in Cuba. None of the investors have pulled out of Cuba.
Senator Atkins: Is there any evidence that the Americans are using any heavy leverage in Mexico with respect to their relationship with Cuba?
Mr. Gutiérrez: We do not know yet. We have to wait. The Americans are talking about publishing a black list that they will never stop publishing, and from there to apply practical measures to the countries which do not have the right policies, also in terms of immigration and migration. How will the Americans impose on Canada and Canadians who can go to Cuba and who cannot go? They would have to break any migratory agreement.
Senator Atkins: The impression one gets is that they are prepared to do that, and to take their chances.
Mr. Gutiérrez: They would be looking at a lot of trouble.
Senator Grafstein: I would like to welcome the delegation from Cuba. I have been a cigar smoker for many years. Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, my delight in smoking cigars has been outlawed by Parliament, so I am not able to smoke in this room, my office, my home, or my office at home. However, my wife has allotted to me a place in the backyard, all alone, where I can luxuriate in cigars. My colleague over here, when he came back from Cuba, brought me a Cuban cigar.
I want to tell you that not only do I use Cuban cigars, but we also drink Cuban coffee. As you can see, we are trying to help your economy. I give you that by way of a preliminary.
I recently returned from Alaska and the Yukon Territory, where I was co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Group. At these meetings which took place in Alaska and Canada, we were joined by 14 American senators and just under 20 American congressmen. Every year this Canada-U.S. committee meets -- one year in Canada, the next year in the United States -- to discuss all of the issues that are points of friction between Canada and the U.S.
One of the issues we discussed this year was Canada's relations with Cuba and the Helms-Burton bill. I can tell you that the Canadians made a very strong case against that bill and the extraterritorial impact of the bill, and the attack on Canadian sovereignty. I was surprised -- and this may come as news to you and to the ambassador -- that the American senators and the congressmen did not necessarily disagree with our position. One senator repeated almost virtually your speech by saying that it was extraterritorial, that it was contrary to trade law, and that it was against sovereignty. He made all of the same arguments that we have heard today and that, in fact, we made. He echoed those arguments. That included congressmen from Florida and a senator from Florida. Two of the congressmen are not running for re-election, so they could speak more freely. However, the Republican senator was very silent, and not too defensive about this position.
I tell you this by way of background because we then moved to the next level of discussion, and Senator Atkins has touched on this point. There was a strong consensus from the Americans that there would be no change in the American position until after the election.
Our discussion developed how to limit in the regulations of the act the impact of the legislation. One of the suggestions I made to the American senators, who asked me, is this: Why don't you put a time limit on the law until after the election so that you can then revisit this question? I am cautiously optimistic that there will be, if not a change in the law, a severe limitation on the impact of the law as it applies to the extraterritorial impasse -- but not this year; next year after the election.
Having said that, let me raise a very delicate question. Please do not take this as being undiplomatic, but it was a question that we, as Canadians, could not answer in our private conversations with senators and congressmen. It is the theory of the Americans -- which we do not accept, but I pass it on -- that Cuba provoked the Americans by overreacting to the planes that were flying over Cuba. The suggestion is that there were other means, other forceful means, available to Cuba to remove those planes from the air space over Cuba if, indeed, those airplanes had invaded Cuban air space.
During the Cold War in Canada we were used to this. The Russians invaded our space, the Americans invaded our space, and we tried to kick them out as gently as we could.
That is rather a long prologue to a very short question. We would hope that conflicts can be kept to a minimum between now and next year, when we hope that we can reduce the impact of this terrible bill. What is your opinion of this?
Senator Andreychuk: I have a supplementary question. What reaction did the Cuban government believe it would receive after they had destroyed the planes?
Mr. Gutiérrez: We should ask the Americans first. For 36 years they have been in this situation with Cuba. There have been invasions. There was an invasion of a brigade that was trained and armed by the United States. Terrorism has resulted in thousands of deaths in Cuba. They have introduced bacterial warfare. Hundreds of children died from Dengue fever that was introduced into Cuba. For 35 years the blockade has had the objective of killing people by starving them and making them sick.
Many aggressive acts such as this have been carried out by small aircraft like these ones. These are not civilian airplanes. We have proof that these are airplanes of military use. We have proof that the people who pilot the planes are paramilitary personnel. The commander of this group had the number 2506, which is the number of the brigade which invaded the Bay of Pigs. This person has been a member of the CIA for more than 30 years. He is a recognized terrorist.
I have with me documents that prove all of this, which were published in the American press. We did not know the objective of this flight, or where it was going. In January, they flew over Havana, the capital city, and they also entered the country. We have videos from American television and other reporters who were in those planes. The planes flew at low altitudes and they filmed the capital city, putting the lives of many people and commercial flights in danger -- perhaps some of them Canadian tourists. They also threw some leaflets into Havana. One package fell in the centre of Havana but it didn't open up. It could have killed somebody.
These are not civilian airplanes. This whole campaign has nothing to do with a commercial flight, or a businessman who was flying the wrong way. The objective of these flights is to lower the morale of the people and the armed forces. The government of the United States was aware of this. They were asked to put a stop to this campaign. The government promised that the flights would not continue.
In January, when they flew over the capital, there was an order given to our armed forces that they should not permit this. This order was stayed, an inactive order. On February 24, there was no specific order to hit on these two planes, but this order had been given previously.
In Cuba, the air force consists of Soviet supersonic jets. The blockade does not give us the opportunity to acquire any other kinds of aircraft. The supersonic jets cannot fly at low altitude and low speed because if they do, they will fall out of the sky. Thus they made a few warning passes on these planes, but the planes continued to get closer to the capital.
There were two alternatives for the Cuban pilots: They were under orders to either not permit the pilots to continue -- and this was a day of national festivity. There was a baseball game, which is very important, with a stadium filled with more than 20,000 people. There were processions in the street -- a carnival -- and nobody knew what these airplanes were up to. Havana had been bombarded on more than one occasion by that type of aircraft.
The senator is asking what reaction did we have. We expected that these flights would not be repeated, because it had been promised by the U.S. government that this type of activity would stop. Therefore we were surprised by this incident. There was no deliberate action by Cuba to provoke this incident. I understand that the pilot has now lost his licence to fly. Why could that not have happened before? The pilot has a document from the Department of State outlining the different violations that he had committed previously. The U.S. government could have avoided the incident.
Cuba is a country that has been victimized. There is a kind of war against Cuba. It is very difficult for Cuba not to adopt any actions to protect its sovereignty. This could go as far as provoking a war. The pilot said that they were able to undertake these flights without any problem because the air forces of Cuba were demoralized; they did not have any fuel to fly their planes, and the electronic equipment was not functioning. Under the circumstances, this was potentially a very dangerous situation for Cuba.
Senator Atkins: Even if these actions were justified, you have lost the PR war. Did you anticipate the overreaction of the Americans to what happened?
Mr. Gutiérrez: We think that they would have tried to enact the Helms-Burton law in any event. They needed an excuse. There was already a consensus in the House of Representatives. They could only avoid enacting this law with the veto of the President. He was intending to apply his veto in the year of elections, but it is just a pretence. They were in a hurry to keep the power of the President of the United States.
Senator Kelleher: Mr. Minister, everyone around the world is aware of the dispute between Cuba and the United States. Without assigning blame to either party -- that is not my interest -- could you tell us what steps, if any, Cuba has taken, or is taking, to resolve this dispute with the United States?
Mr. Gutiérrez: That is like asking someone, when you have a knife at their throat, "What can I do not to kill you?" For an answer, you must ask the one who is holding the knife. All the nationalizations of the enterprises have been resolved, even the ones with Canada.
Senator Kelleher: We have a dispute between two countries, Cuba and the United States. It has always been my experience that, in a dispute, nobody is 100 per cent right and nobody is 100 per cent wrong. Each side has responsibility to try and resolve the dispute. I am not blaming either side here, but I want to know what efforts, if any, Cuba is taking to resolve this dispute.
There are other ways to resolve disputes than speaking directly to the person with whom you are having the dispute. There are what are known as -- and you will know this -- diplomatic initiatives. You can go through third parties; you can ask other people to try and broker a deal.
I would like to know what, if anything, Cuba is doing to try to resolve this problem. If Cuba wants to win friends and promote sympathy from other countries, they need to show the rest of the world that they are prepared and interested in doing something to help resolve this dispute. I would like the minister to tell me what Cuba is doing in this regard.
Mr. Gutiérrez: Cuba has never shown aggression in any way to the United States. The country that is being blocked is Cuba. Cuba cannot block the U.S. The country that has a military base against the people's will is the Americans; they have a base in Cuba. Cuba does not control any part of the United States. All the aggressive acts have come from the United States to Cuba. There is no aggression from Cuba.
In order to solve this conflict, the first thing that the Americans must do is lift the blockade and let us sit down together, with all the knowledge that we have, to solve our differences. Cuba has always been disposed to discussion, but the Americans do not seem to want to do that. They want to apply force. Our country is not disposed by any means to making any concessions where force is involved.
The problem that the United States has with Cuba is something that has to do with elections. The people in Florida have acquired a very big economic power. They can finance campaigns. The external policy of the Americans with respect to Cuba has been geared to and conditioned by this situation, and sometimes it is against the actual interests of the United States.
The Americans cannot travel to Cuba. They cannot invest in Cuba. That is prohibited by their government. They cannot acquire any Cuban goods. This is quite absurd, because the Cold War is finished. Previously, the condition for improving the relationship was for Cuba to break off its relationship with the Soviets. We did not break off our relationship the Soviet Union; it is simply that the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Cubans cannot do much more. The Americans continue to push the compromise further away, also damaging some other countries with laws such as this one that have extraterritorial character.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I know the Minister and the members of the Cuban Parliament have other obligations, so we must not impose on them.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to say that we have enjoyed our meeting. We appreciate your candour. We hope that you will visit us again.
The committee adjourned.