And what has going to Cuba got to do with anything? Canada has never followed the US lead on Cuba and that goes back to the 1960s.
Really? For having 'all that freedom' we have done very little with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–Cuba_relations
History
Canada established diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1945, and maintained uninterrupted diplomatic relations following the
Cuban Revolution in 1959.
[1] Cuba was the first country in the Caribbean selected by Canada for a diplomatic mission.
[1]
Relations were especially warm in the 1970s and 1980s during the time when
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was the
Prime Minister of Canada. Trudeau spent three days in Cuba and sparked a lifelong friendship with
Fidel Castro.
[2] The visit was also the first by a Western nation to Cuba since 1960.
[2]
Fidel Castro was among Pierre Trudeau's pallbearers at
his funeral in 2000.
[3]
Canadian-Cuban business ventures
In 1994, a joint venture was formed between the Cuban Nickel Union and the Canadian firm
Sherritt International, which operates a mining and processing plant on the island in
Moa.
[4] A second enterprise, Cobalt Refinery Co. Inc., was created in Alberta for nickel refining.
There are in total 85 Canadian companies and subsidiaries operating in Cuba, including brewer
Labatt Breweries.
Criticism of U.S. policy
Canada has been critical of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, and strongly objected to the
Helms-Burton Act. In 1996 Foreign Affairs Minister
Lloyd Axworthy stated: "Canada shares the U.S. objectives of improving human rights standards and moving to more representative government in Cuba. But we are concerned that the Helms-Burton Act takes the wrong approach. That is why we have been working with other countries to uphold the principles of international law".
[5][6]
In 1996 a
Private Member's Bill was introduced, but not made law, in the
Canadian parliament; this law called the
Godfrey-Milliken Bill was in response to the extraterritoriality of the Helms-Burton Act.
[7][8] Godfrey-Milliken was essentially a parody, and would have allowed descendants of
United Empire Loyalists who fled the
American Revolution to be able to reclaim land and property that was confiscated by the American government in the 1700s.
Canada has also protested U.S. preclearance customs agents in Canadian airports who tried to catch American citizens traveling to Cuba in defiance of U.S. law.
[9]
(in part)
1994 is the first investment by Canada and next to nothing since then. Riches for the west rather than help for the locals.
https://www.canada-usblog.com/2017/...anadas-foreign-extraterritorial-measures-act/
It is legal under Canadian law for Canadian persons, including Canadian corporation, branches of U.S. companies and subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with Cuba. Canadian persons and Canadians outside Canada may sell goods and services to Cuba, with the exception of goods covered by Canada’s export control and economic sanctions laws. For example, there are restrictions under Canadian laws relating to the sale of U.S. origin goods to Cuba. Because it is legal under Canadian law to sell goods and services to Cuba and Canada is a sovereign country, the sanctions under U.S. anti-Cuba laws pose a dilemma under Canadian law. The interplay between the U.S. anti-Cuba laws and Canadian law creates a “Catch 22” situation for certain Canadian organizations.
For example,
Canada’s Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (FEMA) creates requirements and reporting obligations in the context of certain international trading activities. FEMA is also known as Canada’s “blocking” legislation as it was enacted in 1985 to block the extra-territorial application of foreign laws to Canadian business. More specifically, FEMA was enacted to block the extra-territorial application of United States anti-Cuba laws to Canadian corporations.
Under FEMA, where Canada’s Attorney General is of the opinion that another country’s laws or rulings (its measures) may adversely affect Canadian interests in relation to international trade or commerce, he/she may issue an order prohibiting any person in Canada from complying with those laws or rulings. Only one such order has been issued, the order issued in respect of the United States anti-Cuba laws (the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures (United States) Order, 1992 – the “FEMA United States Order”).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S1449-4035(05)70052-7
Abstract
This analysis reassesses Canada’s Cuba policy by challenging the prevailing view that
it has been largely independent of the US. The thesis posited here is that despite its
opposition to the US’ Helms-Burton legislation (which seeks to increase economic
pressures on the Cuban economy by penalising foreigners who conduct business with
the island) the Canadian government has been pursuing a Cuba strategy which closely
converges with the Americans, and this has been particularly evident since the late
1990s. This argument is made through a discussion of the following themes: Canada’s
support for US hegemony; its shared interest with the US in protecting the global
trading regime; its desire to defend its trading relationship with the US; its support
for the US’ position in the Organization of American States
vis a vis
Cuba; and its
commercial competition with the US in Cuba.
Introduction
Historically, Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America and the
Caribbean has largely been interpreted as mirroring or converging
with US hegemonic interests in the region. However, in its relationship
with Cuba, Ottawa has seemingly diverged from this path, preferring
instead, as its official policy declares, “engagement” through trade and
diplomacy, rather than isolation, the decades old American strategy.
Some Canada-Cuba scholars, such as John Kirk and Peter McKenna,
have interpreted this as Canada having a Cuba policy largely indepen
-
dent of the United States (though one which waxes and wanes in terms
of our cordiality with the Cubans.)
1
Seeming to confirm this view was
the Chrétien government’s actions in challenging the US on the 1996
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
(US Congress 1996), popularly
known as the Helms-Burton Bill. Part of the cornucopia of American
policies aimed at unseating the Castro administration, this legislation
was specifically designed to increase economic pressures on the Cuban
economy by penalising foreigners, including Canadians, who conduct
business with the island. Denouncing the statute as extraterritorial
interference, Ottawa enacted a series of legal and diplomatic counter-
measures against it to protect its entrepreneurs and commercial inter
-
ests in Cuba
.
The Helms-Burton Bill and Canada’s Cuba Policy -
125
In the eyes of many observers, the Canadian response to Helms-
Burton was in line with its historical approach to the island, that is,
marching to different drummer from than that of the United States.
However, countervailing legislation against the American bill notwith
-
standing, it will be argued here that this interpretation is overly opti
-
mistic in terms of the independence accorded to Canadian actions
towards the island. While historically there have been ostensible
differences between the Canadian and US approaches, there have also
been many important and fundamental points of convergence, and
these have been deepening. This convergence, while always present
has become increasingly obvious since the late 90s. Surprisingly too,
it gained momentum under the same Canadian Prime Minister who
officially inaugurated “constructive engagement” with the Cubans and
who seemed willing to confront the Americans on Helms-Burton.
By shedding light on the growing parallelism between Ottawa’s
and Washington’s approach to Havana, a more comprehensive picture
of Canada’s Cuba policy emerges. Focusing only on Canada’s alleged
“engagement” with the Cubans, and arguing that this therefore speaks
of its autonomy from the US, does not explain satisfactorily the
increasing contradictions and conflict evident in Canada’s dealing with
the Castro government
(in part)
We are under America's thumb more than Cuba is, don't that make you proud?
