Debates of June 3rd, 2010

Proactive Enforcement and Defect Accountability Legislation (PEDAL) Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence do an excellent job on the transport committee.

Having read the comments from the minister today basically encouraging all members to come forward with ideas, I am encouraged that we could perhaps have a compromise on a bill.

I have some observations that might be at variance with the members. As early as November of last year, when Phil Edmonston brought out his book entitled Lemon-Aid Car Guide, I was first at the store to buy it. I was very shocked to find that Toyota, which had basically five star recommendations on almost its whole line, although occasionally a car would drop to the four star rating, all its cars were dropped in November to four star with warnings about the company's performance and complaints. There was a warning sign as well at that time. We found out later on that there had been recalls in England on this very case.

The member for the Bloc may not be aware of this, but we became aware that NHTSA in the United States shrunk under the eight years of the George Bush administration. Since the Democrats came into power in the United States, it has yet to increase the money that was going into NHTSA .

What we essentially had was a series of regulatory authorities asleep at the switch. I think the member for Eglinton—Lawrence can agree with that, because it is not only peculiar to the auto industry, it is just generally the case that after a while regulatory agencies seem to be influenced by the people they are attempting to regulate.

Let us look for a moment at what happened in the United States. It did not take long before Toyota discovered that there was some merit in hiring one of the NHTSA investigators who used to investigate it. Toyota did that, not once, but it hired two or three people from NHTSA, the very same people who were working on its files. If that is not a conflict for the people who were hired, I do not know what is. However, at the end of the day it appears that hiring those people was a smart move on the part of Toyota because it managed to keep the issue under wraps for that much longer. However, at the end of the day, events got ahead of themselves and Toyota was called before the United States Congress.

I just happened to be there at the time as part of a delegation from this Parliament attending the governors conference, so I had the opportunity to sit in on some of the hearings. I do not know of a time or an incident where Transport Canada has ever been in front of the problem. At least in the case of NHTSA in the United States, it has a history of at least, if it is not in front of the problem, it catches up to the problem fairly quickly. That certainly is not the case with Transport Canada.

Let us look for a moment at what happened very quickly in the United States. As soon as the international president of Toyota was called to appear before Congress, things started to happen. The event data recorders, which people who are familiar with General Motors know that General Motors has had those recorders and the readers for a number of years, did not exist in Toyota. There were no readers on North American soil as of February of this year. Since Toyota got dragged before the hearings, readers appeared within 30 days. Even Transport Canada got its first reader just a week or so after a number of us here went to a briefing at Transport Canada.

None of this inspired a lot of confidence, from me anyway, that the Canadian group was on top of the issue.

We set about developing our own bill while the hearings were going on here in Parliament. We took into account what the Bloc critic had to say, and he makes some very good points, and what the member for Eglinton—Lawrence had to say. The result of it is, of course, that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence has introduced Bill C-511, and I have introduced Bill C-513. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence's bill is on the priority list and is coming before us. Our party is supportive of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence's bill. We would hope that when we get the bill to committee, we will be in a position to take some of the elements from my bill and will hopefully be able to introduce them as amendments to that bill.

Perhaps the Bloc members will also be able to introduce some amendments to the bill. One in particular that the Bloc member has mentioned is a bit at variance with what the member for Eglinton—Lawrence actually has in his bill, but the Bloc member, I believe, seems to understand that we have to have safety information sent off to Transport Canada. What I mean is that we are proposing in Bill C-513 that safety information, in terms of written complaints from consumers to the manufacturer, has to end up on the manufacturer's website and on Transport Canada's website.

More important is the next category, which is service bulletins. These are scientific bulletins from the car companies themselves. Anybody who buys or reads Lemon-Aid will know that one of the selling points of Lemon-Aid is that the publishers manage to obtain service bulletins. These are technical bulletins from the companies about fixing problems that are given to the car dealers. Often, the service bulletin says to not tell the car owners; simply fix the problem. These particular bulletins are very helpful to people in Canada who want to find out about their cars. I can tell members that every couple of years, I save a lot of money by reading the service bulletins. I find one that applies to a car that I am driving. I go down to the GM dealership, and I point out that there is a service bulletin from General Motors, and bingo, they have to fix the problem.

We are suggesting in our bill that these service bulletins, from now on, will have to be sent to Transport Canada. Anybody in Canada who wants to access the website of Transport Canada will be able to see all these service bulletins.

We are not just talking about safety-related complaints that have to be sent along. We are talking about service bulletins from the manufacturers. That is a key difference between what the member is proposing and what is in our bill. I think the member from the Bloc understands that, and I think he supports that part, but time will tell.

We also suggest that information regarding the recall of any vehicle and equipment in Canada or outside Canada would have to be reported.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I am just shocked at how short a timeframe we have to deal with issues. I have much more to talk about in terms of this particular issue. However, I want to applaud the member for taking the initiative. He has some very interesting points. The issue of requiring the brake override is a very crucial one. We have a provision that the information on the black box is owned by the owners of the car and has to be provided to them in a readable manner.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-511, the proactive enforcement and defect accountability legislation act, also known as the PEDAL act.

The bill was authored by my hon. Liberal colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence in direct response to the federal legislative shortcomings that resulted in the consequences related to the Toyota recall. My colleague recognized that there were major holes in the legislation. These shortcomings prevented the government from doing what we expect from it, which is protect Canadians.

Currently, all responsibility is vested in the companies. They determine whether they have a safety related defect, and they determine whether they will issue a recall.

Information about their products is provided to the government, but only if specifically asked, and they determine what the government sees or does not see.

We need to take the responsibility to ensure that the safety of vehicles and Canadians is transferred to where it belongs, which is with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The PEDAL act will accomplish comprehensive improvements to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It will provide the Minister of Transport and his department with the information, tools, and legislative authority to protect Canadians.

The PEDAL act would mandate four major changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and I would like to summarize them briefly.

The first change deals with the definition of a safety-related defect. Presently, there is no specific definition for a safety-related defect, and therefore, manufacturers can avoid initiating a recall by claiming that the defect is not safety related. The PEDAL act will provide, once and for all, the definition of a safety-related defect to eliminate this ambiguity. This change, incidentally, was previously recommended when a review of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act was undertaken by the Department of Transport under the Liberals.

The second change to the act will create an early warning detection system that will require manufacturers to provide the minister with quarterly reports that contain domestic and foreign data related to potential safety related defects. With this information, the Department of Transport will have data that will allow it to monitor trends and complaints with a view toward addressing potential defects.

Currently, Transport Canada's intelligence is based on customer complaints addressed to the department. It receives, on average, 1,000 complaints a year, but it does not see the tens of thousands of complaints the dealers receive. This data, once compiled and analyzed, will give the department invaluable intelligence and will transform it from a reactive agency to a proactive guardian of safety. I think we would all agree that this is a desirable state of affairs.

The third major modernization the PEDAL act will introduce is new authority for the minister to order a recall. This is groundbreaking.

It comes as a surprise to many Canadians that this provision does not exist already. Yet under the current Motor Vehicle Safety Act, recalls can only be initiated by the manufacturer on a voluntary basis. We have all heard of recalls from various different companies for various different models at different times.

The fourth and final amendment of the PEDAL act proposes the installation of a brake override system on vehicles that use electronic throttle control. This system ensures that engine power is cut when the brakes are pressed, even if the accelerator pedal is stuck.

Bill C-511 is good legislation. All parties should support this bill. It is good public policy. If there is a way to make our laws stronger and safer, we need to act. As the Liberal critic, I support this bill and recommend that it be sent to committee for study to perhaps address some of the points that have been brought up by other hon. members.

If enacted, this bill will give the government the legislative tools it needs to better protect Canadian consumers. It will also make Canadian roads safer. I would like to congratulate my colleague for his diligent work on this issue and particularly for his focus on consumer safety.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-511, which proposes requirements for the reporting and sharing of motor vehicle information and proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to reflect those requirements.

The safety of Canadian motorists is a top priority for the minister and for Transport Canada. The Government of Canada will work to ensure that all legal measures and the full force of Canadian law are used and that all measures are taken to ensure that Canadians are safe. We expect all vehicle manufacturers, including Toyota, to be fully accountable and transparent in identifying problems with their vehicles and to take all immediate actions necessary to ensure the safety of consumers.

In addition to sharing information, the department feels that it is important for Canadians to be able to contact us to get specific information or to express concerns. To this end, Transport Canada provides a toll-free line to Canadians who have questions about road safety, vehicles, and vehicle equipment. The department receives approximately 35,000 calls on this line annually. In addition, those Canadians who have questions or concerns about safety-related defects may contact a safety-defect investigator to ask their questions and discuss their concerns. There is an additional toll-free line to facilitate this process.

Bill C-511 is proposing changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to increase the availability of information for the Canadian public on potential and current safety-related defects. The spirit of Bill C-511 is consistent with the government's belief in open communication with the public. The government values Canadians' right to have information that could potentially protect them from harm, while at the same time, it upholds the values in the Privacy Act, by which the confidential information of Canadians is protected at all times.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will be able to conclude her remarks when this comes up for debate again.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, during question period, I asked the Minister of Agriculture a couple of questions concerning the number of inspectors the CFIA had committed to hiring in a very rapid period of time. According to the CFIA vice-president, 35 are hired, which means they are in some sort of process but are not necessarily in the field inspecting, and an additional 35 are going to hired over the next two years. That was announced on March 23, 2010.

In the House, the minister had said that 170 people were going to be hired quite quickly. There are 35 in some sort of process, 35 to be hired over the next two years and money to hire an additional 100, but there is no mention of when exactly that will happen. Clearly, we were told that the CFIA intended to get 170 people out into the field in meat inspection and ready-to-eat meat plants.

Are the 35 that we know are in the system being trained? Are they indeed working in ready-to-eat meat plants? Are they doing that work? What kind of progress is being made on the 35 that are supposed to be hired, albeit over the next two years? What about the additional 100?

If we are talking about 35 in process, 35 to be hired over the next two years and an additional 100 beyond that, when are we going to see the total of 170 inspectors? Considering the timeframe that the CFIA vice-president has given and the rate at which the CFIA is hiring people, the 170 should materialize sometime around 2014.

That is hardly an immediate response to a need the minister identified. He said that they were on top of this and that they intended to make sure the situation was cleared up. He said the CFIA would have boots on the ground to do the inspection that needs to get done. That is not going to happen in the timeframe it is talking about.

Even the CFIA's own website as of this week shows there has been no progress on hiring the additional 35 inspectors. The CFIA is still out there looking for them. It is some sort of hiring process. There is no indication that it has hired folks and is going through the process of training them. None of those things have materialized.

Where is the commitment that the government says it has to food safety when it cannot get people hired and cannot get them through the process? If it intends to actually do this, it is incumbent upon the government to have people who will do the inspection. That has not happened.

I ask the minister again, can he clarify as to when we are going to see the inspection process at meat plants which the government said it is committed to? The money is there but there are no people. Money cannot inspect plants. Money cannot inspect food. The only thing that can inspect food are people and the CFIA has not been able to hire the people.

Either people do not want to work for the CFIA or perhaps it is just not a priority for the government because it is not actually out there recruiting people as well as it should. At the end of the day, it is about making sure there are folks on the ground who will ensure that the inspection process will be completed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this very important issue to Canadians.

Before I get into the substance of the question, I would like to remind the hon. member across the way that if he wants more inspectors hired, he has to change his methodology. He stands in the House and asks why more inspectors are not hired. One cannot hire inspectors without money and one cannot receive money from the Government of Canada without the House agreeing to spend money.

The member and his party, the NDP, continually vote against all of this government's initiatives for food safety. He voted against our food safety agenda outlined in the Speech from the Throne. He voted against budget 2010 which provided $13 million to hire 100 new inspectors. He wants new inspectors, yet he voted against the money authorizing this government to hire them. He voted against supplementary estimates (C) which provided the first $8 million out of the $75 million for the CFIA related to the Weatherill recommendations. Despite all those votes against hiring more inspectors, he is here today saying to hire more inspectors.

The good news is that this government has hired more inspectors. The government is continuing to improve Canada's food safety system. In fact, since 2006, the CFIA's inspection staff has increased by a net total of 538. That is right, CFIA's inspection staff has increased by a net total of 538 since 2006.

Additionally, our Conservative government committed to implementing all 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report. Many of the commitments required from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have already been met by this government.

Actions taken to date have focused on prevention, on surveillance, on detection and better responses including: strengthening the CFIA's directives regarding the control of listeria in federally registered ready-to-eat meat processing plants; equipping CFIA inspectors with better tools, better technology such as laptops, cell phones and even faster network connectivity so they can get their job done better and more effectively and efficiently to keep Canada's food supply safe; updating federal-provincial-territorial protocols for managing food-borne illness outbreaks; and enhancing laboratory capacity and research into the development of rapid test methods.

The CFIA and Health Canada have also developed a brand new screening method for listeria in meat which allows for a more rapid response during food safety investigations.

Furthermore, we have launched a food safety portal on the web. This government has invested a great deal into bringing Internet connectivity, bringing the web across this country. In this case, it provides Canadians with comprehensive food safety and food-borne illness information immediately. This is good news.

Our government's record on food safety speaks for itself. The question I have for the member opposite and all of the NDP members is will they vote against the $22 million in the estimate votes we having coming up in the House? Will he this time support food safety in Canada?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, this hon. member always votes for food safety for Canadians and I think that has been abundantly clear.

There is money to hire the first 70 inspectors; that is actually last year's money. That has been approved. The bottom line is the government does not have the 70 yet and the government has not done the compliance verification system, the CVS, that Ms. Weatherill said was the absolute critical component of all the things it needed to do. The commitment by the minister last fall was to have it done by January. In March it was to be done by May. In May, according to the CFIA's website and its report to the minister, we might get it by September.

Without the CVS actually being done and completed and making sure we know what it is, there is no way to know how many inspectors we actually need. The 170 may be a lowball number. We might need 207. Unless the Conservatives do the very thing that they hired the administrator to do who told them this is what they should do, and they have paid for that already, they will never know how many they need.

As for the actual number of 538, the agreement between Ms. Weatherill and the CFIA is that 170 are needed in meat inspection alone, not out there checking on cross-pollination of some sort of plant that has come from Southeast Asia, or some sort of insect that showed up in a cargo van. That is what they do, important tasks. We need 170 meat inspectors but they are not out there. There is money for at least 70 without the estimates, but the government has not been able to get it done.

My question clearly is, where is the member in getting the next 35 applicants?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I can tell the member where I am, Madam Speaker. I am on my feet voting for food safety in this country when that member is sitting down. When it comes time for food safety to be voted on, I am on my feet with the other Conservative members.

Let us look at an opinion by an outsider. The OECD just ranked the food safety systems in the world. Where does Canada sit? Under the performance of this Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and this government, the OECD states that Canada is one of the best-performing countries in the 2010 Food Safety Performance World Ranking study. Its overall grade was superior. It further states that Canada is ahead of its nearest federal state neighbour, the United States, in providing national food safety programs. Again, because the CFIA provides above-average food recall services and is clear about its requirements and procedures, Canada earned a progressive grade in 2010.

I want to see the member on his feet next time it comes to voting for food safety.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I raised in the House on April 19 to do with aboriginal financial institutions.

I asked the minister why aboriginal financial institutions were not part of the loan loss reserve program. When the minister replied, he acknowledged that aboriginal financial institutions are tremendously important and went on to talk about his obvious support for the AFIs.

There is a small pilot program called the loan loss reserve, which is a financial instrument that offsets a portion of commercial lenders' potential losses and creates an incentive for the financial institutions to provide loans to businesses that would otherwise fall below the lender's standard for acceptable risk. This pilot makes this loan loss available to five financial institutions but excludes the aboriginal financial institutions.

I am raising this issue because these aboriginal financial institutions were created as a result of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. There are currently 57 aboriginal financiers providing loans to on-reserve enterprises that cannot obtain funds from regular banks. This emanates from a report that was done by APTN.

This same report talks about the fact that aboriginal banks issued over 100 million dollars' worth of loans in 2008-09. In 2009 81% of the loans were reported as current. They have been in business now for 20 years.

Alan Park, the CEO of Tribal Wi-Chi-Way-Win Capital Corporation, said that aboriginal lenders had become a success story, turning the initial $200 million injected by the federal government into 1.3 billion dollars' worth of investments.

Part of the argument around it going out to the major banks and credit unions was that they would be able to lend more money because they have a different financial base. In fact, there have only been five loans to date by private lenders through the loan loss reserve program, only one of which has been outside the long-standing AFI mandate.

That single loan was for $2 million, with the four remaining between $250,000 and $375,000, which are all well within the limits of the AFIs. Therefore, 80% of those loans provided under the loan loss reserve program were within the standard AFI loan practices.

It is clear that the $15.5 million that was provided as loan loss guarantees to these five other lending institutions is not reaching the targeted market that the loan loss reserve program was initially set up for.

According to a report by Jorge Barrera of APTN National News, while $15.5 million was given to the loan loss reserve program within the last year, only a little over $3.2 million was delivered in client loans.

Not only are they lending within a group that is already available through the AFIs, they only lent out a small fraction of the money that was available to them.

The article goes on to state that this poor market penetration reflects conventional lenders' lack of motivation and the undesirability of conventional lenders to the client base. In the same period AFIs provided 1,250 loans totalling in excess of $100 million.

It is very clear that these organizations have a very good track record. I would ask the government why there has not been an adequate answer as to why the AFIs were excluded from the loan loss reserve program.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting, because earlier today at the aboriginal affairs committee we had Mr. Martell from the First Nations Bank of Canada.

Mr. Martell and I had a discussion about the fact that First Nations Bank was one of the five charter banks that received money under the pilot program from the government on this loan loss reserve pilot project that we are talking about here today.

Access to capital is one of the most persistent impediments to the growth of aboriginal businesses, especially on reserve. The banks, particularly the larger commercial banks, have been reluctant to lend to aboriginal businesses for a number of reasons, including section 89 of the Indian Act and the perceived lack of track record and higher risk.

A key partner in helping address this impediment is the network of aboriginal financial institutions which has played such an important role over the past 20 years. Yes, indeed, it has advanced more than 33,000 loans, totalling $1.4 billion to aboriginal businesses. Over this period, the federal government has invested approximately $240 million in this network to capitalize and support start-up in initial operations.

Through the financial institutions program and the access to capital program, we continue to provide approximately $10 million every year to support these institutions and their national association, The National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association. Last year, these aboriginal financial institutions provided $88 million in loans to 1,200 aboriginal businesses.

As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is aware, the loan loss reserve complements our existing programs that support the network of aboriginal financial institutions that provide smaller loans to smaller businesses.

The loan loss reserve program that we are talking about here was a pilot program that was set up to attract the larger commercial banks to what we think is the enormous potential of some of the larger aboriginal economic development opportunities. We have first nations from Membertou to Osoyoos that are embarking on impressive business and community development opportunities, and they need significant capital to make these happen.

In June of last year, our government released a new federal framework for aboriginal economic development to underline our commitment to economic development. This new framework represents a fundamental change. It reflects the significant real and growing opportunities for aboriginal people to take an unprecedented step toward becoming full participants in the economy as entrepreneurs, employers and employees.

In the coming months, we will be engaging with our partners, including the network of aboriginal financial institutions and others, to ensure that all of our programs are aligned with the framework, consistent with the Government of Canada's policy on transfer payments, and they meet the needs of aboriginal businesses and communities. In fact, officials met recently with the National Aboriginal Capital Corporate Association and have begun to discuss how the government and the network can work together to best address these needs.

Time and again, our government has reaffirmed its commitment to work with aboriginal communities to make a real difference. From infrastructure to employment to health services, we are working in partnership.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, nobody is disputing the fact that it is important that capital is available to aboriginal businesses.

The parliamentary secretary said that the loan loss reserve pilot program was to enable these other major institutions to provide these larger loans. In fact, 80% of the loans they have given out to date have been well within the limits of what the AFIs themselves could provide.

What we have here, according to this article, is that:

...AFI’s are being selectively disadvantaged in the marketplace through offers of loan guarantees to non-aboriginal institutions. To further add insult to injury, INAC is using aboriginal money to provide this double standard.

It goes on to say that it is difficult, if not impossible to find any true and valid justification for why the AFIs were excluded from the loan loss reserve program.

Nobody is disputing that the First Nations Bank does a very good job and is an important lending source for aboriginal enterprises, but the AFIs should have been allowed to be part of this process. They were not consulted or included and were not able to actually put their names forward on the loan loss reserve program.

I think they are just asking for a very clear and simple explanation about why they were excluded from this process. They have a track record. A number of their lending institutions are members of the AFIs and they are able to provide loans greater than $250,000. So, why were they excluded from the loan loss reserve pilot program?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, this was a pilot project set up by the government. It provided loan loss reserve provisions for five participants. There are 30 aboriginal financial institutions across the country. Those numbers speak for themselves.

The loan loss reserve initiative complements other activities, such as our government's support for aboriginal financial institutions which are focused more on improving access to capital for smaller aboriginal businesses.

The Government of Canada continues to support aboriginal financial institutions in their efforts by providing, last year and ongoing, $88 million in loans to 1,200 aboriginal businesses each year. We will continue to work in a progressive way in this direction.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, back on April 23, just prior to the start of the five year review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs the following question:

...there is a treaty banning chemical weapons and one banning biological weapons. However, so far, no similar effort has been successful to ban nuclear weapons. The danger they pose cannot be under-estimated.

Over 500 members of the Order of Canada continue to press the government in their campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They have joined the UN Secretary-General in calling for the negotiation of a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Will Canada support a nuclear weapons convention? Better still, will Canada seek a leadership position in its negotiation?

I have to say that I was disappointed in the minister's response, which ignored the key point of the question. The minister said:

...Canada indeed has played a leadership role. In fact, last week the Prime Minister was at the nuclear summit that was convened by the President of the United States in which Canada played an important role. We will also be participating quite actively in the nuclear non-proliferation discussions that will take place in a short time at the United Nations. This is the five year review plan.

Canada indeed has assumed its responsibility. I am very proud to see that we are taking that leadership role about which the member is talking.

The question that I posed remained unanswered. What is Canada's position on the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention banning all nuclear weapons?

If we look for clues as to Canada's position on this issue, we can look to the now concluded Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference .

Canadian observers at the conference, including Ernie Regehr and Douglas Roche, noted that Canada played a modest role. Perhaps they were being generous. Canada did apparently make an important suggestion for institutional reforms to the NPT process, which was opposed by the United States and which was eventually limited to the approval of a dedicated staff officer to organize NPT meetings, a small step when we consider that this important treaty has no office of its own.

However, Canada made little reference to disarmament and no reference to the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention in its statements or work at the NPT Review Conference. While the convention was, for the first time, a subject of discussion, it did not make it into the action plan arising out of the meeting. Canada addressed two of the three pillars of the NPT in its opening statement, barely mentioning the third and key pillar of disarmament.

It should be noted that one of the key decisions arising from the NPT Review Conference was a commitment to a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone conference in 2012. This recognizes the great success of the nuclear weapons-free zone movement around the world. Sixty-seven per cent of the world is currently covered by nuclear weapons-free zones.

Sadly, Canada is a laggard in this aspect of the disarmament movement. Canada is one of only two members of the Francophonie that is not party to a nuclear weapons-free zone, France being the other, and one of only two countries in the Americas, north, south and central America, the U.S. being the other, not party to a nuclear weapons-free zone. Canada could begin to rectify this situation by starting talks on an Arctic nuclear weapons-free zone.

There was a time when Canada was seen as a leader on questions of nuclear disarmament. Canada's decision to not develop nuclear weapons, when we clearly had the capacity, put us clearly at the forefront of this movement.

In the past, Canada's ambassadors for disarmament played prominent advocacy roles on this issue here at home and around the world. Sadly, their mandate has been diminished. Canada is now seen as making only modest contributions to this process. Perhaps that is why Canada's assessment of this year's NPT Review Conference was that it was a modest proposal.

The question remains: Does the Government of Canada have any enthusiasm for this important project, the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, Canada has played a leadership role on nuclear non-proliferation, particularly through our G8 presidency this year and through our collaboration with the United States and other countries at President Obama's nuclear security summit.

On March 29 and 30, the Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted the G8 foreign ministers' meeting in Gatineau. Nuclear non-proliferation was a prominent agenda item. The minister led the negotiation of a G8 “Foreign Ministers' Statement on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Disarmament, and Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy: A Contribution to the 2010 NPT Review Conference”.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs also led Canada's delegation and delivered Canada's statement at the opening of this important conference.

Canada's G8 statement helped to set the framework for discussions and to build bridges toward a clear, renewed commitment of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The review conference concluded successfully on May 28, in New York, with consensus on a final document, including an action plan with 64 steps on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Among the key elements, the non-proliferation treaty commits each of its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. The final document of the review conference reaffirms the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to pursue nuclear disarmament and commits them to implement this undertaking.

We have seen major progress recently on disarmament. For example, the U.S. and Russia agreed to a new strategic arms reduction treaty. We know this as START. This treaty limits both sides to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. This is a sharp reduction from a limit of 6,000 under the predecessor treaty. Canada commends this concrete process, which will foster a more constructive atmosphere at the non-proliferation conference.

These efforts, complemented by the entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty and the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty are, in our view, concrete actions that will take us closer to a world free of nuclear weapons.

I would like to highlight the leadership of the Prime Minister on nuclear non-proliferation issues.

On April 12 and 13, the Prime Minister joined 46 leaders from other countries at President Obama's nuclear security summit.

Canada's objectives at the summit were to: underscore the seriousness of the nuclear terrorist threat; encourage states to strengthen their national nuclear security measures to enhance physical protection measures applied to nuclear material and facilities; increase international co-operation on nuclear security; endorse and contribute to President Obama's four year effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material worldwide; and, finally, ensure that the summit supports broader non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.

Canada achieved its objectives at this summit. Among the specific outcomes, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico reached agreement to work together, along with the International Atomic Energy Agency, to convert the fuel in Mexico's research reactor from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. This will enable the elimination of all the remaining highly-enriched uranium from Mexico and is an important step in advancing security and supporting Mexico's nuclear energy development.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question still remains. What is Canada's position on the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention, a convention that would ban outright nuclear weapons?

We have done this before. We have done it in terms of a chemical weapons convention. We have done it in terms of a biological weapons convention. Both of those conventions presented significant challenges. Both of them saw other measures taken before the conventions were adopted. However, we still managed, as an international community, through multilateral negotiations, to come up with conventions that banned both chemical and biological weapons outright.

Sadly, we are not taking the same path toward banning nuclear weapons. We know that there are over 23,000 nuclear weapons on our planet today and that those constitute a significant threat to human life, that they can result in, as the NPT conference talked about, catastrophic human consequences.

The only way to secure human safety and security is to find a way to ban outright all of those nuclear weapons.

Sadly, it appears that Canada is not willing to play a role in that process. Canada could be a leader in all of this and yet it has not endorsed the secretary-general's five-point plan and it has not endorsed the model treaty that is currently in circulation. Canada could do more.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada has done a lot. Our stature in the world is a lot greater than it was several years ago, and President Obama actually recognized that at the nuclear summit. After the tripartite arrangement with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the President commended this co-operation, noting:

I welcome this critical step forward, which is a signal of our strong trilateral partnership, and our shared commitment to nuclear security in North America.

Canada will continue to build on our successes at the conference on non-proliferation and at the summit to reinforce non-proliferation.

The final document represents progress toward the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. The government is moving in a direction to reduce the stockpile of all types of nuclear weapons, to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons, all of which will reduce the accidental use of nuclear weapons.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:03 p.m.)