Debates of May 29th, 2014

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I also want to congratulate him for chairing the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development with such control.

The government's response to recommendation 2f states: “The Government of Canada supports this recommendation in principle.” I would like to hear more from the hon. member on the meaning of the second paragraph, which states:

In keeping with its overall emphasis on budget discipline and good management practices, Canada has also promoted the adoption of results-based planning, to ensure the most efficient use of scarce resources.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way who sits on the foreign affairs committee. As a committee, we work very well together on some of the issues we are studying. As I mentioned before, we have been looking at things such as Syria and Ukraine. We are now working on the protection of children and young people, as a new study.

He talks about recommendation 2(f), which, once again, would:

Ensure that all reasonable OAS activities related to the promotion and protection of democratic governance and human rights are fully, consistently and predictably funded.

One of the things we looked at was those core competencies that we see the OAS as being good at, and if it could focus on those, that would make it a lot easier. It would also make sure it is able to focus on the things it does well and in which it has the most impact.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting debate for me because of all the work I do with ParlAmericas and the work we have been doing in central South America, the Caribbean region, and of course in the western hemisphere.

I would like to give members some background information about ParlAmericas. ParlAmericas is a parliamentary organization of parliamentarians of all parties. It was created in the OAS and has a memorandum of understanding with the OAS to work on building the capacity of parliamentarians throughout the region.

A lot of the funding for ParlAmericas comes from the Canadian government. The project was originally funded through CIDA, and its goals are multifaceted. We were empowered with looking at how we could build capacity with parliamentarians throughout the western hemisphere, and ParlAmericas has been doing that over the last few years with funding from the Canadian government.

A women's working group is one of the branches of ParlAmericas. A woman vice-president of ParlAmericas sits on the board. This group talks about women's issues in general and women's issues for parliamentarians. They talk about the barriers for a woman who wants to become a member of congress or a senator and how those barriers can be taken down and how it could be made easier for women to reach all they want to reach and attain the goals they want to achieve. ParlAmericas has been working on these types of issues through a variety of workshops and events in the region.

Another example is in Mexico. There will be a meeting in Mexico City at the end of June for women parliamentarians from all across the western hemisphere. Men will also be there. They want to identify problems and solutions and share ideas and best practices. From that come better and stronger women parliamentarians, and male parliamentarians get a better understanding of the issues that women face in Parliament. That is just one of the areas on which ParlAmericas works.

Different topics have come up in the region; for example, security. When we look at security in the region, whether it be drugs or human trafficking, a lot of people in Canada ask why we would have a huge interest in that, why that would concern us. Canada is one of the consumers of these drug products, so we have an interest in the region and we need to be supportive. We have done work in Costa Rica and in other areas. We have talked about these issues and how we can support those countries as they take on the drug battle.

When it comes to organized crime and drugs, clamping down on one country is like clamping down on a tube of toothpaste. If we clamp down on it here, it pops up somewhere else. We cannot just do it country by country. We have to look at the region as a whole and we have to attack the issue as a whole to get true results. That is something Canada has done strongly, and an area in which it has been very active.

Promoting governance and transparency are other issues we have been working on through ParlAmericas. That involves working with parliamentarians to understand the importance of transparency and how it is in their benefit to have transparency, to have good governance. This again brings parliamentarians together to talk about best practices, what works, what does not work, how we can take something that works in Colombia and make it work in Honduras. Those are the strengths ParlAmericas brings together, and again, it is non-partisan. It is members of all parties sharing different ideas to build the capacity of parliamentarians, to provide a better parliamentary structure, which would bring better governance and allow them to make better decisions when they go back to their legislatures.

There is one interesting thing to note when we talk about public security. I still remember this. We were in Panama talking about human smuggling and kidnapping. It was very interesting to hear the guys from Colombia talk about what they did to counterattack kidnapping. The guys from Honduras asked them questions. As the exchange went on between the two members, they started comparing ideas on what worked and what did not work. Very substantial information was exchanged over a table.

The other thing that was important is that they started exchanging their contact information. They exchanged their BBM pins, because they all use BBM. They love BlackBerry down there, by the way—I will get that plug in. They started exchanging ideas on how to talk to each other.

Therefore, not only did the discussion take place around the meeting table in Panama, but those discussions are now taking place among legislatures and parliamentarians in various countries. That is good to hear because they are sharing best practices. They are looking at the issue as a regional issue. They are looking at how to attack these things on a regional basis. They are working together.

The Canadian section of ParlAmericas has also been very active in the region. Members from all parties just finished a trip to Peru where we toured a Canadian mine site. It was beneficial for all parties to see exactly how Canadian mining companies act in Peru. We toured the site. We saw how they treated their employees. We saw the safety precautions and the level of business professionalism of Canadian companies in that region.

They are running that mine as if it was in Canada. They are basically looking at the regulations we have in Canada and are applying them to make sure they have the same working conditions there as they would if they were in Canada.

It was very interesting to listen to my colleagues from the NDP talk about how good this was. That shows exactly what Canadian companies, in being responsible, are doing abroad.

I was talking to a person in the embassy who said that the Chinese companies, when they are looking at a new mine project, are actually trying to hire Canadians to lead these projects, because Canadians understand how to do it properly, how to engage the local communities, and how to make sure the benefits reach throughout the region and not just one specific area.

That is something Canada brings to the table, not just in Peru but also in Colombia, Chile, and other regions. We are actually setting the bar at a higher standard with respect to the environment and the co-operation of the aboriginal people and how to engage them. That is something Canada is very strong in. We should be proud of that and should encourage that.

Another thing we talked about when we were in Peru was security issues. They gave us an overview of the human rights abuses. They talked about some of the challenges, such as growth challenges in Lima.

Again, this bilateral visit allowed parliamentarians from all parties to get a good view of exactly what is happening in Peru.

The member talked about trade in his opening speech, and I found it very interesting. Trade is definitely one of the tools, in fact a major tool, for helping out in those regions. The best thing we can do is take them from a very poor existence and livelihood and give them proper jobs so they can actually take care of their families and be active contributing citizens in their society.

If we look at the Honduras trade deal that is in front of us, that is what they are looking for from trade. They are looking for an alternative to the drug trafficking crimes and those types of things where that is the only type of employment they have.

Let us look at companies that are in Honduras, such as Gildan. What would those employees be doing if Gildan was not there? Gildan is another Canadian company that is doing a great job. I have actually toured their facilities. Again, the facility is something we would see here in Canada, with the wages and the way they treat their employees. They actually have a hospital on-site to take care of their employees. Again, here is an example of Canadian corporate responsibility actually being enacted in other parts of the world.

As trade increases, and Colombia is very good example, the middle class actually grows. We can start seeing less and less crime. It is a very direct link. As trade goes up, crime goes down and the economy starts to emerge and flourish. Colombia is a prime example of what can happen when trade and commercial activity is allowed to happen. It is very interesting to look at Colombia over the last 10 or 15 years and how trade has impacted it.

Chile has more trade agreements than Canada. Chile was very aggressive. We can see how Chile has progressed in the region compared to other countries in the region. It is because it has embraced that model to allow openness and to put in a good structure. Investment in Chile is a fairly secure investment.

Canadian companies are very active in Chile. This is what Honduras is looking for, and that is why I think the trade deal with Honduras is as much a social deal as it is a business deal. What it will do is provide opportunities for Canadian companies and Honduran companies to import and export products, to take advantage of each other's strengths, and to partner.

The benefit will be, and has to be, the people in Honduras, so they have good quality jobs to go to, so they can take care of their families, and so they do not have to look to crime and the negative aspects of society to make a living. That is where trade is very important, and it is just one piece of the puzzle.

When we go back to the ParlAmericas and the work we have been doing and the work I have had the pleasure to be involved with as chair, we can see the growth. We can see what is happening in the region. They are like-minded. They want to achieve. They want to do what is right for their citizens. They want to grow the economy. They want to have the things Canada has.

One thing I am told when I am down there is that they need more Canada in the region. They understand that Canada has the ability to bring people from different cultures together, to grab that strength of different cultures and utilize it. We have done a very good job of that. It fascinates them. They look at Canada and say that we have been so strong. We are punching above our weight and yet are so fair and decent. That is what they want.

When it comes to Canada and our role within the region, we should be very proud of what we have been doing and very proud of the minister. I know that he is going to be engaged in the region again in the next couple of weeks. He has been very active in the region in the past, and we need to see that continue. It is in our interest to see them succeed.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Prince Albert for his speech.

I especially want to thank him for mentioning the proposed Canada-Honduras free trade agreement because I think it is an example of the government's naive and very simplistic approach to advancing human rights in various countries around the world and in the Americas in particular.

I will give an example dating back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, after France's failure in Indochina in the face of the Communist movement. Members will recall the famous domino theory. This resulted in the United States in particular entering the Vietnam war and trying to find a solution to the supposed potential invasion of neighbouring countries by what was known at the time as the evil of Communism.

Similarly, can my colleague quote a single compelling, documented, clear example of a trade agreement of this type that protects the human rights of the people in question?

I maintain the exact opposite. The government concerned must take responsibility well in advance of considering a trade agreement. To my mind, this clearly amounts to blind support on Canada's part for Honduras.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but it just shows how wrong he is on the issue and how wrong the NDP is in looking at this.

The country of Honduras is a good example. It wants a hand up. It wants help. When we look at what we have done in the past, it has not worked.

Let us look at a country like Colombia, where we have done a trade deal, and see what has happened because of it. We have given it a hand up and it has improved its human rights situation and its crime situation. That is how I look at this.

What can we do to help the people of Honduras? What was done in the past has not worked, so let us do a trade deal with them. Let us help their business communities, help them grow, and give them jobs so they do not have to work in the drug trade or smuggle people. We can do that through trade. Doing what we do now is not working, so we have to look at what we can do to help them out.

If we want influence in Honduras, then let us do business with Honduras. When we do business with Honduras, we gain influence and actually impact what they are doing and how they are doing it. Let them learn from us as we help them forward. Trade is one of the many steps. To oppose that is to basically tell Honduras that it will never be good enough, that we are never going to help, forget it, and it does not deserve anything. That is wrong.

The people of Honduras deserve a better lifestyle. They deserve our help, and trade is one of the great tools we can give them to do that. Anything else is shameful.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Prince Albert. He works pretty hard on Central America, and he is also learning Spanish. I saw him learning some Spanish when he was down there.

His points are well taken, especially when he commented on the importance of governance, trade, and the economy and how they are the best things one could have to foster democracy in a country.

One question I have for the member deals with Canada's involvement in the OAS. I think it is a successful organization. If there was a similar organization in Africa, maybe things could be better for some of the democracies on that continent. Maybe the member could comment on that.

I also want to talk about the involvement of Canada and how much more of a role it should play in this important multilateral organization.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It was interesting that when I was down there taking language lessons, I stayed in a hotel, and when I looked across my balcony, who did I see? It was the member with his wife on holiday. It was nice to see them, and we had a great evening enjoying each other's company.

The member posed a good question: what are the alternatives for Canada?

I acknowledge that I am not a specialist on Africa. I concentrate on Central and South America and the western hemisphere. However, when I look at the OAS, that is our way to plug into that region. It is the only tool we have in a bilateral or multilateral organization to plug into and have influence.

Yes, the OAS has some challenges. There is no question about it. However, in the same breath, it is a very respectable tool for us to work through to achieve greater benefits within the region.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak on this topic today. I am on the agriculture committee, but most of the committees I have been on since I was elected in 2000 have dealt with foreign affairs and trade. I remember the first time our trade committee went to South America and we saw all the changes that were made in South America, especially in Chile and Peru. All of it was because of trade agreements but also because of the involvement of the Organization of American States.

I also got to go with the foreign affairs committee, with many of my colleagues, to the OAS headquarters in Washington. I think Carnegie originally built the building for the Organization of American States with the intention of making the Americas more democratic and more prosperous as they were developing. The States were going through a good time in the early 1900s, but other parts of the Americas were not.

I think it is very important that the foreign affairs committee is embarking on this, and Canada should continue to negotiate reforms, because not everything is perfect there, especially with respect to who is contributing.

The committee is under no illusions about the novelty of these observations or about the difficulty of realizing reforms. Canada is only one of the 34 member states that participate in an organization that works by consensus. It does not matter if one pays more or less into it, it is by consensus, and that is difficult. The basic problems facing the OAS are well known. Some of them were mentioned today. Solutions have been proposed over the years from within and from outside the organization.

Decisions that inevitably involve trade-offs and financing or programming, or both, are not easy to reach. They are not easy to reach in any political forum, let alone in one representing millions of people from diverse countries that stretch from the North Pole to the South Pole. That is a lot of countries and a big area to cover, with many different languages and different ideologies.

The context has also changed since Canada joined. We joined the OAS in 1990. The emergence of the sub-regional blocs in the hemisphere and political divisions within the OAS are added complications, of course, in any efforts to address the organization's long-standing challenges.

However, the existence of the OAS since 1948, its body of concrete accomplishments, and its ability to adapt its work to changes that have taken place in the hemisphere since its founding are a testament to its value.

There is also evidence that the OAS is capable of being dynamic. Moreover, as a multilateral forum, the OAS has and can continue to provide space for dialogue and co-operation and the pooling of resources, expertise, and experiences, thus helping to establish conditions where compromise and shared purpose are possible. It has come a long way since the start, and other countries have joined.

When we were there, we talked to people in charge on the military side and in the different departments within it. Of course, they always talk about the money and that there is just not enough money to keep things going.

Sometimes different governments bring their ideologies to the table at the OAS, or one country does not want another to be there, which does not make it easy.

We have to hand it to the United States. It pays the lion's share, 49%, yet it tries its utmost not to be heavy-handed in a lot of the decisions.

I think there are all kinds of problems, but at the end of the day, it is a good organization.

I would like to talk about some of the recommendations that were put forward, because I think it is very important and a lot of work was done by the committee members to put this forward. I would like to start off with the first recommendation.

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to support the OAS as the [number one] multilateral organization in the Western Hemisphere.

I think that is key. It is not only that we be involved but that we look at it as the number one organization.

We never know what can crop up in our sphere, in the Americas. The OAS could help with many of the situations that arise, especially in dealing with helping some of these countries get good governance. There is a mix there.

I know the Liberal Party is very in favour of the free trade agreements. They are not always perfect, but they are important. Governance is also important.

The second recommendation that comes into play is, “The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to push for reforms to strengthen the OAS with its like-minded partners through the OAS General Assembly and Permanent Council”. This is very important.

Part (a) of that recommendation is, “Return the organization's focus to its core areas of work, namely democratic governance, human rights, security and development”. In the many years it has been in existence, the organization has left its mandate and has taken on so many different things for the same amount of money, because the countries are giving the same amount of money. It has watered down many of its initiatives. This recommendation is very important in that it returns the organization to its intended focus.

For some of the other areas the OAS is in, other multilateral organizations could probably fit the bill for that. The United Nations and other organizations in the world probably could take care of some of the issues the OAS has taken on with its small budget. That has put it in jeopardy or, at the very least, put some stress on the system. It is important for it to go back to those recommendations, the core areas of democratic governance, human rights, security and development.

Recommendation 2(b) states, “Result in a substantial reduction in the number of existing OAS mandates, principally those that fall outside organizations' core areas of work”. Therefore, (a) and (b) go together because (a) focuses on certain areas. To do that, some others will have come off the table. That is why (b) goes very well with (a) because some will have to go. Hard decisions have to be made.

Recommendation 2(c) states, “Lead to a formula for increasing member states' assessed quotas to the OAS regular fund to a degree that is at minimum sufficient to cover annual inflationary and personnel costs”.

When we visited Washington, many good people were working in the organization. Many Canadians work there. These people come from other countries. It is not a cheap city to live in, so the costs go up. This recommendation is important because member states should pay their way. The Americans could just cut a cheque and pay the whole thing, but that does not make a good organization because then they would say that because they were paying the way, it should have the say. That does not work. It is very important that all countries pay into it because if they pay, they can come to the table. We are not happy with what is happening in Venezuela, but it is important that it pays into it because it will come to the table and we can discuss issues.

One of the key issues is who is paying and who has the say. It is very important. Once this is set up, 49% is a good number for Americans. They are the most dominant player in the Americas, but 49% means they cannot have the full say. The percentages are right, but everyone has to step up to the plate on the payment.

Recommendation 2(d) flows in with that. It states, “Encourage consideration of the proposal to reduce the United States' quote to 49% of the OAS regular fund, so long as doing so”, and this is important, “would not result in a reduction in the regular fund's total budget”. It wants to keep the United States to 49%, but others have to come to the plate. Over the years it was hard for many of these countries to pay the bills. Years ago, Brazil, Chile and Peru were not in good shape, so it was very difficult for them to come up with the cash. However, when we look at these countries now, they are doing fairly well.

Their economies are not totally booming, but a lot of the help from OAS have helped these countries become better democracies and participants, and their economies to be better. Therefore, they are in a position now where it is time to pay back. OAS has done well for those countries, so they should put a little more cash on the table, which would help other countries that are going through harder times. As was mentioned before, Honduras and other countries are still not where we would like them to be in the Americas hemisphere.

Recommendation (e) states, “Institute a process whereby new mandates cannot be added to the OAS' portfolio of work without funding sources being identified, accompanied by an analysis of the rationale for OAS action in the relevant area”. If we are to go through this whole rational process and getting some things off the table and if we are to keep our course, before we go down that path and make mistakes like we did over the years, we need to ensure the money is in hand. We need to ensure there is cash on the table before we put stress on the whole system again.

Then we go on to recommendation (f), which states, “Ensure that all reasonable OAS activities related to the promotion and protection of democratic governance and human rights are fully, consistently and predictably funded”.

When we look at the different recommendations, we can sum them up in various ways. First is to go back to the core mandate. Second is funding to fulfill our mandate. Third, if there is to be anything coming forth, the money has to be on the table.

I would like to talk a bit about my experience.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Tell us about your vacation in Mexico.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My vacation was not in Mexico, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the House wants to hear about my experiences in Central America because it started a long time ago when I was farming. I was a vegetable farmer and I was asked to go to Panama to help the farmers there. It is so fitting for this topic. It was in the early 1990s when Noriega got the boot and Panama was going through a major transformation. It had a big army. Also the Americans were pulling out of the Panama Canal and passing it over to Panama, but they were also pulling out their U.S. base there. The country was going through a major transformation and the government needed help restructuring. It went from an army with hundreds of thousands of people with guns and all of a sudden it would have a small security force similar to Costa Rica. Therefore, how was Panama going to develop and evolve?

The Panamanian government approached me to help the farmers in the northern region, and at that time it was quite chaotic up there. Most of the people were running around with guns. It was an area that was great for growing vegetables, but people were growing crops for drugs. However, the Panamanian people and I worked together and we brought in technology. I saw the first elections happen there. We brought in technologies for irrigation and growing conditions.

We saw a transformation, and OAS played a part in that. Meanwhile many of us were helping the country on the resource side, but also a new governance structure was put in place. Right now Panama is one of the fastest-growing countries in the Americas and one of the main reasons is the OAS stepped in there and helped it with its new constitution. The Panamanian government had a big challenge. It had to take over the Panama Canal. It lost all the money from the U.S. base, but the government turned it around, and OAS played a big role.

I have been returning every few years to check up with the farmers to see how they are doing, and they are doing fantastically. They have greenhouses. They are growing vegetables for the whole of Central America. It is not because a Cape Breton farmer went down there and helped them. It is because of the structure of their country.

People could invest. Farmers knew if they invested in their land and equipment, it would not be taken away because the rule of governance was there.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Five minutes, 54 seconds.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

This is something the New Democrats should want to hear, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why they are trying to slow me down and cut me off.

I often commend their comments on the OAS. When I was at the OAS with them, I was amazed at the good input they had. They should let everybody have their say here.

The foreign affairs minister said that I was on vacation in Panama. Yes, I was at a hotel, but I went down to check on the farmers. I checked out what they were doing. It is amazing what they are growing there. Now they are starting to grow flowers, which they will be exporting, and the airports are booming. People who have any concerns about the OAS and how well our money is being spent should go to Panama and see the transformation that has happened within 20 years. It is an economic miracle. It is like the miracle we saw in Europe when it went through the Marshall Plan. It is where there is ownership of property and rules of governance, and all these things come together. Then people have faith and they invest.

I will now talk about some of the countries in the OAS. I am sure many of my colleagues know about them. I will go through them alphabetically.

There are Argentina and Antigua. I have some of the numbers on how much money they are contributing. They are not big dollars: Argentina, almost $2 million; Barbados, $36,000; the Bahamas, $50,000; Bolivia, $40,000. Even these four or five countries are doing a little better and they should up the ante a bit. Barbados is doing quite well now.

Brazil is not doing badly. It is putting $8 million on the table. Canada is putting almost $10 million on the table. When we look at that comparison, Brazil has a couple of hundred million people and we have 30-some million. For us to come up with $10 million, we are doing our share, when we look at the total budget. I know Brazil is $8 million and some are only $100,000, but for a country that size, having these other countries around that have good governance and good structures in place is important.

Chile puts a $1 million on the table. That could be up a bit, too. Colombia is $800,000. Costa Rica is $180,000. That country sells that amount in bananas to us in one week. There is no reason why it could not come to the plate with a little more. The Dominican Republic is $290,000 and Ecuador is $200,000. I am sure the Canadian public wants to hear this. Canadians want to know how much everybody else is paying. It is very important because we are paying $10 million.

I will go down the list: Grenada, $17,000; Guatemala, $137,000; Guyana, $17,900. Then there is poor little Haiti. I know it is going through a hard time. One would ask why Haiti should even pay, because it is going through such a hard economic time, but it is paying $27,000. It is very important that Haiti pays that money. Why? Because it then has a voice at the table. It is a country that is going through the most difficult time in the Americas right now and it is very important that it has a representative at the table, so it is paying some money.

Mexico is $6 million and St. Kitts is $20,000. The United States is where the money comes from. It pays $48 million. I am guessing it is a total of about $100 million needed to run this organization. A hundred million dollars is a lot of money, but it is very important money. All the countries in the Americas have to up the ante a bit to make this better because it is good for those countries and democracy. We should think about what would have happened with the Americas if we did not have the OAS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing my hon. colleague's remarks. They were edifying and educational.

We are talking about the Organization of American States. This is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, multilateral bodies in existence.

We know, of course, that the government has had some difficulties in the past with multilateral bodies. I can point out the kind of approach the Conservatives take to the United Nations. I think they call it our moral relativism with respect to these bodies. Of course, they are not morally relativistic or relatively moral or whatever the equivalent words are. That is how they have always approached things. They are right and full of bluster and they go around telling everybody exactly what has to be done.

This other multilateral body includes all of the Americas. Given that the government approaches multilateral bodies in a certain way and given that my hon. colleague has vast experience in that area from his previous portfolios, as evidenced during his very interesting dissertation, I wonder if he has any comments to offer with respect to how the government, which has said that it would place an emphasis on the Americas, has approached the Organization of American States. Are there examples of how it has really jumped on board and tried to be a force for constructive unity and commonality of purpose within that organization? I would be interested in hearing his comments.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Canada stay on track with the OAS. We should be able to take the lead. People come to us all the time asking us to give a little more. If we are at $10 million now, we should keep up with inflation and—

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Just spend more, in the Kathleen Wynne Liberal—

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mean we should spend more, but we should stick to our share. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is heckling over there.

When we are in these multilateral groups, it is also important that we not impose our ideology on them. That is very important, because we have seen that with the Conservative government in relation to the UN. It is very important for Canada to play the middle and act as a referee with the OAS, because there is no doubt that there are lots of ideologies floating around in the Americas. When the Americans are there along with the Cubans, everybody is in the rumble, so it is very important that we be consistent when we are in these multilateral groups. Whether it is the current Conservative government or the next Liberal government, whoever is there should make sure our values are consistent. Even our bureaucrats, our ambassadors on these organizations, have to be consistent. When we start throwing our ideologies around, it messes it up, and we start holding money back. That is not the role Canada is respected for around the world. Our role there is to show leadership and pay our share. Then many of these countries and organizations come to us for advice on keeping this world a better place as we move forward.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for his presentation today, to which I listened carefully.

The response to the report indicates that the government supports recommendation 2f in principle. The second paragraph of this response states:

In keeping with [the government's] overall emphasis on budget discipline and good management practices, Canada has also promoted the adoption of results-based planning, to ensure the most efficient use of scarce resources.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the government's response.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. There is no doubt that results are very important. If we are going to be using Canadian taxpayers' money to the tune of $10 million, it is important that we get results.

Sometimes it is our own fault as parliamentarians, although I know some of our parliamentary organizations do tell Canadians where their $10 million is going and what results we are getting.

I found out what happening in Panama because I was doing a project there, but when I came back to Canada, I found that nobody knew Canada was putting money toward the OAS. I do not think that most Canadians, if we asked them on the street, would even be able to tell us what the OAS is.

It is important. It does not sound like a lot when we say $10 million, but $10 million is a lot of money. It is money well spent, but we have to get results. We have to tell Canadians what we are spending money on. It is very important who we have at the table representing Canada and making sure that these results are happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I had the honour of taking my first space flight, I had the chance to travel over the Americas. I remember the first time I looked out the window. We were over Brazil. At the time, Brazil was in the process of eliminating part of the Amazon rainforest, and for valid reasons: it wanted to provide more land for farmers.

They had set the forest on fire. There was so much smoke that we could not even see the ground. They were burning a lot of virgin forest. We were concerned about the fact that one of our planet's great lungs was disappearing. Today, the situation has improved.

Our relationship with fast-growing countries like Brazil is especially important. Since we have already signed free trade agreements with other countries, I would like to ask my colleague whether he is personally in favour of more free trade agreements, particularly with the Americas.

For example, what we call the trans-Pacific partnership includes countries in the Americas.

I would be interested in knowing how he feels about developing stronger links economically with some of the countries in the Americas and whether he thinks that would be a good thing for Canada.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is another good question from the member.

He talked about looking at Brazil, which is a beautiful country. I have been there a couple of times. We were there when I was on the trade committee. However, as a farmer, I think it is terrible that Brazil is burning the forest down. Not only that, the soil in Brazil is very shallow, so it is a matter of just two or three years until that soil is depleted. Very old trees are being cut down, and for what? Is it for the sake of some crops for a couple of years? No nutrition is being put back in, and it is being left bare.

As a result, there are multiple effects. Not only are a lot of emissions going into the air with the smoke, but the soil is also being ruined. The river is being ruined. We can probably see all the mud going into it from space.

These trade agreements are important. Yes, we had a big debate in the House when were doing the Colombian trade agreement, and yes, it might not have been perfect, but when we do trade agreements and we put stipulations into them, it helps us to put forth our ideals and values to another country. If we are going to be buying products, we expect them to be produced in an environmentally friendly way or in a way that respects human rights. It is very important that we continue to have these trade agreements, but it is also important to include stipulations in them.

The environment was mentioned. It is important that the OAS has a bit of a role to play in the environment, but it does not say it here. It says:

...return the organization's focus to its core areas of work, namely democratic governance, human rights, security, and development;

Let us look at the environment and human rights. If somebody is depleting a forest inhabited by an indigenous people, there is a human rights violation. In terms of security, if the environment is not cared for, the security of a country is in jeopardy. Many times the environment can play a role in the key areas that the OAS intends to return to.

Not only is it important for the environment to be part of the mandate of the OAS within the context of this statement, but when we are doing these trade agreements, we also have to make sure that our values are instilled in the products that we are going to be buying from these countries.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

[Member spoke in Spanish as follows:]

Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

No hablo mucho español. Aprendí español en la escuela.

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the chance to join this debate on the Organization of American States and the great work that the foreign affairs committee did in its report.

Obviously the OAS is the hemisphere's foremost institution, and Canada has made the OAS a significant priority.

I am so pleased to hear my colleague from Cape Breton, who is a good fellow, speak about his admiration and respect for the OAS. We remember that Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party did not want Canada to be part of the Organization of American States. In fact, Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives were in government in 1990 when Canada joined the Organization of American States. It is another example of the strong leadership of the Mulroney government, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development served very capably and ably in that organization.

We are tremendously engaged in this organization. Our engagement is real and it is significant. I want to pay tribute to the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. As Minister of State for the Americas, she led Canada's engagement with the Organization of American States. We can be very proud of the work she did, whether in promoting freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the issue of security, or combatting crime, which has been a priority.

We have established many partnerships with countries in the Organization of American States through which we have worked with a third country. For example, Canada worked with Chile on some security projects in Central America. We work right now with Brazil on security issues and policing in Haiti. The organization has been very good for Canada.

I will depart later today on a trip that will take me to the annual meeting of the Organization of American States, which will take place in Paraguay. We will be discussing the salient issues of the day. I will also visit Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Bolivia is a country in which we have done a lot development assistance to try to improve the standard of living for people there.

Obviously trade has been a priority for us, because we want to see economic growth, and not just in Canada. We want the same for all people in the Americas. We want prosperity so that people can provide for themselves and provide for their families.

We have some of the strongest and most capable ambassadors in the Americas. We have Gary Doer in Washington. He has done an outstanding job for Canada and is undoubtedly one of our very best. We have great ambassadors in Brazil, in Argentina, in Peru. A lot of women play strong roles for Canada as our ambassadors there.

I am so keen to strengthen our bilateral relations with the OAS and member countries that I want to get back to work to do that, so I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.