Debates of May 29th, 2014

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of ParlAmericas respecting its participation in a bilateral visit to Lima and Trujillo in Peru on March 28 to April 5, 2014.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to its study of the main estimates for the fiscal year 2014-15.

Health Commissioner of Canada Act

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-604, An Act to establish the position of Health Commissioner of Canada and to amend certain Acts.

Mr. Speaker, in October 2012, after an eight-week delay caused by administrative backlogs at Health Canada, a resident of Kamouraska who was suffering from a rare form of cancer received permission to use a medication that would have reduced her suffering. It took another two weeks of relentless pressure from both me and Quebec media before anything happened. Unfortunately, the woman died before she was able to receive a single dose of the medication she was seeking.

I wanted answers about what had happened at Health Canada, but I was struck by a troubling reality. When Canadians feel that their public broadcaster is airing a poor-quality television show, for example, they can write to an ombudsman. If they are concerned about the protection of their personal information, a privacy commissioner can go as far as to investigate what happened, if need be. However, when Canadians see their health decline because of poor services or poor federal departmental or agency decisions, they have no ombudsman or commissioner they can turn to for help to shed light on what took place.

Therefore, today I am introducing a bill to establish the position of health commissioner of Canada. I hope that the House will pass this bill as soon as possible so that Canadians will never again have to live with the pain of being ill or see a loved one go through an illness without getting answers about what may have made their suffering worse.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Insurance Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-605, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (protecting the Employment Insurance Operating Account).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to introduce my bill on the protection of the employment insurance operating account. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, for seconding the motion. The bill essentially builds a fence around the account to protect the premiums paid into the EI account by workers and employers. It safeguards the account so that contributions can only be used for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act. Why is that important? It is important because Liberal and Conservative governments have taken off with $57 billion of contributions made by workers and businesses to ensure that the fund was there when workers were unemployed and needed it. It has been desperately painful.

As a result of changes that the Liberals and the Conservatives have made to employment insurance, the use and eligibility has now dropped to an all-time low under the current government, whereby only 37% of EI applicants are eligible for benefits. I am pleased to be able to introduce the bill. I believe it will go some considerable distance to show workers and employers that this place has some faith in their ability to make sure that the fund is there when workers need it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interest Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-606, An Act to amend the Interest Act (prepayment charge).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the House of Commons today a bill governing penalties charged by banks when a consumer prepays the full amount of a mortgage. I would like to say that this bill is being seconded by the member for Sudbury.

The purpose of this bill is to limit mortgage prepayment penalties to three months' worth of interest and to prohibit banks from charging penalties if the prepayment is made as a result of the sale of a dwelling following a workplace relocation, serious illness or death, separation or job loss. Currently, consumers are at the mercy of banks, which do their utmost to maximize prepayment charges. These charges can exceed $30,000. Members may recall that, this winter, the NDP launched a major campaign to make life more affordable for Canadians. We made numerous suggestions aimed at protecting consumers from being exploited by banks, credit card issuers and telecommunications corporations. This bill is part of that agenda.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Olympic and Paralympic Athletes

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole in order to welcome Olympic and Paralympic athletes; that the Speaker be permitted to preside over the Committee of the Whole and make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; and, when the proceedings of the Committee have concluded or at approximately 2:15 p.m., the Committee shall rise and the House shall resume its business as though it were 2:00 p.m.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre because I believe that his contribution to this debate will be enlightening.

It is always an honour for me to rise in the House to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development concerning the Organization of American States.

I am pleased to do so because I believe that over the past few years in particular, Canada's reputation has lost some of its lustre, and our country's leadership and influence on the international scene are not what they once were.

I believe that it is important to debate this committee's report, which was tabled and concurred in unanimously by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I note that the government's response to the committee indicates that the government accepts most of the recommendations. It is important to point that out. I will come back to one of the recommendations that the government supports in principle only, because it is important to talk about human rights in the House and about human rights in other countries.

When we are members of the United Nations, the United Nations charter requires that we respect human rights, everyone's rights. Therefore, when we negotiate free trade agreements with other countries—and in this case with Latin American countries—it is essential that we ensure that these countries' human rights standards are aligned with our own human rights, labour and environmental standards. It is vital that we understand this.

In fact, that is why on this side of the House we always find it difficult to accept free trade agreements that do not meet these conditions, which are vital and fundamental in my opinion.

Before arriving in this august chamber in 2011, I was long involved in international multilateral processes. For more than 23 years, I took part in the process that led to the UN General Assembly adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Around the world, 370,000 million indigenous people now have a declaration that specifically, and in particular, addresses their most fundamental rights. It is the fruit of 23 years of work at the United Nations and I am very proud of that.

I mention this experience with the multilateral negotiations that led to the declaration because for a few years now the Organization of American States has had a similar process for adopting an American declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

A few days after the Conservative government was elected in 2006, diplomats who were part of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations told us that their instructions for the negotiations on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had changed.

Canada's participation in these negotiations used to be quite positive, but in 2006 it changed its position on the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. That is unfortunate because this goes against Canada's international obligations and against the Charter of the United Nations, an organization of which Canada is a member. It is important to point that out.

There is another aspect that is essential to this morning's debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I think the government supports most of the recommendations that we made in this report and that is good.

Under recommendation 2 f, the committee proposes that Canada should support reforms that:

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

Canada supports this recommendation in principle. I wonder why it only supports this recommendation in principle when the recommendation seeks to standardize existing conventions on human rights and governance.

Many of the rulings rendered by the Supreme Court in recent years talk about good governance in relation to many of our country's institutions. I think that this is one of the most important things for us as a democratic country. We need to continue to insist that the authorities within any inter-American human rights system receive predictable financial support. I think it is unfortunate that the government did not go so far as to strongly support this recommendation. I think that is important to point out.

The fact that the Organization of American States is the only forum open to all independent states in the western hemisphere is another important reason to support it, as members no doubt know. In that sense, it is important to promote common norms and standards for all countries in the hemisphere. Once again, it is unfortunate that the government is not moving further in the direction of more stable and comprehensive funding for the authorities that exist within the Organization of American States.

We have once again the opportunity to demonstrate our leadership on the international stage. I think that we are missing many opportunities. For a few months now, we have been chairing the Arctic Council. This example came to mind because it is indicative of this government's attitude on the world stage. The Arctic Council brings together countries with an arctic space in their territory. We have been chairing the council for several months now. This is another opportunity where Canada could demonstrate its leadership. However, unfortunately, from the discussions and meetings I have had with Inuit representatives of the northern regions of our country, we are once again failing in that regard.

That is why it is important to seriously consider the various reports tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I am proud to be a member of that committee because I believe that I am able to bring my international experience and my knowledge of international law to the table. That is why this report is important. This is another opportunity for us, as a country, to demonstrate that we understand the type of leadership we need to exert at the international level.

That is why I am delighted that the government is going to support our recommendations. We need to immediately take action to move in the right direction.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his excellent speech on the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today, I would like to make a comment rather than ask a question.

My colleague talked quite a bit about this government's lack of leadership as chair of the Arctic Council. That also reminds me of the government's lack of leadership on the world stage, particularly in terms of Canada's withdrawal from the convention on desertification. I am not sure whether it is a convention or a protocol, so could my colleague elaborate on that? Furthermore, my constituents in Laval often talk about the Conservatives' withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol. Frankly, that has brought great shame on Canada.

What does my colleague think of this Conservative government's leadership on the world stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her excellent and relevant question. It is always intriguing to look at the Conservative government's attitude on the world stage.

My colleague talked about Canada's withdrawal from the desertification protocol, but I could give another example that shows this government's lack of leadership internationally. Canada has a seat on the Human Rights Council, which is a major international body. That is where a very select group of some 30 UN members sit to ensure that human rights are respected and promoted.

However, the Government of Canada has lost its seat on the Human Rights Council. In addition, when the time came to run again, the government did not even bother, knowing all too well that the entire planet had understood perfectly that despite its obligations under the United Nations charter, this government does not even respect human rights in its own country. As an aboriginal person, I can say that this is often the case when it comes to Canada's first peoples.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the international work he has done and for the role he plays in the House to promote the first nations and his ancestors. It is very encouraging. He does everything he can to speak out against certain things and promote the causes that are close to his heart.

Since we do not talk about it often, I would like to hear about his experience in negotiating treaties and have his take on the Canadian government at the time compared to today. This is very important. Could he share his views on the different roles and what role he played at the time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so blessed to have received these questions this morning.

Aboriginal peoples make up a significant part of the populations of various countries in the Americas, but they are often the most marginalized. They are often the most vulnerable peoples in the Americas. That is why reports like the one tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development are very important for human rights. That is why I mentioned it.

Since my colleague has asked that I speak about my experience, I will say that there is one thing that everyone needs to understand or at least start to understand. There are some wonderful examples of agreements that have been negotiated in northern Quebec. People are now realizing from these experiences in northern Quebec that reaching agreements with the aboriginal peoples of this country is good not only for the environment, but also for the country's economy. That is what we must understand.

I am pleased that I was able to participate in various negotiation processes. I believe that the NDP is the only party that will be able to come to reasonable and respectful agreements with the first nations of Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my colleague, because we worked together on this report, but also of note is the experience he has had on the international stage, and it was mentioned in his speech. I think we should acknowledge that. Certainly, we in our party are fortunate to have someone with his experience within our caucus. He has done such a great job leading Canada on the international stage, particularly on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He was one of the many Canadians who were there to help negotiate that.

I say that because one of the key issues when it comes to the OAS and our relationship with Central America and South America, the Americas, that has been emerging is the importance of acknowledging the rights of indigenous peoples. This is fairly new; although not new in Canada. My colleague is an example of someone who has contributed to our country, but he has been able to contribute to other countries to say that, when it comes to minority groups in general, but particularly indigenous peoples, they are a precious resource that we need to acknowledge. In the case of countries like Colombia, for instance, there is a grave danger with respect to the elimination of peoples, not just their languages but actual populations. Therefore, it is important that we take a look at what Canada's role is within the Americas.

This report was to reflect on what Canada's role is within the Organization of American States. What is interesting about this report, and people will appreciate this, is that not often do all parties agree on reports. Often we have minority reports from the opposition. However, we all agreed to the recommendations in this report. That is an important point to make. We wanted to bring it to the House today to take a look at what the committee recommended and where the government is at.

To start off, I want to talk a bit about what Canada has been doing in the past. This acknowledges some of the work the government and previous governments have been doing. There was funding through the OAS to help with different initiatives that are important to note. One of them is to strengthen national electoral systems and related processes. I do not have to tell members that right now there are concerns within South America with respect to elections and democratic development. The OAS is there to help with that. It is a multilateral organization that we fund to support the strengthening of national electoral systems. This is important when there are protests and concerns within certain member states within the OAS, where there are concerns from civil society and opposition parties as to whether or not governments are duly elected. Having that oversight is important. The strengthening of democratic development is important. Improving the standardization and harmonization of policies and frameworks relating to things like the business environment in terms of regulations is something for which the OAS provides support, and also the sharing of best practices in public administration and oversight in terms of regulations.

That is important for us in Canada. For example, with the extractive industries, we want to ensure that, when Canada is doing work abroad in member states within the OAS, those member states understand what our responsibilities are and that Canadian companies understand too. We also want the ensure that, within the locus of the OAS, we are sharing best practices and that the people on the ground, particularly those populations affected by Canadian business, understand what our responsibilities are to strengthen oversight and accountability, as well as improve market access for member states.

The House will recall that one of the interesting agendas that the government took on when it was first elected back in 2006 was called the Americas agenda. There were attempts early on for the government to focus on the Americas. There was great fanfare, in fact. There were a lot of announcements made and a couple of trips made. However, one of the challenges for the government is that it did not have a deep agenda on the Americas. Basically, it seemed to be focused on one dimension, which was to negotiate some trade deals—of which they have a couple, Honduras being one—as well as to update deals with Chile and others.

However, what happened was interesting. After a couple of years, they kind of forgot that focus. This came at an expense because there was an opportunity cost. When the Conservatives said they were going to focus on the Americas, there was a pivot away from Africa.

It has been noted within the OAS member states that they are not sure what Canada's agenda is right now when it comes to the Americas. There seems to be a lack of focus. When it comes to the OAS, this is important because the OAS is a multilateral organization and it is looking at human rights protection. Yes, it is looking at commerce, but it is also looking at how member states can work together to resolve issues around conflict, where Canada can play an important role. I think of issues, such as one that came up a couple of years ago about border disputes between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

We look at these issues and say Canada can play a role here if it wants to. It has contributed money to the OAS, it has paid its dues and that is to be acknowledged, but we have to do more than just write the cheques. What happened with the government's America policy, Americas focus, is that it seemed to not have a deep enough understanding as to what other roles could be played: on environment, for instance; on responsible development in the extractive industries; on helping with conflict resolutions, as I have mentioned. What about working with those states that are emerging economies and seeing where Canada can support and help, particularly in governance and democratic development? We did not have an offer on that, and what is reflected in the work that is being done through the OAS is that there is a deep need for that support from Canada.

I would hope that the Conservatives will take another look at this report and sharpen their pencils and say that we can do more than just trade deals. Trade is obviously important, but let us look at what else we can do to help our friends in the Americas. If we are going to be successful in negotiating trade deals, what I am hearing from many of these member states is, “What else is Canada offering?” That is something that has to be looked at.

The pivot to the Americas, as it was being seen as, was at a cost. There was an opportunity cost because it meant that there was a lack of investment and focus on Africa. However, at the end of the day what we have is an incoherence. We have, on the one hand, the government pivoting away from Africa, pivoting to the Americas but not with a deep agenda, simply a trade agenda and forgetting the other aspects of those relationships. I would argue that if the Conservatives were to look back to this OAS report, they would find in here numerous things that would help strengthen their initial idea of engaging more in the Americas. It could be on democratic development, on helping on governance, working with Canadian companies for best practices in the extractive industries to benefit people on the ground in some of the countries with which we do business within the OAS family.

Having visited the OAS, I know that the other area where there is an ask and a need for Canada to be more active is the area of human rights. One of the trade deals that the government signed, supported by the Liberal Party, was the free trade agreement with Colombia. There was much fanfare. In fact the Liberal Party made a claim that it was because of its engagement that these side agreements on human rights would be enough to protect those concerns we had around potential human rights abuses. It turns out that those reports have not been timely or sufficient and they have failed.

I would ask that the government look back to this report of the OAS about how we can be more engaged on human rights protection, on engagement with the OAS, and not just write the cheques but get involved and truly have an Americas agenda that will be more than one-dimensional. If the Conservatives looked at this report and the recommendations that were unanimously supported by all parties, we would be better off as a country in our relationship with the Americas. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should look at the copy that I have in my hand and refresh his memory about what we can do in the Americas. I look forward to his questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

One aspect of his speech that stood out for me is how Canada's interest and attention have shifted from the Americas to Africa. Paradoxically, what I have been hearing for three years is that on the ground, some embassies and consulates in Africa have been closed, the number of diplomats there has been greatly reduced and those still there are largely ignored by the government when it comes time to make contacts or begin the process of signing agreements or negotiating treaties with specific countries. The diplomatic corps is largely ignored. The government is wreaking havoc on our network, which was well established and had a very good reputation.

What does my colleague think about that attitude, which is so completely contradictory and ambivalent, not to mention costly for Canada's economy and global influence?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because he nailed it. He talked about the cost of having turned away from places like Africa and not investing in diplomacy to the extent we should. There is a real cost for this.

What is interesting, which I pointed out before to the government in debate in the House, is that it actually undermines its own goals on trade. I will give the example, as I have before, that we were turned away from a seat at the East Asia Summit, which is a very important table for all of the Asian countries to negotiate various things but primarily to look at trade issues. We were not offered a seat, just as we were not offered a seat on the Security Council. The response was, “What are you doing, Canada, beyond just asking for trade?” We have to appreciate this. If we are just going to a country and saying, “Let's do a trade deal”, and that is it, it is seen as a one-dimensional and minimalist approach.

My response to my colleague is this. Within this report, it says that Canada should refocus when it comes to the Americas, through the OAS, on looking at other core competencies that we should be investing in, both through the OAS and as a government, to get back into the business of engagement and focus on the Americas through diplomacy, human rights protection, and democratic development.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we think of the Organization of American States, it is really important that we recognize that Canada has a very important leadership role to play in this whole area. One way we can get an assessment of the degree to which we have to play that leadership role is to look at the regular fund and the amounts of money going into it. I believe Canada is ranked in the top three in terms of percentages.

Could the member comment on just how important it is that Canada play a leadership role with this organization? Within the Liberal Party, we believe that it is critically important to have good multicultural organizations for Canada to get behind and demonstrate leadership.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we should keep up with our funding of multilateral organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get a chance to rise to speak to the report and the good work that the foreign affairs committee has been doing and that this minister has been doing. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done an outstanding job on the world stage representing Canada. I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Albert.

We have been working on a number of things at committee and I want to review some of the committee business. Obviously this is a report that was done last year, one that we think is important. When we look at some of the multilateral organizations we are involved with, the OAS is certainly important for the southern hemisphere. The organization has had some challenges over time, but we still believe it is important.

When we were in Washington meeting with various ambassadors and in talking with people, they said it is still important to engage with the OAS and to work with it. We are involved with a number of multilateral organizations, some of which are not always perfect, but we see how important the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, is in terms of election monitoring, what is going on in Ukraine and the job that Canadians have done over there, the large delegations we have sent, and how important the role has been for Canada.

I want to read some of the conclusions and recommendations of the report, and give the House the framework, just to remind people who may not have had a chance to read the report online. I will read from the conclusions and recommendations for the record. It says:

As the discussion above illustrates, the OAS is not a perfect organization.

I just alluded to that.

It is, however, an important one for Canada and for the hemisphere. The Committee is of the opinion that Canada's long-standing commitment to the OAS as the premier multilateral organization in the Western Hemisphere should continue, focused around the OAS' core competencies of democratic governance, human rights, security, and economic development.

One of the things we heard when we were in Washington was that there was sort of a mission creep. The OAS has looked at maybe continuing to expand its mandate, which multilateral organizations will do from time to time. We heard from various ambassadors and people we talked to in the organization is that maybe the OAS should return to its core, return to some of the things it does well. That is why I say that if we look at some of the competencies of the OAS, such as democratic governance, human rights, security, and economic development, we see that if it could get back to some of those core things, it would make the organization more effective. I will continue on with the conclusion:

That being said, there is a clear and urgent need for reforms that can put the financing of the organization on stable and sustainable footing and return its emphasis to this core work.

One of the issues that were raised was that once again, as usual, Canada is punching away above its weight in terms of financial contributions. Certainly organizations that belong to the OAS pay very little if not much at all. I have a list here that we included in the appendix. I just to want to share some of those:

Such reforms would enable the organization to implement its responsibilities in an effective manner and live up to its purposes as established in the organization's founding Charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Canada has and should continue to negotiate reforms in these areas.

We saw in Washington, as we talked to people, that Canada has taken a leadership role in this organization in terms of championing reforms. Canada is also very well respected by all the countries around the table. We are seen as an honest broker. We are seen as somebody who is there to represent the needs of everybody, not somebody who is always trying to implement their will and demands on everybody else. We are seen as somebody who is willing to sit at the table and help negotiate, help lead, and help move forward with real and practical solutions. I will continue. It says:

The Committee is under no illusions about the novelty of these observations, or about the difficulty of realizing reforms.

As I say once again, we understand that the organization is far from perfect, but we also understand that this is one of the few ways that we can help engage in the Americas and why we still need to be at the table.

Canada is one of 34 member states that participate in an organization that works by consensus, and working by consensus is always a challenge. We do not always get everything we want. That is one of the challenges others have as well.

The basic problems facing the OAS are well known. Solutions have been proposed over the years from within and from outside the organization, but decisions that inevitably involve trade-offs in financing or programming, or both, are not easy to reach in any political forum, let alone one representing millions of people from diverse countries that stretch from the north to the south poles.

The context has also changed since Canada joined the OAS in 1990. The emergence of sub-regional blocks in the hemisphere and political divisions within the OAS are an added complication to the efforts to address the organization's longstanding challenges. We are not so naive to think that the organization does not have issues, but we still believe it is an important one and we should still remain at the table to participate.

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. They are also evidence that the OAS is capable of being dynamic. Moreover, as a multilateral forum, the OAS has and continues to provide space for dialogue and co-operation and the pooling of resources, expertise, and experiences, thus helping to establish conditions to which compromise and shared purpose are possible.

Based on some of these conclusions, here are some of the recommendations the committee put forward as a result of a report on the work that was done down there. The first committee recommendation was:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to support the Organization of American States (OAS) as the premier multilateral organization in the Western Hemisphere.

We believe that, while the organization may not be perfect, this is one of the few areas where we can engage with the southern hemisphere. That is why we believe we should still be at the table.

The second committee recommendation we had was:

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.

In talking with our ambassador and staff, who are well respected there, they and our government realize that this organization needs to continue to look at reforms to strengthen it. We realize there is more that could be done. We realize that, in terms of some of the things we have been involved with over the years, it has continued to require more and more resources and, if it were to sharpen its focus on some of these things, this would make it a more effective organization.

Therefore, as part of that, the second recommendation was to continue to push reforms to strengthen the OAS and its like-minded partners through the OAS general assembly and permanent council. These possible reforms would:

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

There have been a number of different areas in which OAS is involved. We believe that, if it would go back to the core, that would be more effective and certainly more focused and important.

b. Result In a substantial reduction in the number of existing OAS mandates, principally those that fall outside of the organization's core areas of work (as listed above);

Once again, mission creep has happened here in terms of where it is at.

c. 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;

While we believe that we share the leadership role there, we also believe that other countries should do their fair share, and probably more, in terms of financial support.

d. Encourage consideration of the proposal to reduce the United States' quota to 49% of the OAS regular fund, so long as doing so would not result in a reduction in the regular fund's total budget;

e. 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; and

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

Once again, as we look at some of the things in which this organization is involved, the recommendations of the committee were to go back to its core, to focus on what it does well, and to make sure it continues to represent democracy in that area.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. I want to pick up on the member's last comments on going back to that core. This is something we often need to look at. As organizations develop, they will often look for additional things and responsibilities to take on. It was an important recommendation coming out of the committee.

We deal with issues of human rights and the whole idea of democracy and so forth. In Winnipeg, later this year, we are going to have the official opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in the heart of downtown Winnipeg.

People are concerned about human rights and the issue of human rights. I wonder if the member would provide some further comment regarding the important role that the organization plays in this hemisphere with regard to the whole issue of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we have in the southern hemisphere is that there are a few states that still present a lot of problems. If we look at Venezuela as an example, I remember meeting with colleagues from Colombia a short time ago, who were concerned with what is going on in that area.

We have a number of states, or national actors, that are probably a challenge. One of the things that an organization like this could do is bring about peer pressure. If we have a number of organizations, they could encourage bad actors to step up their game, so to speak. That is why it is important to have them at the table.

Venezuela, in recent times, has done a number of different things that are undemocratic, quite frankly, in the way it has operated over the years. That is probably an understatement.

What is helpful is that we have a collection of countries, especially from the area, that can look at what these members are doing and can encourage them to behave better.