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.
