OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 092 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 29, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 29, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 092 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 092 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 092 (Version officielle) 147 092 29 05 2014 2014/05/29 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : 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 Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : 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.

Committees of the House Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : 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.

[ Translation ] Health Commissioner of Canada Act Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) Bill C-604. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-604,

An Act to establish the position of Health Commissioner of Canada and to amend certain Acts . He said: 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)

[ English ] Employment Insurance Act Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) Bill C-605. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-605,

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (protecting the Employment Insurance Operating Account) . He said: 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)

[ Translation ] Interest Act Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) Bill C-606. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-606,

An Act to amend the Interest Act (prepayment charge) . She said: 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)

(1010) [ English ] Olympic and Paralympic Athletes Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion 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 : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Foreign Affairs and International Development Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : 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.

(1015) 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.

(1020) 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. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : 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? Mr. Romeo Saganash : 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.

(1025) Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : 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? Mr. Romeo Saganash : 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. [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : 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.

(1030) 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. (1035) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar : 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.

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : 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. Mr. Paul Dewar : Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we should keep up with our funding of multilateral organizations. Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : 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.

(1045) 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 long-standing 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 (1050) 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. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : 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. Mr. Dean Allison : 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. (1055) [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : 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.

[ English ] Mr. Dean Allison : 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. Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : 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.

(1100) 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. (1105) [ Translation ] Mr.

Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : 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. (1110) [ English ] Mr. Randy Hoback : 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. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : 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. Mr. Randy Hoback : 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. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : 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.

(1115) 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.

(1120) 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. Hon. John Baird: Tell us about your vacation in Mexico. Hon.

Mark Eyking: 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.

(1125) 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. Mr. Charlie Angus: Five minutes, 54 seconds. Hon. Mark Eyking: 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.

(1130) Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : 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.

(1135) Hon. Mark Eyking : 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— Hon. John Baird : Just spend more, in the Kathleen Wynne Liberal— Hon. Mark Eyking : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : 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. [ English ] Hon. Mark Eyking : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau : 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. (1140) [ English ] 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. Hon. Mark Eyking : 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. Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : [ 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: Motion That the debate be now adjourned.

(1145) The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1225) [ Translation ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 155) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Benoit Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Clarke Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Fletcher Galipeau Gill Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon O'Toole Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 138 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Boivin Borg Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dusseault Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Jacob Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Turmel Valeriote -- 104 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to

[ English ] Petitions Lyme Disease Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first petition is on Lyme disease, which has affected a number of folks in my riding. They ask that the government find a way to make sure that it can be diagnosed properly. Many of these folks who suffer from this disease find that the testing that is done here does not suggest that they have Lyme disease, and then they do not know what has happened to them. They end up being diagnosed in the United States, which usually costs thousands of dollars.

The petitioners call upon the government to investigate and find a way to make sure that this disease can be detected in a more expeditious fashion.

(1230) Agriculture Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : The second petition is on farmers' right to save seeds. Farmers are calling upon the government, when it comes to Bill C-18 , to ensure that they have the right to save seeds, such as they have done in the past.

Democratic Reform Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the final petition is about a fair electoral voting system so that folks would have the right to have their vote count with a sense of proportional representation.

Railway Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of petitioners from Ottawa; Arnprior; Rockland; Namur, Quebec; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; Richmond; Sault Ste. Marie; Echo Bay; Huron Bay; Hilton Beach; and Wikwemikong. The petition is with respect to passenger rail in northern Ontario, specifically the Algoma Central Railway passenger rail. The petitioners are concerned that the government has not seen fit to consult with the stakeholders.

This rail is the sole access for many businesses, homes, and communities and it could be lost, which would damage their economy, health, safety, business aspects, and accessibility to the area. The petitioners ask the government to reinstate its funding. Although the government has actually provided some funding, it is only for another year. Therefore, the petitioners remain concerned with respect to the viability of this passenger rail service. We should be moving forward on passenger rail.

Public Safety Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table petitions containing the names of hundreds of British Columbians who have signed the petition called “Kimberly's law”, a petition for prevention and accountability. The petition is asking for changes in federal and provincial criminal justice legislation. It was drawn up by the family of Kimberly Proctor, who was brutally murdered on March 18, 2010, in my riding. I commend the Proctor family for its efforts to try to create something positive out of this unspeakable family tragedy.

I am tabling these petitions for the consideration of the House today out of respect for the life of Kimberly Proctor and for the efforts of her family to make sure that what happened to their daughter never happens to anyone else in Canada.

Emergency Protection Order Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present two petitions today on behalf of citizens of my constituency. The first petition is on the emergency protection order for the greater sage grouse in Canada. Petitioners ask that the Government of Canada rescind the emergency protection order and replace it with an order that encourages voluntary implementation.

Endangered Species Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present is also on behalf of the citizens of Medicine Hat. The petitioners would like to have the House of Commons rescind the Species at Risk Act and replace it with

an act that encourages voluntary implementation.

Lyme Disease Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. I am extraordinarily heartened to present over a thousand names of Canadians from coast to coast in support, as are all the parties in the House of Commons, of Bill C-442 ,

an act to create a national strategy on Lyme disease. Thousands of Canadians are asking for our help. Earlier this morning in the health committee I spoke to this issue. We have such strong support from across the country and around the House, so let us get on with it.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from residents of my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands exclusively. They are calling on the House to protect Saanich Inlet by adding it to the list of designated zones where the discharge of raw sewage is specifically disallowed. We want a sewage-free Saanich Inlet.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of sharks to Canada.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from beautiful Langley. Kassandra Kaulius was 22 years old when she was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people called Families for Justice, who have also lost loved ones to drunk drivers, are calling on Parliament to provide mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of driving while impaired and killing someone.

Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights the fact that in the world there are over 200 million girls missing right now due to sex-selective pregnancy termination, creating a gender imbalance. Petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn that practice.

Public Transit Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions and I will be very brief. The first petition is from Albertans. Petitioners point out that Canada is the only OECD country without a national public transit strategy and that there is an $18-billion gap in transit funding. They are calling on the government to put in place a Canada public transit strategy.

(1235) Food and Drugs Act Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Alberta. They are calling on the government to require the labelling of genetically modified foods on the basis that Canadians have the right to know what they are eating.

Animal Welfare Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Albertans, again. Petitioners are very concerned about the fact that the laws regulating animal cruelty are very weak. They are calling on members of this place to support Bill C-592 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code to prevent and respond to cruelty to animals.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present petitions from a number of people who are concerned about the reduced services at Canada Post and the shameful cuts that have been announced. They are particularly concerned about the fact that people with reduced mobility and seniors will have a very hard time getting access to such an essential service. I hope that the government will encourage Canada Post to consider other options instead of going through with the cuts.

[ English ] Agriculture Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House a petition from constituents in my riding. The petition calls on the government to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 ,

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today concerning the reduction in Canada Post's services. The petitioners from in and around my riding of Beaches—East York draw the attention of the House to a breach in the government's promise to better protect consumers by way of its plan to eliminate door-to-door mail delivery and the plan already implemented to hike postage rates.

The petitioners also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the elimination of door-to-door mail delivery will have an adverse impact on seniors and the disabled in particular. The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to cut mail services and increase prices and, instead, explore other opportunities to modernize our postal service.

Rouge National Park Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deposit a petition on the Rouge National Park. My constituency is home to the largest part of the current Rouge National Park and the 100-square-kilometre public land assembly surrounding the Rouge River and Duffins Creek. Watersheds in Toronto, Markham, and Pickering are publicly owned federal, provincial, and municipal land, which is home to the endangered Carolinian forest and mixed woodland/plain life zones.

It is also the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations and their sacred burial grounds and village sites. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada protect the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge National Park and conduct a rational, scientific, and transparent public planning process to create Rouge National Park's boundaries, legislation, and strategic plan, and to include the first nations and Friends of the Rouge Watershed on a Rouge National Park planning and advisory board.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that denounces the cuts made at Canada Post. The petitioners, who are from my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, are denouncing the elimination of door-to-door delivery and the increase in the price of stamps.

[ English ] Consumer Protection Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of the riding of Davenport in the great city of Toronto. This petition is signed by members of my community from Hope Street, Nairn Avenue, Bartlett Avenue, and Lansdowne Avenue. The petitioners are largely seniors and folks on fixed income, people who do not necessarily use computers. The petitioners call upon the government to act on pay-to-pay fees. These are the fees that many companies charge consumers to receive their bill in the mail. Imagine that.

People in this country are paying money to get their bill in the mail. This petition seeks government action on that.

(1240) Urban Workers Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is from folks in my riding who want the government to act on protecting unpaid interns. Currently, there are no federal rules that govern this issue. The petitioners call upon the government to support a national urban workers strategy.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a member of my community, Oscar Vigil, is facing deportation by the Government of Canada. Oscar came to Canada in 2001 from El Salvador. His wife and three children are Canadian citizens. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to grant ministerial relief for Oscar Vigil and allow him to remain in Canada with his family as a permanent resident. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my petition is from a number of Londoners who still suffer grave concern and are very unhappy about the recent deaths of three folks in the London area who were seeking permanent residency in Canada. The petitioners believe that because of recent cuts to public service jobs, reduced staff levels have increased work loads and made it very difficult for the department to do its work in regard to citizenship and immigration.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is properly staffed and resourced in order to reach decisions on applications in a fair and timely manner and ensure that immigration officials consider all factors regarding an individual application, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Energy Safety and Security Act Bill C-22—Notice of time allocation motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-22,

An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts , not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of how many wish to participate in the question period. Questions, the hon. opposition House leader. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is another sad moment in Parliament. This is the 66th time that this government has used time allocation or closure in Parliament.

In the past, the Conservatives complained about the corrupt Liberals imposing a record number of time allocation and closure motions, but the Conservatives have since broken that record. This is the 66th time they have used time allocation. [ English ] Here is why this is again not a very intelligent move, because we are talking about a bill about which the government has unfortunately not been able to bring good, solid legislation into the House.

I can recall in 2008, Conservatives brought forward Bill C-15, and they were so embarrassed by the bill because it was so poorly drafted that they sat on it for three years. They never brought it forward. Bill C-15 went right through 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Now they have introduced what they hope to be a better bill, a bill that does have some very positive aspects to it—there is no doubt—but a bill that has also raised some very serious questions. Like Bill C-15, which they sat on for three years, they have been sitting on this, refusing to bring it to Parliament for debate for months.

The issue is that we have a bill that has some flaws and also has some good things, and we certainly support the principle of the bill, but in the scant minutes of debate that the government has accorded so far, only a handful of members of Parliament have been able to speak and have been raising those questions. Why has the government refused to bring it forward for debate? Why is the government so intent on refusing the types of amendments that need to be brought in to amend the bill? Why, for 66 times, has the government been running roughshod over parliamentary rights and democratic debate in the House?

(1245) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. In fact, we are not limiting debate. We have had a significant amount of debate at this stage with respect to this piece of legislation. As the member knows, we are at second reading now. Then the bill goes to committee. Then it returns back to the House for further debate. Therefore, I am unclear why he thinks we are limiting debate.

Canadians have given us a strong mandate to focus on creating jobs and economic growth and, at the same time, putting in pieces of legislation, whether it is this particular one or in the context of our measures around world-class pipeline safety or marine safety to ensure that we have the right pieces of legislation in place for the health and safety of our communities and the protection of the environment. Canadians expect our government to make decisions, to take action on our commitments, and that is what our government has done and is doing in the House of Commons in the context of this debate right now. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, once again, and for the 66th time in the House of Commons, we have seen the majority Conservative government's new approach to dealing with process inside the House. It is quite disappointing. What we have is a majority Conservative government that uses its majority to limit the debate inside the House.

Past government House leaders, both in opposition and government, have always recognized that there is a responsibility to sit down and negotiate in good faith so that the bills that are quite controversial get more debate than those bills that might not be as controversial and that all members will support. The government has not been able to negotiate any sort of agreement regarding an appropriate passage of legislation through the chamber. It is, unfortunately, dependent on using time allocation, which is closure. The government does not like to use that word, but let there be no doubt that it is closure.

My question for the government House leader is this. Why, ever since the Conservatives achieved a majority government, have we seen this change in attitude from the Prime Minister's Office, which says that the only way we can pass legislation in the House of Commons is through closure? It is a sad day for the chamber. It is a sad day for all Canadians. My question for the government House leader is: Why? Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly answer that with as many words as the member has put forward. However, I can say that we are not limiting debate.

In fact, we have had a significant amount of debate at this stage. I was here, speaking to this bill previously. As the member knows, we are at second reading now, as I said before. The bill then goes to the committee and it returns to the House for further debate. I am unclear why he thinks this is limiting debate, but I can tell him that we will continue to keep our commitments to Canadians, introducing and advancing important legislation like the bill we are talking about today.

I look forward to debating this important piece of legislation, being here and being present, discussing it with all of our colleagues, having studied it in committee with parliamentarians hearing from expert witnesses. Of course, the purpose of time allocation is to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and consideration of the bill. That is the exercise we are going through right now.

(1250) Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, up is down and down is up in this place today. It is either time allocation or it is not time allocation. It is either closure or it is not. If it is not closure, we should be debating the bill, but we are not, because the government has invoked time allocation. This is what is happening, and it has happened time and time again in this place. When I first arrived here, the government moved a time allocation motion on a bill that it said we had debated in the House in a previous Parliament. That was the government's justification for that time allocation.

There is no justification for this, except to mute debate, to limit the legitimate voices of opposition members—and Canadians—who want to participate in the right process of democracy in this place. That is something the government shows it has little respect for, time and time again. Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question in there, but I will take this opportunity to speak more specifically to this bill. There is no question that this is a pressing and substantial piece of legislation.

It is consistent with our approach to responsible resource development, which as I said earlier, aims to increase jobs and economic growth opportunities for regions across Canada. It would ensure that the energy sector has safe and secure policy and legislation in place to protect the health of our communities and to protect the environment for all Canadians. These measures, which are contained in this bill, would build on a sound system overseen by strong regulators to ensure world-class standards for Canada's offshore and nuclear industries. Obviously, we have had some good debate on this already.

Our exercise now is to continue that debate. It will go for some time today. At that point, it will have a chance to go back to committee, where committee members are enthusiastic about further expert witnesses and participation from stakeholders on it. After that, we will bring it back here for further debate. This is all good news. In this sense, today's exercise will ensure that parliamentarians have the opportunity they need to discuss and debate this, both here in the House of Commons and at the standing committee. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. minister is unaware that the closure motions, this being the 66th one, have the effect of depriving members of Parliament from adequately debating the bill. Particularly for smaller parties in this place and independent members of Parliament, the rotations on limitations like five more hours at second reading mean it is extremely unlikely for me to put forward the concerns I have at second reading, unless the Conservatives want to give me one of their 10-minute speaking spots, which I will gladly take. I actually have had questions on the order paper. They are now answered.

They confirm that the $1 billion liability could be removed. The Conservatives could remove the cap altogether without having any impact on provincial electricity rates, which has been one of the arguments used for keeping the cap. Also found in the response to the question on the order paper is that they have estimated that the risks of a large-scale nuclear accident would reach $100 million. We know what happened in Fukushima, Japan and $100 million as an estimate of loss is completely out of the realm of real estimates of a catastrophic accident.

Then in the response to the question, they do go on to say, “The limit is not meant to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment”. We need a lot more time to debate the bill so we find out why the regulator has decided not to address a catastrophic loss involving loss of containment. That is exactly the kind of nuclear accident for which Canadians want to know the operators are fully responsible. Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and commentary. I can assure her that I have a full appreciation and understanding of the processes that take place in the House.

I take great pride in my previous capacity as a parliamentary secretary and now as a minister, to be aware of those. I thank her for giving me an opportunity by way of her question to respond to that matter. With respect to any questions and comments the member has to the substantive dimensions of this debate on the nuclear liability piece, the Government of Canada is bringing forward a modernized nuclear civil liability legislation that would bring the absolute liability of operators of nuclear facilities up to $1 billion. This is being done to be in line with other levels in other peer jurisdictions.

There is an important emphasis on the word “peer” for those who may understand that, obviously with respect to countries that are engaged in similar activities. The legislation would also broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering those compensations.

(1255) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of being in committee and hearing the Minister of Natural Resources address our committee about what his priorities were. We were told that the government had been clear that projects would not proceed unless and until it had been proven safe for workers, communities and the environment. If nuclear and offshore oil and gas are so safe, why would we have to put any kind of liability requirement on it? We know and it is known around the world not to be safe.

Serious questions have been raised in the community, particularly post-Fukushima and post-BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that the limits the government is imposing on liability fall far below the amounts of liability. Essentially what the government is saying is that the industry should go ahead, that it will limit its liability and that the public of Canada will cover it. What is reprehensible is not so much that the Conservatives have limited debate in this place, but we are fast-tracking the review in committee before we even have the bill. There will only be two meetings to debate this.

We will have probably two hours to talk to experts in these huge areas. The public will not have the opportunity to participate because these hearings will not go out to the public, to the coastal communities, to the Arctic coast and to the communities adjacent to the nuclear facilities, including the proposed waste management facilities. The only place where the public would have an opportunity to hear the issues, and we the members of this place can raise the concerns that members of the public raise with us, is here. The Conservatives in their wisdom have decided they do not want to hear those concerns.

Why does the minister not want to hear from members of Parliament and why does he not want to hear from Canadians about their concerns with the potential far too limited liability? Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I have had a chance to work with her closely on other standing committees. She may be one of the best at packing 12 questions into one. I will try to deal with the number of issues she has raised and perhaps opportunities. I get the sense from the way she put that question that she may be on a treadmill to provide energy for her own home.

She seems to suggest that there are no other forms of energy that she would like to see in Canada. That would not be consistent with our record in Canada. More than 78% of our domestic energy is produced from non-emitting sources. It would not fairly reflect the dynamic supply potential that Canada has for energy and the safe way with which and by which they are delivered. There are important elements of that. Obviously safety is the key. Safety addresses prevention, preparedness and response.

To get to the finer point of her question of liability, liability is there for the penultimate purpose of providing that extra set of circumstances, as rare and remote as they might be, that protects Canadians. First, with respect to nuclear liability and compensation, the government has taken into consideration, among other things, an amount that, in three regards, is sufficient to deal with the consequences of controlled releases of radiation. Second, it is within the capacity of insurers to provide insurance at a reasonable cost. Finally , it is in line with modern liability limits in other countries.

Therefore, this amount would also put Canada's liability notably among the highest internationally. We are proud of that record. After my visit to Rome, we were pleased to see that countries were looking to us as a model and a world leader when it came to the safety with which we produced and transported various forms of energy at home and for the purposes of energy supply abroad.

(1300) Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister said earlier, which was that we have had a good, wholesome, sufficient debate in the House. I wanted to clarify this for the minister. Maybe he is a little confused because we have had debate in the House on this bill at this stage only on one occasion, which was on March 25. Therefore, my question for the minister is along the lines of why the hurry now. If the Conservatives wanted to ensure that the debate occurred in the House, then they had the opportunity to bring it back the next day.

If they felt that it was an important and pressing matter that needed to be dealt with expeditiously, then they had the opportunity to bring the bill back into the House for debate the next day, or the day after, or the week after, even the month after, but they did not. Therefore, why the hurry today? What is the hurry now? I am the closest New Democrat member of Parliament to the Pickering nuclear plant and I do not get a chance to speak to this bill. Therefore, my constituents in Scarborough do not get a chance to have a voice in the House on this bill because I probably will not be able to speak to it.

Once again, the government is moving time allocation for, if I remember what my House leader said, the 66th time, breaking every record there is in the history of Parliament. What is the hurry now? He had months to bring it up for debate. I would like him to tell all of us and Canadians why the hurry now. Hon. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, the member is almost as good as the member for Edmonton—Strathcona . Let me address a couple of the issues. First, I appreciate her question. I am not so sure, in the context of this debate or normal relations, I appreciate the condescending tone with which it was delivered.

I am not confused about this. I can assure her that if she wants to have a speaking place, she should speak with the House leader for her party. I am sure, given the member's proximity to Pickering, he would be more than happy to accommodate for that. However, I do know this. Canadians expect their government to make decisions and to take action on its commitments. That is exactly what we are doing here in the context of offshore activities and nuclear liability. We are going to continue to keep our commitment to Canadians by introducing and advancing important legislation.

It is quite timely that we are here having these debates around this legislation because it is consistent with actions we have taken quite recently in other areas of energy production, energy infrastructure and energy transportation. I look forward to not only debating this important legislation today and having it studied at the committee by parliamentarians, but also taking into account and accommodation, the contributions of expert witnesses in that process. The purpose of time allocation for this debate is to ensure that adequate time is allocated for further debate and consideration of a bill