Foreign Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2009

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, maybe I should put it this way: what do you see as the role of the standards in Bill C-300 vis-à-vis how they would be administered--in other words, how people would have to comply?

[Sara Wilshaw]

From my understanding of what the bill says, the minister would conduct an examination or an investigation into the complaint, including, as it says here in subclause 4(4), “evidence from witnesses outside of Canada”.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Correct. So there is, if I could put it this way, the power to have the minister look into a situation without compliance from the company.

[Sara Wilshaw]

Without compliance from the company, yes. The consideration, though, is how that would be done outside of Canada. Generally in international law it's understood that if you are going to investigate in another country, that constitutes an enforcement activity.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Right.

[Sara Wilshaw]

We would normally go through their courts for that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But “to investigate” can also mean that you don't have to go to court, correct?

[Sara Wilshaw]

Yes, but we would normally ask the courts of the host government--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

No, I understand your point. I understand the issue. I'm asking a different question--namely, would this bill as contemplated allow the minister to actually do an investigation without the compliance of the company? It's a very simple question.

[Sara Wilshaw]

Right; yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So that's correct. Thank you.

I also note, notwithstanding your point, that we also, through the Special Economic Measures Act, dictate terms to companies as well, at times, when it's seen fit. Is that correct? SEMA allows the cabinet to actually set terms for companies as to where they invest?

[Sabine Nölke, Director, United Nations, Human Rights and Economic Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Yes, that is correct.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Some people have concerns, as has been noted, about Canada as a government setting terms for investment of Canadian companies overseas. Would it not be correct to say that we already do that when it comes to SEMA?

[Sabine Nölke]

Within the confines of SEMA, the investigations happen in Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Correct, but my question is a different one. My question is that, with SEMA, the Government of Canada can set terms as to Canadian companies' investments overseas?

[Sabine Nölke]

That is correct, yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I say that because some people would argue that this is something new in terms of Canada having some involvement in Canadian investment overseas. So I think it's an important point to note.

Has anyone looked into the administration of legislation in other jurisdictions that comes close to CSR? To be very specific, are you following any of the bills going through Congress right now looking at investment of the extractive industries overseas? I see someone nodding there.

I'm particularly interested in your take on Bill S.891 in the United States. I'd like to hear your point of view on that. I'm referring to the Congo Conflict Minerals Act. Can you shed some light on how you see that vis-à-vis legislation that we might have here? Or is there anything like it here in Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Wilshaw.

[Sara Wilshaw]

Thank you.

My understanding of Bill S.891, the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009, is that this is an act introduced recently--the end of April, if I'm not mistaken--and it has been referred to committee, so it's at quite an early stage in the process. It's an act designed to stop the illegal trade in resources, and specifically three resources. I can only remember the name of one. I think it's wolframite. There were three minerals in particular. It will require reporting by companies that use these minerals, on the origin of those minerals, and if the origin of those minerals is from the Democratic Republic of Congo, they then have to disclose the mine of origin.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This is, as you said, fairly nascent. Thank you for that.

I simply wanted to point out to the committee and others that we're not in isolation in terms of working on this issue a little more assertively. I think it's important to note that. In fact, what I like about the approach of the round table, which was reported to government more than two years ago, is that it is comprehensive. Certainly from my perspective, I would prefer a comprehensive approach rather than any other.

But I simply wanted to note that other jurisdictions are moving ahead, looking at this important issue of the extractive industries and how they affect local economies and people. I think this is something that's happening south of the border that should give us cause for attention, to ensure we are perhaps doing something a little more fulsome. I think most Canadians would like to see that.

Thank you for your help today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

We'll go back to the government side.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing here today, ladies.

The question I have is fairly elementary. It's back with the definitions. When I review Bill C-300, I see here under the definitions what appears to be a disclaimer, saying what isn't included in the extractive definition.

I suppose the other thing I question here with extractive is this. If this is really meant for corporate social responsibility with Canadian industry in foreign countries, why would it have left out forestry products or forestry and logging operations? Why would they be excluded? When I'm reading the definitions here of Bill C-300, it looks as though there are a whole number of issues here that are eliminated from the definition.

Could you comment on that, please? Shouldn't we have a corporate social responsibility for all forms of industry of extractive...whether they be above ground or below ground, to be consistent?

[Louise Léger]

We were asked to comment on the bill, and Sara said we have identified a number of areas where we ourselves have further questions. That would definitely be one of them, where we would need some clarification as to what is meant by that paragraph, in particular, what is included and what is not.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes, because I'm seeing here “petroleum, natural gas, bitumen, oil shales, limestone”. I'm going through an entire list of these, and a lot of these are major extractive enterprises by Canadian organizations. But the fact that it left out the forestry products is seemingly another huge one. I would think in some areas 50% of Canada's extractive efforts would be the above-ground forestry.

[Louise Léger]

There's also a reference to the OECD guidelines on multinationals. That one is all-inclusive, not just the extractive sector but all sectors, so that whether the investment is in textiles, for example, or mining, if that's the benchmark, if it's the OECD guidelines for multinationals, then it's everything.