Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Ms. Knuckey, you have about two and a half minutes. I'll try to give you a little extra, but as quickly as possible, please.

[Sarah Knuckey, Lawyer, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University School of Law]

Mr. Chairperson and committee members, like Mr. Giannini, I avail myself of the parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Chairperson, we have documented allegations of grave human rights abuses--killings, rapes, beatings--by security personnel employed by Canadian companies. The seriousness of these alleged abuses and the absence to date of accountability point clearly to the need for a bill like Bill C-300, which would create an independent mechanism to receive and examine complaints by victims.

In the course of our work, we have interviewed more than 250 individuals, including alleged victims, witnesses, family members of alleged victims, local residents, local and international civil society, health officials, government officials, police, mine staff, and current and former PJV security guards. We have also reviewed medical and police records.

In Porgera, poverty drives locals to trespass on what is now mine property. Certainly, some of the cases of use of force by PJV's guards have likely been justified, either in the defence of property or of life. However, I would like to share with you today accounts of rapes we have documented that have been especially brutal and that are, of course, without any possible justification.

Numerous accounts of rapes show a similar pattern. The guards, usually in a group of five or more, find a woman while they are patrolling on or near mine property. They take turns threatening, beating, and raping her. In a number of cases, women reported to me being forced to chew and swallow the condoms used by guards during the rape.

Most of the women told me that they did not report the rapes for fear of retribution. Those who had stated that the police took no action. If a woman's family finds out about the abuse, she is often further shunned. In no cases were the women aware of any investigation, prosecution, or punishment of the alleged perpetrators.

I would like to highlight for the committee one particular incident that a 25-year-old woman reported to me in March this year. Her account went as follows.

She resided just a few minutes' walk from the mine and often went there to look for gold. She used the money she made from selling it to buy basic necessities, such as clothing and food, for members of her family. In 2008, five PJV security guards caught her while she was on mine property. She told me that the guards asked her if she wanted to go home or if she wanted to be sent to jail. When she replied that she wanted to go home, they said that they would rape her first.

She explained to me that she tried to run, but that they held her, tore off her shorts, tore off her shirt and her underwear, and threw her down on the rocks. She said that each of the five took turns raping her while the others guarded the road. They pointed their guns at her and threatened to shoot if she tried to escape. They beat her legs and hit her with stones. They held her head down with the butt of a gun. She showed me the scars on her shoulder and hand, which she told me were the result of struggling during the rapes.

A male relative of hers stated that he witnessed part of this attack and reported it to police, but they appear to have taken no action.

This is just one example of many cases of alleged abuse that we have documented. Security guards have themselves recounted to me abuses that they have either witnessed or committed. In fact, during one of my trips to PNG in 2006, I witnessed a guard yelling at a local woman that he had raped many women, and he was calling for her to come near him so that he could rape her too.

Mr. Chairperson, committee members, we have documented serious and consistent allegations of grave human rights abuses at a mine owned and operated by a Canadian company. Allegations date back nearly 20 years, and violence appears to be ongoing. Despite the seriousness of these allegations, little has been done to investigate.

But the victims have a right to have their complaints investigated in a transparent, comprehensive, and independent manner. Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction in providing an independent venue to which victims may complain. Importantly, the bill also has the potential to deter and prevent future incidents of brutal violence by promoting accountability for the actions of Canadian companies overseas.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Knuckey.

We'll move into the first round with Mr. Rae, please, and Mr. Pearson.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

It's difficult, but I want to try to draw it together by asking Mr. McGuinty a question, if I may.

Mr. McGuinty, you described in your presentation that you've already received a lot of complaints or issues being raised that you regarded as frivolous or vexatious or not having any factual basis. Is it not possible to look at something like Bill C-300—and we can all talk about how it might be improved—and say that it's the one mechanism that actually gives you the opportunity to get the minister to say that there is absolutely no foundation for this? As it now stands, you can say there is no foundation to this, but you're you. It's the same thing with me. If I've done or haven't done something and somebody says I have, I'm going to say that I didn't do it. You need somebody else to come in and say that there is no basis for the complaint at all.

Given the fact that now corporate social responsibility is an accepted premise and principle of activity, we have now a series of measures that the government has initiated that in fact provide for some modest accountability—not as much as many people think is necessary, but some. I'm not quite sure if I understand why Bill C-300 is seen by you as so revolutionary.

The fact is, these complaints are being made anyway. We've heard from Mr. Giannini and Ms. Knuckey that they themselves have gone down and interviewed people and have come forward with terrible accusations with respect to activities surrounding a mine in Papua New Guinea. Where do these complaints go if we don't create some kind of process that allows them to be considered and then say, yes, there is a foundation to this one, but there's absolutely no foundation to the other one? I hear your anxiety and I hear your concern, and I'm not insensitive to it. But I'm just wondering, given that there are going to be these complaints and that there is going to be anti-mining agitation around the world—we have it in Ontario and we have it everywhere—why would there not be some advantage to you in having a mechanism to deal with it?

[William McGuinty]

Just to go back to the very first part of your comment, I don't consider—whether they were actually made as real accusations or as untrue accusations—any of them to be frivolous or vexatious to the way I have to operate my exploration company activities in another country.

I was quite encouraged by, as most of the industry was, and subscribed to the presentation of the corporate social responsibility report that was provided to the government and for the ombudsman. I can appreciate why an ombudsman, when they're talking about how and what an ombudsman might come to produce in such a wide and sort of unknown place as the international extractive sector, could be viewed with some concern by a party in power. When you have an ombudsman in a certain place doing a certain thing, usually it's because the responses and the issues are somewhat predictable. And I don't know if the government would see that predictability within an ombudsman's position.

And I fully expect Marketa to be elevated to the position of ombudsman once everybody is comfortable with it.

The industry did put forward an approval for a mechanism that did deal with the frivolous or the vexatious in its comments where either side could go to the counsellor, in this case, or the ombudsman and make their complaint about the other, or about the situation.

Do I want the minister to say there was no issue? I'd love that. I'd love to have the minister, and the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of natural resources from that country, come and spend as much time as was required to sell that position to those people I will be encountering every day for the next five years on that project. There isn't enough time in the minister's day or enough impact in his decision here to make my work better offshore.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

This is not to be argumentative, but what would you do about the situation you heard about from Mr. Giannini and Ms. Knuckey? Where would that complaint go under the current system? What if there were a complaint and Placer Dome—or now Barrick—said they're sorry, but they've solved this problem and they don't think you have jurisdiction to consider it? What would then happen?

[William McGuinty]

My familiarity with what would happen is not adequate to respond to that question. However, we are looking at a number of issues, and the contact point is a place where there's already a venue for international discussion about this. Perhaps weight to a complaint should be moved into some stronger position within the realm of the contact point, in the OECD, or internally to the United Nations. At some point, because in this case we're talking about violence within a community that is in a host nation, that nation has some standing within the United Nations to either answer for its inaction against the company that is working there or to support its stance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beauregard, from the standpoint of an NGO, if you're working in a place, and all of a sudden some company comes in.... I've been in a lot of situations in Asia and Africa that have been quite harmonious and in which the NGOs worked well with the extraction industry, but in some cases the place where the resources are is very difficult; I think of places like Sudan or Nigeria, or whatever it is. For an NGO then to come forward and say, “Look, there are real serious problems here for you as an industry that we want you to understand...”. In the case of Talisman, for instance, what ended up happening was that Talisman gave frivolous and vexatious defences. It was different. The NGO was having trouble getting heard, and other NGOs did as well.

What I'm asking, in light of what Mr. McGuinty has also said, is what tools would be necessary on either side to make it more time effective? These kinds of explorations and investigations in remote areas can take a long time. For both industry and the local host communities, and especially NGOs, which have to be careful with the government of the country they're working in, what is the most time-effective way to make them happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Mr. Beauregard.

[Rémy M. Beauregard]

I think there are two ways of resolving that problem. You can solve it when the damage has been done, when a complaint has been filed. Then, an investigation has to be held. Since I presided a human rights commission in Canada for several years, I know that that is a long and complicated process.

However, given Canadian expertise in the area of human rights, I think that in several developing countries, Canadian businesses can bring value added to the promotion and protection of rights, that is to say that they can take preventive measures so that the situations do not occur. They could first of all respect international labour standards, and then respect international standards involving the environment by ensuring that if populations are moved or affected, they receive adequate compensation. That can be done before any problems arise.

The problem is that usually companies try to aim for the lowest possible bottom line and find themselves in a disastrous situation. Canadian companies are not the only ones to find themselves in that situation; it is a generalized problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Beauregard.

Ms. Deschamps, you have seven minutes.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much.

Just before hearing you, we heard the Assistant Deputy Minister of Natural Resources; he was our witness. I put a question to him concerning the government's current strategy, that is the Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy. The deputy minister stated that the government had put in place all of the mechanisms and held all of the tools needed to guide foreign companies and make them more accountable for their commitments.

I asked him what sanctions were imposed, concretely speaking, in cases where there are reports of wrongdoing, where a delinquent company is reported. I would like to know if there have ever been any sanctions.

I'm putting the question to Mr. Giannini. According to you, have any companies been the subject of an investigation? Have sanctions been imposed on Canadian companies that committed offences abroad?

[Tyler Giannini]

Thank you for the question.

First, I think I would answer that by saying that the review of a situation, such as what was going on in PNG, is an important first step. That review of the process will hopefully bring additional information to light from all the actors. Information is a key piece for eventually assessing what a government would do. That's what the review would hopefully do.

Bill C-300 lays out specific ways in which there may be repercussions in light of a review by the ministers. The details of how the review would be conducted would be laid out. Under international standards right now, there has not been a specific complaint involving this mine to an international body.

Again, to bring home who the main players are here, the actors on the ground are the PNG government, which has not pursued the investigation at the level you would want it to, and the corporations. The home country really can fill a void in terms of review and investigation, which would facilitate, hopefully, better solutions and deterrence of future abuses on the ground.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Ms. Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Following your investigation, was a report released?

[Tyler Giannini]

The investigation has been ongoing for three years. We anticipate doing a fuller legal brief for submission to this committee.

We were given fairly short notice for appearing today. We anticipate providing further information, with details. So far, our only submission is what we've read into the record and the accompanying MOU, but we anticipate providing additional details at a later date.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Ms. Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Beauregard, you talked about prevention, and that is interesting. However, to my knowledge, businesses do not have the means to prepare for that prevention. Certainly, while preparing their management plans, businesses could think about prevention. I saw a few cases in Africa where, clearly, entrepreneurs seemed to be responsible. They provided medical protection to families and education for their children, a roof over their heads, etc., but that was to increase their productivity. When both can be brought together, that is certainly wonderful. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

[Rémy M. Beauregard]

My colleague can tell you more if time permits. Before the project is set up, there has to be a tripartite dialogue involving the state that receives the investment, the business that will be investing and the populations that will be touched. That is the first measure that must be taken. That contact has to be established rather than moving populations forcibly and talking later.

We provide a tool to the communities concerned that allows them to assess the impact of such investments on them, and to know what to do to mitigate that impact and set up a dialogue with the state and the business.

[Carole Samdup, Senior Advisor, Economic and Social Rights, Rights & Democracy]

Thank you.

Madam Lalonde, I think you know about our human rights impact assessment initiative, but just to go back a little bit, at the time we began this project, we put out an open call for anyone to submit possible projects that we could look at. We were seeking to better understand the human rights impact of foreign investment. So we opened this call to all sectors, all parties. Anyone could submit a project. We received 46 proposals. Very interestingly, of those, 43 were related to mining companies and the impact of mining companies.

For us, that was an indicator of this particular sector's influence over human rights. Perhaps it's because it's so visible to people, but nevertheless, there was a significant concern in the public domain with respect to mining companies.

The other thing we found was that all of the proposals we received were for projects that were already operational, so in fact there was an existing conflict under way. We were surprised to learn that we didn't receive any proposals regarding projects that were in the pipeline, planned projects, new projects, because--in response to your question--the best approach might be to do an impact assessment before the project takes place so that different protection mechanisms can be implemented.

What is the reason for that? After the project, we worked with one large Canadian mining company to try to do an impact assessment before the project was implemented. We ran into considerable obstacles in doing this. There were problems with disclosure. There were problems with access to information. There were problems with the subcontractors. There was a problem with the host government, which didn't want to agree.

These are the kinds of struggles that people are having. The best approach, naturally, would be to do an impact assessment before a project was under way and the human rights violations experienced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Samdup.

We have to watch our time here, so I'm going to keep you to six or seven minutes.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

I wish to state right from the outset that with regard to the testimony we've heard on the situation in Papua New Guinea, I don't believe there is any individual in this room, or any individual reading the Hansard of these proceedings, who would not be moved and would not want to have action taken on that. The question is whether Bill C-300 is the correct tool.

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Why do we have swine flu vaccination when we have regular flu vaccination? Why is it important for us to see that 30 million people in Canada have access to swine flu vaccination when we already have a perfectly good store of vaccination for regular flu?

In other words--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That would be H1N1.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes, H1N1.