Bill C-300 (Historical)

Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act

An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries

The purpose of this enactment is to promote environmental best practices and to ensure the protection and promotion of international human rights standards in respect of the mining, oil or gas activities of Canadian corporations in developing countries. It also gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of International Trade the responsibility to issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards for mining, oil or gas activities and it requires the Ministers to submit an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the provisions and operation of this Act.

[Prof. Richard Steiner]

First of all, actions speak louder than words, as you have alluded. There are all these CSR guidelines and all the companies say that they ascribe to international best practices and so on.

If that is true, then why would they oppose this independent Bill C-300 to simply affirm that this is so? Obviously, to the extent that a company or a government member is opposing this very prudent, reasonable, modest piece of legislation, it simply indicates their lack of confidence that this is indeed the case, that companies are indeed being honest and forthright about their compliance with CSR standards. If they felt there was no problem, then Bill C-300 would almost be irrelevant to them.

There are many of these, and the proof is in the pudding, as they say down in the south of the U.S. It's the extent to which the government provides oversight. As I said, Canada and the United States are both OECD members. They both signed on to the OECD guidelines, yet the atrocities continue. Porgera and Papua New Guinea and Pacific Rim never would have occurred had the governments really been truly doing their jobs and providing oversight.

Bill C-300, in my book, is excellent. It's far superior to the current OPIC guidelines being developed in the United States, for three particular reasons. One is that Bill C-300 applies universally, as we mentioned before, to all extractive industry companies, whether they have government support or not, and not just on a project-specific basis. That's a positive. That's a good idea.

Second, Bill C-300 requires an investigation and mandatory sanctions for non-compliance, such as withholding credit or insurance or whatever the government role in the company is, and embassy support, as we heard there, and loss of support by Export Development Canada. That is a very good idea.

Third, Bill C-300 requires the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade independently to develop and enforce these standards and to apply these standards, and it requires that they conduct an investigation for non-frivolous complaints. It's a very simple, straightforward mechanism of governance and jurisprudence, I think.

It would really shift the dynamic, and those companies that are behaving well overseas will appreciate that those that aren't and that are cutting costs and have “an advantage” right now by doing that will no longer have that advantage. So those companies that are -behaving well are going to have a competitive advantage through this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

I just want you to comment further on all of these guidelines that exist out there--the Equator Principles and those of the IFC and OECD and a whole bunch of other organizations--to which all of these companies put their hands over their hearts and talk about how wonderfully obsessed they are with corporate social responsibility principles. They produce wonderful general annual reports with happy little people doing happy little things, and yet these allegations that you speak to, for which you will be roundly criticized, are brushed under the table.

Tell me, what would Bill C-300 actually bring to the dance that would move us off this endless allegation stuff?

Professor Steiner.

[Prof. Richard Steiner]

My reaction would be that the committee, the government, and the people do not have to take Mr. Schnoor's word and my word for it. The whole purpose of Bill C-300 is to impose another independent level of review by your two ministers to either confirm or deny what these complaints are all about. That's the point of Bill C-300. Don't take my word for it. If they receive a legitimate, non-trivial complaint, let your Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade investigate to see if there is substantial evidence to support or refute it. On the projects I've just been talking about in Porgera and Pacific Rim, there is little question, and I suspect that is the case with Mr. Schnoor's discussion in Guatemala as well.

That's the whole point of Bill C-300. You have complaints. This is a mechanism whereby people can file complaints. I would hope that if Bill C-300 were to be passed.... One amendment that I would suggest to it is look at all companies, not just extractive industry companies. That's the sole advantage in OPIC's revisions to the environmental handbook here in the United States. One of the things OPIC has over Bill C-300 is that it will apply to all companies; however, it's project specific, and Bill C-300 applies to the company regardless of whether it is the specific project that is of concern.

I would just want to say, “Don't take our word for it”.

[Prof. Richard Steiner]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I'm Richard Steiner. I've been a professor at the University of Alaska for about 30 years. I'm a conservation biologist and a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Social and Environmental Accountability of the Private Sector Working Group--that's a mouthful.

I've worked extensively around the world on extractive industry issues and environmental social issues, including, in the past few years, in northern British Columbia with the local people there. I have a deep admiration for Canada: the people, the environment, and the government.

I returned yesterday from a week and a half down in the Gulf of Mexico where I was working on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and doing a rapid assessment of that event. I find that a tragic and poignant example of what can happen when an extractive industry company does not receive adequate oversight by government and then essentially is left to self-police. I think that's just a very recent example of what can happen.

I strongly support Bill C-300. I think you should all be very proud that it has been formulated and introduced. I respectfully recommend that it be forwarded to the floor and passed.

It has a very straightforward, noble intention to ensure that mining, oil, and gas companies from Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental practices and with Canada's commitments to international human rights standards. Most companies say they do this anyway, so I'm curious as to how they could oppose a bill that would simply help ensure that this is the case.

The truth of the matter is that many don't live up to these standards, and I think you've heard the eloquent testimony of Mr. Schnoor before me. That's the unfortunate truth. This is true of U.S. companies and companies throughout the world--not simply Canadian companies.

Of the several thousand Canadian mining projects around the world, several are extremely problematic. You've heard of a few in Guatemala from Mr. Schnoor. There are many in Mexico, Peru, Panama, the Philippines, India, Tibet, South Africa, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We can list them all and talk about the issues with all of them.

The three I'm most familiar with, in working around the world, are: the Porgera mine in the western highlands of Papua New Guinea; the new Nautilus deep-sea mining project by a Canadian conglomerate offshore in the Bismarck and Solomon Seas off Papua New Guinea; and Pacific Rim's El Dorado project in El Salvador.

The Porgera project—and this is Barrick Gold, the largest gold mining company in the world, based in Toronto—is simply one of the worst environmental and human rights atrocities I have ever witnessed. I was brought there by the Porgera Alliance two years ago to look at what was going on, meet with people, and recommend what needed to happen.

There have been many extrajudicial killings that local people relate directly to the security forces hired by the mine. Many locals were displaced from the mining site to build the mine in the first place.

They've destroyed hundreds of miles of the Porgera, Lagaip, and Strickland rivers, with millions of tonnes of waste a year disposed of in what is euphemistically known as “riverine tailings disposal”--just dumping the waste from the mine into the local rivers. There are several metres of sediment and toxic tailings on the bottoms of many of these rivers.

This is a company that purports to support best environmental practices and social and labour practices. Obviously, it doesn't.

The Nautilus project is the first ever deep-sea mining project in human history. It has not been developed with free, prior, and informed consent. There is an inadequate environmental impact statement, which I was asked to review on behalf of the local people. Again, this in Papua New Guinea. I feel that there's a very seriously co-opted government process that Nautilus has engaged in there; they've resisted the notion of a legitimate citizen's advisory council to engage citizens on a more equal footing in Papua New Guinea.

Finally, the other project I'm most aware of by a Canadian company is the Pacific Rim El Dorado project. I was brought to El Salvador on behalf of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature for a fact-finding mission this past January. There had been several extrajudicial killings that the local people relate directly to the influence of Pacific Rim, a Canadian- and U.S.-based company.

Several local people who were opposed to the mine were murdered just last year. Locals feel that Pacific Rim is behind all of this in one way or another and that they are financing local officials on a campaign of intimidation and violence towards to the opponents of the mine. I think Pacific Rim likely violated OECD guidelines for multinational businesses in regard to combatting bribery, and many other provisions.

It's important that neither the United States nor the Canadian governments have done their due diligence in providing compliance reviews with the OECD guidelines they have ascribed to. These guidelines are great, but they're only as good as the governments' and the industries' reviews in compliance with them.

Finally, on the Pacific Rim project in El Salvador, there is such public resistance to it that the new president of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes, has called for a ban on all metal mining in the country. This is what can happen if a company, from whatever country, does not behave truthfully and honestly by the international best practice standards that they say they are ascribing to.

That could be a detriment and a disadvantage to all other companies, including Canadian companies, that wish to operate in these countries, so there's a strong positive benefit in Bill C-300.

All of these Canadian mining projects that we've referenced have profoundly negative elements: human rights abuses; poor labour practices; forced displacement of local people; violence and murder of local people, whether sponsored directly or indirectly; corruption and bribery of local officials; serious and long-lasting environmental damage; and betrayal of promises of sustainable development in local welfare.

To be honest, many of these projects have lost their social licence to operate and, as Mr. Schnoor mentioned, it really tarnishes the image of Canada in many of these places. The fact of the matter is that host governments in developing countries simply lack the technical and financial capability to provide adequate oversight to these projects; therefore, they allow the companies to run the show. That is not an effective way of doing business.

Canada is better than this. We are all better than this. There are many CSR standards throughout the world. There are the World Bank policies and the OECD policies, to which every OECD country ascribes. The U.S. Ex-Im Bank uses IFC guidelines right now. JBIC, the Nippon Export Investment Insurance organization, has their guidelines. All the multilateral development banks have them...the Equator Principles. And all the extractive industry companies themselves have CSR guidelines.

The sad fact of the matter is that they're not working. Without this additional step that Bill C-300 would provide for the government independently to get involved in providing review and compliance certification, we're not going to get there. Actions speak louder than words. People see the slick, glossy websites of companies that say how wonderful they are, but when it comes right down to it, they see it's not working. There is a number of comparisons of overseas private investment corporations in the United States and Bill C-300...I can go through it at some point, if you'd like.

But the bottom line here is that Canada can provide leadership in enhancing and improving corporate social responsibility with this bill. It's exciting. A number of people in the international community are following this debate. They look forward to Canada's leadership.

It's a great step forward. It evens the playing field for all Canadian corporations. It gives a competitive advantage to those companies that are already ascribing to these standards, and very well, and those that aren't are cutting costs. They have an advantage now. This will even that playing field. It will raise the bar for the U.S. companies working in these places. I think that's a good thing.

It will also raise the bar for host governments. It will give them a better idea of what is meant by international best practice and help raise their compliance review.

It's a clear and precise bill. It's very prudent. It's modest. It's not overreaching by any stretch of the imagination. If this bill had been enacted and a law had been in place, the Porgera atrocity in Papua New Guinea would never have occurred, plain and simple. And in Pacific Rim's case, you might not have an effort by the Government of El Salvador to ban all metal mining in the country if this law were in place and if Pacific Rim had put in some effective mitigations to the problems seen there.

There are several amendments that you could consider, but I think that effectively Bill C-300 is very straightforward, and I would respectfully urge you to pass it along. That's all I have for right now. I would be delighted to entertain questions.

[Steven Schnoor]

Thank you.

I'll just conclude on that point by telling you that I never intended, originally, to sue. It was only after the embassy and the government failed to address any concerns that I decided a defamation lawsuit may be the best way to defend the truth of my video and my reputation, but I will leave it at that.

Now, Bill C-300 may help to address this type of problem, as it would allow the Canadian government to withhold embassy support from companies that have been found to have breached human rights and other norms. It could also ensure that the Canadian embassy is not in the awkward position of promoting and defending the interests of mining companies that may breach human rights standards.

Now, as a Canadian citizen, I'm also deeply troubled by how our nation's reputation is being tarnished as a result of the practice of Canadian mining companies operating abroad. In fact, I have a small anecdote for you.

A few years ago while working in Guatemala, I lost my hat. A travel companion of mine gave me his hat, but it had a Canadian flag embroidered on the back. I found this to be a problem. I felt unsafe wearing the Canadian maple leaf and I can tell you that I went out and purchased a black permanent marker and blacked out my own flag. I did this for my own safety.

The current approach that both industry and the Canadian government have proposed, instead of measures like Bill C-300, strikes me as entirely inadequate: CSR policy is in voluntary mechanisms with no measures to ensure compliance. Such voluntary mechanisms strike me as little more than a smokescreen that distracts from better mechanisms that would ensure true accountability.

I want to stress here that I am not anti-mining. I am certainly not anti-development, but I am anti-exploitation, and I'm definitely anti-exploitation that masquerades as development. I am pro-accountability. The conduct of Canadian mining companies and embassies abroad is hurting people and it's hurting our reputation and it's unacceptable.

I also think that Canadians are gradually waking up to this issue. Some of the harm caused abroad is so outrageous, so unacceptable to the average Canadian, that I firmly believe that if they were to consider that our elected representatives opposed accountability mechanisms like Bill C-300, at the obvious behest of the powerful mining lobby in this country, they would rightly be rather upset.

Bill C-300 will not destroy our economy. It will not destroy our mining industry. Bill C-300 will not cause every mining company to pull up stakes and leave the country. I think we should respect the intelligence of the average Canadian and stop parroting this rhetoric and do the right thing.

As I conclude, I doubt that there is anyone in this room right now who would be comfortable with the conditions that we are exporting abroad, that we're imposing upon people who generally live in poor countries with weak governance. These states are often corrupt. They lack any will to protect the interests of those who are most vulnerable and disenfranchised among them. Canadians expect binding standards and accountability mechanisms for companies that operate in Canada. We should not expect less for people living abroad.

Before I end, I would like to conclude with one more example of why I believe we need accountability mechanisms to hold Canadian companies responsible for their actions perpetrated abroad.

On September 27, 2009, near El Estor, Guatemala, Adolfo Ich Chamán, a schoolteacher and community leader who often spoke out against HudBay's Fenix mine, was beaten, macheted, and shot to death, allegedly by security forces employed by HudBay Minerals, right near where I made my documentary. Witnesses have attested that Mynor Padilla, HudBay's head of security, was amongst the men who killed him.

To date, there has been no investigation. There have been no arrests and no charges, and there has been no accountability. This is not surprising. The UN has recently reported that the impunity rate for murders in Guatemala is 98%. If Canada does not do anything, there will never be accountability for such murders. We may not even find out what actually happened.

Canadian accountability mechanisms are badly needed. Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

[Steven Schnoor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a Ph.D. student from Toronto. I'm here because I believe we have a very serious and systemic problem. I also believe that Bill C-300 is a step towards addressing this problem.

For the past five years I've been researching activities surrounding Canadian mining companies operating abroad, with a specific interest in Central America. I've travelled to Guatemala and Honduras several times over the years, and I have found that people there are being seriously harmed by the activities of Canadian mining companies operating in their regions. This is engendering anger towards Canada and Canadians.

I have also produced documentaries to raise awareness about this problem and to represent the views of marginalized communities whose voices are not often heard, many of whom are very upset about the negative impacts they say they've felt as a result of the activities of Canadian mining companies operating near their homes.

My interest in this area began just over five years ago, when I found myself on the receiving end of rage. I was volunteering in Guatemala with a very small Canadian environmental NGO that establishes clean water projects in the developing world.

While there, three other Canadians and I were mistakenly presumed to be secretly working for a Canadian mining company. They thought we were pretending to be working for NGOs as a means of accessing their land to explore for possible mineral deposits. They were incredibly angry.

On this particular day, a local farmer had been killed in a protest against the Canadian-owned Marlin mine. In their eyes, we were representatives of a Canadian mining company. We were blamed for the death of this farmer and for forcing mining upon them. We almost became the target of an angry mob in a country where vigilante justice unfortunately still exists. Our lives were in danger and we were very lucky to escape. I am happy to provide further details if you're interested.

The following day, I contacted the Canadian embassy in Guatemala City to report that my colleagues and I were almost killed by virtue of being mistaken for representatives of a Canadian mining company. I asked what Canadian mining companies could possibly be doing in the region to cause such outrage.

I was told in no uncertain terms that Canadian mining companies have actually done no harm whatsoever; rather, they've been the target of misinformation campaigns initiated by radical left-wing activist environmental NGOs that brainwashed the poor, ignorant, illiterate campesinos into thinking that the Canadian mines will give them AIDS and unleash a monster from the lake.

This surprised me. I stated that I heard nothing about AIDS from the Guatemalans with whom I had spoken, and I certainly heard nothing about a monster coming out of the lake. What I had heard from local Guatemalans was that a Canadian open-pit gold mine was being constructed in the western highlands of the country. This is the Marlin mine, now owned by Goldcorp. People were outraged by the fact that they had not been previously consulted, as legally required.

I'd also heard that the Canadian company constructing this mine—it was Glamis Gold, which is now Goldcorp—had the same type of mine operating in neighbouring Honduras, the San Martin mine in Siria Valley, Honduras. I'd been told that since that mine opened, people reported dramatic changes in the region where the mine was operating. Due to the incredibly water-intensive mining process, rivers and wells had completely dried up. This devastated the primary economy of the region of 40,000 people, agriculture, and it caused a flood of young people to leave the region and to find work in the U.S.

People also told me that the water that had not dried up had become heavily polluted with cyanide and heavy metals. They blamed this for a rash of health problems, which they attributed to the new pollution since the inception of the mine. This included a dramatic increase in the rate of miscarriages both in people and in livestock.

People also feared the serious long-term consequences of ingesting water intoxified by heavy metals over an extended period of time. That includes cancer and liver disease. Many of these people, I should note, lacked access to adequate medical services and the means to buy purified water.

When I told the woman at the embassy about these concerns, I was told that it was all completely untrue. She told me that she had just returned from the region and had seen the mine with her very own eyes, and she could confirm that it was all perfectly fine. I inquired about the concerns regarding cyanide, which she dismissed by assuring me that cyanide really isn't that that harmful. She even said that it's found naturally in almonds.

When I hung up the phone, I felt more troubled than before I had called, because the problem now seemed to be bigger than the very serious allegations against a Canadian mining company. The problem seemed to include a Canadian government position that entirely supported Canadian industry while delegitimizing the concerns of affected communities.

The next year I returned to the region with video equipment to document what would transpire, to document the conditions in the Siria Valley in Honduras. What I saw was a far cry from what the Canadian embassy had told me. Everything was not at all fine. I encountered compelling evidence for virtually every concern that I'd heard raised by local Guatemalans. In fact, many of these concerns have subsequently been documented by world-renowned scientific authorities, including environmental engineer and hydrogeologist Professor Paul Younger from Newcastle University in the U.K.

As a Canadian citizen, I must tell you, I am deeply disturbed that the Canadian embassy was virtually indistinguishable from the PR outlet of a mining company. I began to understand why people in the region, whom I had met, often bitterly referred to the Canadian government as little more than an advocate for Canadian mining companies in the region that seemed to care very little about the well-being and legitimate concerns of the affected communities. “If they do care,” I was repeatedly asked, “why don't they do anything to address these serious problems?”

A documentary film of mine that is critical of Canadian mining was subsequently the target of a misinformation campaign from this very embassy. In January 2007, I filmed the forced evictions of five indigenous Mayan Q'eqchi communities from their ancestral lands in El Estor, in the eastern part of Guatemala.

The forcible evictions were carried out by hundreds of state police and military at the behest of Canadian mining company Skye Resources, which has since been purchased by Canadian mining company HudBay Minerals. Mining company employees took chainsaws and torches to people's homes while women and children stood by watching. In my written brief, I have further details about these evictions.

Skye Resources claimed that they maintained a peaceful atmosphere during this action. They deny any responsibility for any violence that may have ensued over the two-day evictions.

My video served to show that the evictions were anything but peaceful. It's now played at film festivals around the world and to date has been viewed online by over 150,000 people.

Shortly after the video began circulating online, the Canadian Ambassador to Guatemala at the time, Kenneth Cook, began spreading misinformation about it. Ambassador Cook stated that the video lacks credibility because the impoverished Mayan Q'eqchi woman in the video who complains about the forced evictions was actually an actress whom I had paid to perform in this manner, and furthermore, the photographs that I show in the video—some showing people's homes being burned to the ground and people in abject despair as they witness this destruction—were not at all from the evictions, as I claimed them to be, but rather, they were old photos from the internal conflict, which ended in 1996. He claimed that he had seen them many times over the years in many different contexts.

These allegations are very serious and they are entirely and unequivocally false. They portray me as a manipulative propagandist. They defend the mining company's position and they discredit the long-standing land claims, development, and human rights needs of the impoverished local Mayan Q'eqchi people. I am deeply concerned that his actions may be an example of a government that privileges the Canadian extractive industries operating abroad over concerns and well-being of local communities.

I should tell you that I'm currently suing the former ambassador for defamation. I should also tell you that I did not originally intend to sue. It was only after the embassy and the government failed—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to get started. We welcome you to meeting number 18 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as we discuss Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

I want to make sure that everything is working.

Professor Steiner, can you hear us okay?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

First, I want to publicly note your support for Bill C-300--and I appreciate it--during this past year and a half of battling the forces of evil.

[Paul Moist]

On the last question, I think the Liberal amendment is a retreat from what was a consensus among all opposition parties not two years ago.

On your first question, I think the committee should hear from the International Pre-Electoral Observation Mission that went to Colombia. The stats I cite for you are taken from the judiciary in Colombia. People who hold elected office are facing charges. Those charges are not for jaywalking.

I think you should take the time to hear from witnesses about what those elected officials who have been convicted were convicted of. You should ask the questions.

I also implore you to.... I think Bill C-300 should be adopted. I just read a report last night, MiningWatch Canada's “Land and Conflict: Resource Extraction...and Colombia”. Bill C-300 is a good bill. Why can't we set up a framework? I was astonished at the amount of attention being paid to Canada in Colombia, because Canada is paying too much attention to Colombia and the rest of the world isn't.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you. Obviously it would be hypocritical to vote for Bill C-300 and vote for Bill C-2 without the protections in place. One has to be consistent.

I'll turn things over to Mr. Moist. I appreciate your comments that “The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and it paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state that is increasingly controlled by criminals”, and later on about the “involvement of illegal armed groups...including paramilitaries and drug traffickers, who benefit from campaign financing as well as determining outcomes”.

This has been an issue all along: President Uribe's links to the Medellín cartel, President Uribe's links to the drug cartels, and the fact that his regime has open corruption that is being investigated, as well as it can be, by what's left of the independent Colombian judiciary.

One has to ask how Canadians on the street react when they see a government that has a supposedly tough-on-crime agenda actually cozying up to a government that has obviously such clear links with criminal gangs.

I'm wondering, then, given your testimony, whether you are concerned about that aspect as well as the aspect around the forced dissolving of the labour movement. Do you think Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about this regime and its human rights violations?

And my final question: in a word, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? We've had previous testimony saying that it lacks credibility and that damage from this non-credible process could be high. Would you agree with that statement?

[Alex Neve]

Well, I think it's important to link this issue with the issue of corporate social responsibility. In our view, the best way forward here would be not only to ensure that the prior independent human rights impact assessment is both carried out and addressed, but also that the Canadian Parliament adopt—Bill C-300 being a perfect example, since it's before Parliament right now—a corporate social responsibility framework finally, to govern the actions of Canadian companies when they go abroad. The fact that at this point neither is in place—neither the human rights impact assessment nor a binding framework of some kind on the corporate social responsibility side—is of grave concern.

Yes, there are great corporate citizens who represent Canada well, including in Colombia, but there are many who do not. The concern that both the lack of CSR standards and the lack of a human rights impact assessment will exacerbate that is a real concern.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses. I believe you've all underscored the importance of having full and comprehensive hearings and hearing from the aboriginal community, hearing from labour movements, hearing from human rights groups. We have yet, as a committee, to hear from the Colombian labour movement, except from the government-sponsored unions, which by their own admission represent less than 10% of what's left of unionized workers in Colombia. I think you've all stressed for the record, and hopefully all members of this committee have heard you loud and clear, that there shouldn't be any closure or cutting off of witnesses. We should have full and comprehensive hearings.

I wanted to ask Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Neve a question around social responsibility. There's no doubt that SNC-Lavalin has a very good reputation, and many Canadian companies operate in a socially responsible manner, but there are Canadian companies that do not. That's part of the debate around Bill C-300, sponsored by my Liberal colleagues, that you have companies that have caused and have been part of human rights violations and environmental violations in places like Central America, South America, and Africa.

You're certainly aware of these violations. Do you not think that it besmirches Canada's reputation overall when companies operate that way? And does it not, in your case, Mr. Blackburn, give you pause when you have report after report after report saying that this agreement could well contribute to Canadian companies being even more complicit in the kinds of human rights violations we're seeing in Colombia?

Now, that wouldn't be SNC-Lavalin, but I'm saying there are bad apples, and Canada has a responsibility, and the Canadian Parliament has a responsibility, to ensure that Canada's reputation is not besmirched abroad.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from petitioners in the Windsor-Essex County area with regard to corporate responsibility.

The petitioners are asking that Canadian mining companies observe and be responsible in relation to human rights as well as the environment, making sure there is no degradation. They call upon the government to do two specific things: first, to create effective laws regarding corporate social responsibility; and second, to pass Bill C-300.

I am proud to say that the originator of this work was Ed Broadbent, who brought it to this chamber.

[Alfred Lukhanda]

Paul Kagame and the people who want to exploit the Congo's wealth. Those people are certainly not in Africa. In fact, Paul Kagame is only the armed branch of the large multinationals. That has been archived and documented. The report issued by the United Nations expert group is clear in that regard. We can provide a copy. The multinationals are the ones benefiting from crime. And Paul Kagame also benefits, because he has been--

It is all because of the missile fired at President Habyarimana. That is where the whole thing began. We know what the path of that missile was. It left the Soviet Union, and went to Uganda and then to Kigali. The people who fired it were trained, and we know their names. We also know in which taxi the people who fired the missile travelled. We know where they stayed, before the missile was launched. Everything is there. We can provide you with the evidence. Canada has to act now, because the evidence is there. With Bill C-300, Canada is acting based on a plan. The evidence is so clear, and we are prepared to provide it to you.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Kabeya, I want to thank you for your important presentation. I think it is essential to call attention, once again, to the extraordinary level of violence that your country has suffered for 20 or more years. Members of Parliament recognize that this is, indeed, the most violent part of the world, and has been for quite some time. As a country, whatever the party in office, we continue, in cooperation with the United Nations, to try and create opportunities for greater stability in the Congo.

I would like to begin by expressing one thought. The dilemma we are facing is that a sovereign government is in power in the Congo. That is a reality. The Congo is a member of the United Nations. It has a government and a president. There is a political reality in the Congo, and it is not possible, either for a country such as Canada or the United Nations, to claim that such a government does not exist. There is a government in place.

Your recommendations lead me to believe that there is no government in the Congo. Yes, there are mining companies, but there is also a government which is responsible for legislation, the environment and the activities of those companies within its own borders. We are currently discussing Bill C-300, an Act respecting corporate accountability for the activities of mining, oil or gas corporations in developing countries, which deals directly with the issue of mining companies' activities. Naturally, Liberal members of Parliament support the important principle of the social responsibility of large Canadian companies and corporations. At the same time, we have to give some thought to the current reality. If there are currently U.N. troops in the Congo, they are there with the support of the Congo government. If the government of the Congo said it did not want troops in its territory, there would not be any. It would be very difficult for the United Nations to be there without being invited by the government. It is very similar to the situation in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the President of that country, even though many people have questions about Mr. Karzaï's government.

I would like to receive a clear response from you on this. Am I to understand that you and your group do not recognize the legality of President Kabila's government? This is an important question.