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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In the second portion of our meeting today we're going to continue our study of Bill C-300.

Appearing before us on this panel we have, from KAIROS, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, Mr. Ian Thomson, who is the program coordinator for ecological justice and corporate accountability, and Ms. Connie Sorio, who is the program coordinator for Asia-Pacific partnerships. As well, we have from the United Steelworkers, Stephen Hunt, who is the director of District 3.

I understand that each organization has an opening statement. We look forward to your comments.

I'll invite Mr. Hunt to make the first presentation.

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

Thank you for attending, Mr. Beatty.

I'd like to point out--and this has no reference whatsoever to the previous questioning. I wanted to put on the record that it's fashionable in some quarters to not speak too highly of organizations like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as if they are some kind of a bogeyman, or whatever the case may be. The fact is that your organization represents the heartbeat of the economy of Canada. I know many of my colleagues have a tremendously high respect for your organization, as we do for you, since you earned an excellent reputation as a former minister of the crown, and I thank you for being here.

The question I have for you is, could you give us your best guess as to the percentage of equity on the Toronto Stock Exchange and on the Vancouver Stock Exchange that would be represented by extractive companies that would potentially be affected by Bill C-300?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That is not at all what I said. I only said that we have seen such situations and that a piece of legislation such as C-300 would allow us better to control the operations of those companies, especially in countries where we have seen such situations. I am not saying that companies have contributed to this, absolutely not.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to say that I find it extremely unfortunate not to have the text of your statement. That would have allowed us better to understand your arguments and to follow your reasoning as well as to ask our questions. That being said, I will question you on the basis of my understanding of your statement.

You started by saying that Chambers of Commerce are generally supportive of economic, environmental and social development and that, unless I am mistaken, your members believe that Bill C-300 will be a significant barrier to their economic development. You also stated that your members are environmentally and socially responsible and you also referred to other methods.

After having looked at the Bill as a group representing business, are you able to tell us if there are in this legislation any environmental or social standards or protections--as well as relating to human rights-- which would not be better than the status quo or than the other methods that you have referred to? Is there really nothing good in this piece of legislation?

[Perrin Beatty]

What they would be able to get with Bill C-300 is that a formal investigation is under way, under Canadian legislation, that could result in the lifting of all government support for this company. Guess what gets the publicity? The allegation gets the publicity—Canadian mining companies or Canadian petroleum companies accused of human rights or environmental abuses. The finding, some weeks or months down the road, that these were frivolous or that the allegations were put up by commercial competitors gets very little publicity, as you know, as a result, and the damage is done in the meantime. We need to find mechanisms that, yes, move ahead from where we are today in terms of trying to ensure that we all follow the highest possible standards, but do so with the minimum of damage to the companies involved.

The other element of your question was whether or not Mr. McKay's bill goes above the standard that the consensus agreed upon and the government falls below that. I guess my answer would be that if we believe that Mr. McKay's bill may be damaging to the Canadian interest, it may be damaging to the host countries as well. Let's hold off from doing things that we think could be damaging.

If the government's approach is found to be deficient once we've had experience with it, by all means let's make improvements to it; let's bring it up to whatever standard we feel is appropriate at that time, but based on concrete experience. The key issue for me, and I'm sure for you as well, is to ensure that we move carefully in an area like this, that we improve the standards of everybody involved, and that we avoid reckless or frivolous damage to the reputations and the welfare of everybody involved.

[Perrin Beatty]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rae, for a very thoughtful question.

Let me start first with the issue of Talisman. You're quite right, the Talisman situation existed before Bill C-300 was even tabled in the House. So even in the absence of this sort of formal mechanism, which in our view will encourage frivolous or vexatious or unfair allegations to be made against Canadian companies, Canadian companies were at risk of having their reputations damaged, with enormous loss for everybody involved. Our concern is that this bill would make that situation even worse. It would actually build in an incentive for the commercial competitors to Canadian companies, whose standards may be well below those of Canadian companies and certainly whose standards would be well below the standards that we would assume we'd want Canadian companies to aspire to, to make these sorts of complaints. It would encourage them to do that.

You're right. There is a provision in the bill, in clause 4, that says the minister may decline to examine the matter, but a decision not to examine the complaint would be subject to judicial review, and generally the standard to prima facie dismiss a complaint in these criteria would have to be very high. The minister could not just frivolously throw it out himself and say, this is a group that is known to recklessly damage the reputation of people; I don't take seriously the allegation they make.

There would be a process there. One could easily see the incentive built in when a Canadian company was looking at opening up operations abroad, for example, if it was looking for licences in a country, for its commercial competitors to encourage a series of complaints to be made against Canadian companies on the grounds that they have violated environmental standards or human rights standards or a range of other international CSR concerns, perhaps in another country.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It's good to see you, Mr. Beatty. I would just say to the committee that my friendship and association with Mr. Beatty goes back a very long way, and I'm always glad to see him in the committee.

I hear you. I think you've made your points extremely strongly. You mentioned the example of Talisman. You mentioned other examples with respect to the reputational impact. Surely you would agree that there wasn't a Bill C-300 when the issues around Talisman were raised. We now have a counsellor who is going to be hearing cases that will be publicly known. It will be in the papers and on the Internet and on the web.

Do you really think it's fair to...? There's an alternative line one could take, and that is to say that at least what Bill C-300 does is it establishes a forum where a company can be completely exonerated by a statement by a minister. You stated that it would take a long time.

Looking at clause 4, under subclause 4(3), it states that if the minister decides that:

the request is frivolous or vexatious or is made in bad faith, he or she may decline to examine the matter. Otherwise, he or she shall examine the matter described in the complaint and assess compliance

The implication of that would seem to me to be that the minister could pretty quickly... There would have to be a process established under which the minister would receive these complaints and deal with them, and I would assume that the process would involve the counsellor, but I'm just not sure that it's necessarily the case that the intention of Bill C-300 is to go way beyond the government's position as set out in its own recommendations on CSR.

The other point I would make is that it seems to me that what Mr. McKay has done is perhaps go a little bit beyond the consensus that was arrived at, but I would also argue that what the government has done is well less than what was agreed to. What we ought to be looking for as a committee is a way to find the balance, frankly, that strikes right at the heart of what the consensus was that the parties, including the mining companies and the unions and the environmental organizations, agreed was where we should go.

So what concerns me about the government's strategy is it's less than where we want to go, and I do think we could make improvements to this measure that would allow us to hit the target.

[Perrin Beatty, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you and your colleagues for your warm welcome today. We're delighted to be able to be here. We look forward to having a chance to have an exchange with the committee.

As you mentioned, my name is Perrin Beatty. I am president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. With me this morning is Susanna Cluff-Clyburne, our director of parliamentary affairs.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the organization that is the most representative of Canadian business. Thanks to our network of 325 local Chambers of Commerce, we speak for 175,000 Canadian businesses, of all sizes and in all parts of the country.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce includes many oil and gas and mining companies among its members.

Our members are very aware of the principles of socially responsible behavior and of the commercial value of sustainable operations. This includes taking account of the economic, social and environmental impact of their operations. They also understand that a single bad apple can spoil the reputation of all Canadian businesses anywhere.

Mr. Chairman, businesses and governments worldwide have been working to meet the increasing social and environmental expectations of their operations at home and abroad. The result has been the establishment of internationally accepted norms, of which committee members are all very well aware.

In support of our members' efforts, the Canadian Chamber has provided considerable input into the Business and Industry Advisory Committee's contribution to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the International Chamber of Commerce's work with the United Nations Global Compact, and the United Nations Special Representative John Ruggie's investigation into human rights and transnational corporations. The Canadian Chamber has also been an active player in Canada's contribution to the development of the ISO 26000 guidance standard for social responsibility.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce's long-standing policy on responsible business conduct has been that socially responsible behaviour should continue to be promoted and supported by government. A process of working with companies before they run into problems, then continuing to work with them to solve any issues that arise, ensures that Canada and Canadian companies are seen as world leaders. To be seen to comply with the highest possible standards is a business benefit to us, Mr. Chairman, which the Canadian business community recognizes.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has been expressing our members' concerns with Bill C-300 to members of Parliament in writing or in person since it was tabled in February. So I am certain that the members of the committee are familiar with our position.

Building the Canadian Advantage is consistent with the view of the Canadian Chamber and its members in the extractive industries sector that Canada leads best by working with companies to give them the tools to prevent themselves from being drawn into difficulties in developing countries. And if they are, it is even more important to continue working with them to help remedy the situation and preserve Canada's reputation. Simply cutting and running is not the answer.

The government's strategy acknowledges the critical role of host regimes in developing countries and commits to providing additional resources to them through CIDA, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and international bodies such as the extractive industries transparency initiative.

Mr. Chairman, as a former Secretary of State for External Affairs, I believe this is the right approach. For exactly the same reason we would object to foreign interference within Canada, sovereign nations would not appreciate Canadian officials conducting investigations into projects in their territories or having our laws dictate which companies shall and shall not operate in their countries. Bill C-300, if passed, will negatively affect Canadian foreign policy.

The newly appointed CSR counsellor strikes a balance among stakeholders while maintaining the primacy of DFAIT's national contact point in promoting the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Some have argued that the counsellor will be able to conduct investigations only with the agreement of all parties. But we know that credible investigations would be impossible without the cooperation of not only the company in question, but, equally importantly, of the host government. It is our understanding that any lack of cooperation by any party would be included in the counsellor's annual report to Parliament and would rightly be criticized. It would hold any party refusing to collaborate up to public attention. This provision is an important incentive to assist in the investigation.

The role of the CSR counsellor significantly differs from the independent ombudsman recommended in the round tables' report and from what is proposed in Bill C-300 only in that the office does not have the power to recommend that government resources be withdrawn from companies found to be behaving deficiently. Again, this is the right approach. Our goal should not be to punish. It should be to ensure that all companies adhere to the highest possible standards. Our goal is to set standards that lead the world, to encourage people to comply with them, and to work with companies to ensure that this is achieved. By doing that, we can have the most significant benefit for everybody involved.

One of the unfortunate aspects of Bill C-300--which will haunt any government forced to implement it--is that it poses an unreasonable risk for the finances and the reputation of extracting companies. This is a very capital-intensive industry which operates on a very long-term basis and is generally active in some regions that are located very far from developed and developing countries. Each project might be challenged, even if the company is acting in a very responsible manner. Those who believe that any type of extracting activity is unacceptable will challenge practically all types of operations. This is the case here in Canada and we have also seen it in other countries. Let me add that their policies are often contrary to those of the communities that benefit from those projects.

Bill C-300 would provide an avenue, based on a piece of legislation, to those organizations the survival of which depends upon their capacity to make allegations against extracting companies. Complaints based on ideology rather than performance would entail huge costs for taxpayers as well as companies.

Mr. Chairman, the auditing function proposed for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Bill C-300 would tie up dollars and people that the department desperately needs for other purposes. One can only imagine the fallout resulting from one partner in a joint venture losing its Export Development Canada financing. Lawyers would be the only ones to get more wealthy as a result.

Will Canadian companies ever be able to satisfy critics who are opposed to their activities in principle? Likely not. It's hard to see how they could. Yet they'll face the spectre of having to constantly look over their shoulders to see who is, or who possibly could be, launching an attack via the mechanism that Bill C-300 would institutionalize. Does this represent a competitive disadvantage for Canadian businesses? It definitely does. Will any ministerial investigation satisfy the party that submitted the complaint? Probably not. As a former cabinet minister, I have to say that the loosely defined investigation process outlined in Bill C-300 concerns me. On the other hand, the government's strategy outlines a well-defined five-stage process that includes initial assessment, informal mediation, fact-finding, access to formal mediation, and reporting.

Mr. Chairman, in criminal law we're scrupulous in adhering to the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and we take considerable care to ensure that their good names are not recklessly damaged. However, under Bill C-300 the damage to the company accused is done as soon as a complaint is submitted and publicized. For those who wish to prevent Canadian companies from being able to do business abroad--including and most importantly our foreign competitors--there's a powerful incentive to make allegations. The publishing of a finding in the Canada Gazette, several months after the fact, that a complaint was frivolous and/or vexatious will be too late for the company's reputation and possibly for the financial viability of the project in question.

Such a finding will definitely not receive the publicity in Canada, let alone in a developing country, that the original accusation did. And the company may face years of unnecessary reputation rebuilding. In the meantime, their foreign competition will be doing the business. Talisman Energy is an example of the impact that Bill C-300 would have. Its name is still associated with unfounded allegations of appalling human rights abuses in Sudan, several years and tens of millions of dollars in legal costs after it has been exonerated by the courts. And perhaps most tragically for the Sudanese citizens involved, all agree their circumstances did not improve when this highly regarded responsible Canadian company sold its stake in the project.

The fact is that the vast majority of Canadian extractive companies behave responsibly and are considered global corporate socially responsible leaders. Earlier this year, Talisman Energy was named by Maclean's magazine and Jantzi Research as one of Canada's 50 most socially responsible corporations. Another Canadian extractive sector company, Barrick Gold, was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index in 2009 for the second consecutive year. The index, which is one of the world's foremost indices of corporate sustainability practices, tracks the long-term economic, environmental, and social performance of 2,500 leading companies worldwide, using objective benchmarks to identify the top 10% of performers. It provides a very important touchdown resource.

It's important to acknowledge the sustainable benefits that extractive companies bring to communities. Just as they do here in Canada, these companies create economic and social opportunities for the citizens in the countries in which they operate. They also significantly contribute to the host countries' gross domestic products, infrastructure, tax revenue, training and skills pool, as well as sustainable economic development. The positive economic impacts that these activities and investments have are often overlooked.

You've heard from Export Development Canada how Bill C-300 would affect its ability to enter into financing agreements with Canadian extractive companies. You've also heard how government interference in the investment decisions of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board would affect its mandate to operate at arm's length from government to maximize earnings for those Canadian employers and employees who contribute to it. It would also require amendments to CPPIB's governing legislation.

Some have asked how serious being cut off from EDC financing and/or Canada Pension Plan investment could be. After all, extractive companies are large, with significant financial resources. EDC financing and institutional investments like the Canada Pension Plan are essential financial resources to Canadian businesses, extractive and otherwise. The sanctions proposed in this bill could be very serious and potentially devastating for the companies and their Canadian and foreign employees, as well as for the projects in developing countries involved in the allegations. To be cut off from EDC financing and political risk insurance, as well as being blacklisted for Canada Pension Plan investment, would mean the cancelling of projects and the cutting of jobs. Faced with the uncertainty of being measured against undefined guidelines, many Canadian companies would simply not take the risk of pursuing new ventures in developing countries.

Bill C-300 would affect not only the large extractive companies, but also the dozens of smaller firms that serve them.

One of the greatest ironies is that while we all express concerns about the takeover of Canadian companies and say that we would instead like to see our businesses buy foreign companies, by discriminating against Canadian businesses, this legislation would do exactly the opposite. Bill C-300 would deter Canadian companies from acquiring firms operating inappropriately in developing countries and bringing their operations up to international standards. Why would they do so with the prospect of penalties and reputation damage lying before them? And yet those who would lose most would be the citizens of the developing countries who would have to settle for companies from countries with lower standards.

Canada's extractive sector companies are experiencing the economic downturn head-on. Their challenges have been exacerbated by having to live with uncertainty in the years since the release of the round tables' report and concerns with the government's response. Bill C-300 adds to the interminable uncertainty under which these companies have been working. Even after passage, there would more uncertainty while guidelines are being completed. This is a sector that plans in decades and requires as much certainty, consistency, and clarity in policy and regulations as possible.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes that any Canadian company operating abroad must comply with high standards of social responsibility. Our message to parliamentarians is that the government should work with companies and with governments in developing countries before problems arise to ensure that Canada and Canadian companies are seen as world leaders. It is in all of our interests to see this as part of the Canadian brand.

Bill C-300 could result in an environment of minimal compliance rather than one in which competition motivates companies to attain best practices. For companies that get into trouble because of a lack of experience or circumstances beyond their control, being cut off from government resources when they are alleged to have behaved badly leaves the situation unresolved, the allegedly injured parties no better, and potentially worse, and the company in no better position to take measures to make things right, if that's proven to be necessary. It also leaves in tatters the reputation of Canada, the Canadian government, and one of our most important industries and economic contributors.

I don't quarrel for a moment with the motivation of the bill's authors or of its supporters. The author of the bill, like the rest of us, would like Canada and Canadian businesses to have the reputation of following the highest ethical standards in the world. And, like us, he would like to see Canadian companies succeed in the global economy. And yet, ironically, Bill C-300 would push us in exactly the opposite direction by encouraging reckless and untrue allegations and by giving competitors with lower standards a weapon to use against Canadian companies.

Canadian businesses need support from the government in good times and bad. They do not need more bureaucratic burdens, disincentives to invest, and encouragement to move their operations elsewhere.

The government's CSR strategy is barely seven months old and it needs time to be fully implemented before it's judged to be deficient. Once it's had a fair chance to make itself felt, by all means, let's review it and decide whether we should make changes. If improvements should be made then, let's make those changes based on experience. But let's at least give it that chance before we start tinkering with it.

On the face of it, Bill C-300 is good politics. However, upon closer examination, Bill C-300 cannot live up to its intentions as it lacks some important context that could do more damage to the extractive sector than it intends. That's why, Mr. Chairman, we urge the members of the committee to vote against the bill.

I thank the committee for its courtesy in hearing us today, and I would be delighted to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, colleagues.

This is meeting 40 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It is Thursday, November 19, 2009. Our orders of the day include a return to our committee's study on Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

On our first panel today is a witness who's certainly no stranger to West Block--or to Centre Block, or to any of the other buildings on the Hill--and that's the Honourable Perrin Beatty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

We also have Susanna Cluff-Clyburne, Director of Parliamentary Relations for the Chamber.

Welcome to our committee this morning. We look forward to your presentation. We will move to a round of questioning, or hopefully a couple of rounds of questioning, following your presentation.

We thank you for your attendance here today.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to accept the representations of the members of the House of Representatives at face value. In their letter to us they also said they consider approval of these agreements to be a step in the right direction to help us face the challenges that we face. They said that was to help us. They understand that this is an opportunity.

As well they go on to say that these instruments are entirely suitable to successfully face the ever-changing future. All countries face an ever-changing future, but the health and well-being of a nation cannot be legislated simply by not doing anything. We have to take steps. We have to take a risk.

There is a risk that this agreement will not do anything substantive to alleviate human rights abuses. However, we will be there, and we will be models to the Colombian people to show that we can have sustainable, fair and safe trade, and economic commercial activity with Colombia if we pass bills such as Bill C-300.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record a couple of points.

First of all, it is pretty clear to all hon. members, I am sure, that if private member's Bill C-300 were adopted by this House, it would provide the framework to indicate that businesses doing business abroad would have to fall within international guidelines for the protection of human rights and ethical standards for doing business. I wish that bill were in place right now because it would make this debate a lot easier for many people.

We are discussing this bill on the assumption that free trade will lead to greater influence over the human rights situation in Colombia. It is a hope. It is an assumption. It is not guaranteed, but it is a possibility in the right direction.

However, other countries are aware of the facts and are revoking their support for the Colombian regime. Recently the U.K. ended military aid to Colombia because of systemic crimes committed against Colombian people, so Canada is not sitting out there all alone and wrestling with how to deal with this. Certainly in the absence of human rights issues, the trade deal would have bilateral benefits. It is useful and if Canada were a player, that certainly would be helpful.

I referred earlier to the Amnesty International report of 2009 on the Americas. I would like to read into the record the section entitled “Insecurity”. It says:

In Colombia, many of the human rights abuses committed in the internal armed conflict--including killings and enforced disappearances--are aimed at displacing civilian communities from areas of economic or strategic importance. Many indigenous communities live in regions rich in mineral and other resources on lands legally and collectively owned by them. Such communities are often attacked in an effort to force them to flee so that the area can be opened up for large-scale economic development.

It elaborates on the point, but it argues strenuously about the reason a bill such as Bill C-300 is necessary, because these displacements are also a form of human rights abuse. We need to deal with that.

Finally, I wanted to add to the debate some extracts from an open letter from members of the House of Representatives from Bogota, Colombia to Canadian members of Parliament. They wanted us to know their opinion as the legislators. They said:

First of all, we would like to inform you that...[we are] responsible for exerting political control on the Government and the administration. It is also our duty to approve or not to approve the agreements the Government wishes to subscribe to with other States, by issuing a law.

As members of the national legislative entity and the representatives of the people of Colombia, we consider that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is a major factor in the establishment of stable, transparent scenarios for commerce and investment, which generate employment, allow for the improvement of living conditions of our citizens and block...paths to drug trafficking.

I think that is very powerful of the members of the House of Representatives of Colombia to give us their view. There is no simple solution to a problem when there are human rights abuses around the world. We could look at a number of countries, which I would argue would probably include China and others with whom we trade, with which we do not stop trying to advance trade opportunities.

We are not just Boy Scouts. We are a model to the world in terms of who we are and our values. The Colombian House of Representatives is reaching out to say they need to be more like Canada. They understand that. There needs to be commercialization and freer trade between our countries in order to protect and ensure the rights from a cooperative perspective. That means coming together.

In this letter, they also refer to the fact that this trade agreement includes a chapter on strengthening commercial capacities and essential elements to ensure that the benefits and opportunities given by this instrument and two parallel agreements to the development and evolution of a free trade agreement have been contemplated.

There is also an environmental cooperation agreement, which includes a commitment by the parties to sustainable development and mutual support in environmental practices in the formation of trade policies. There is a labour cooperation agreement which sets forth an effective inclusion of the fundamental rights of workers and international legislation of the parties.

Looking at this, I personally have been very concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia and whether or not there was something that we could constructively and affirmatively do. Asking for a human rights assessment on Colombia is asking for something that is obvious on its face. There are problems there. However, we have the tools in Bill C-300 to demonstrate the need for ethical conduct of Canadian businesses abroad. We also have the commitment of the House of Representatives from Colombia, that it understands these problems and it is not ignoring them.

Yes, there are human rights abuses, but having assessed this on all bases and notwithstanding the fact that I continue to have a very strong concern about human rights abuses in Colombia and in other places around the world, I think the only affirmative action for Canada to take is to be there and to demonstrate how business can be conducted abroad on an ethical basis.

On that basis, I cannot have it both ways, but I believe we have to deal with this matter in a constructive and responsible fashion and be affirmative in what we believe we can bring to the table in terms of our relations with Colombia. Accordingly I have decided that I will be supporting the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar.

Again, to Mr. Rosero, please feel free to make a written submission. Mr. Dewar kind of left it wide open there for you to voice your concerns, and be assured that our committee would have access to that.

We want to thank you for your attendance of our committee today and for your perspective of Bill C-300 and your comments in regard to corporate social responsibility.

We're going to suspend and reconvene in one minute with committee business.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Weitzner. We appreciate you being here very much because you remind us of the situations in the world where our Canadian mining companies are responsible and where we absolutely have to act. With all the examples that you gave us, we could also have talked about the Siocon Subanon Association in the Philippines, about which there were complaints a few years ago.

I am very happy to see that the representatives of the organizations who were at this table just a few minutes ago to tell us about their concerns with Bill C-300 are still in the room. You are telling us about specific facts and I feel that these extremely brilliant people are going to think about what you have just told us.

I think that Bill C-300 can be made better. Every bill can.

As a member of this committee and a Bloc Québécois MP, I would appreciate it if everyone who came here this morning to tell us that we will start to behave responsibly towards the communities whose resources we are extracting as a result of dialogue and voluntary measures would have a word with the promoters of Bill C-300. I would appreciate it if they would promote responsible investment and tell us how to improve the bill so that people are not harmed and so that aboriginal rights and human rights are respected in the countries whose resources we are extracting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Viviane Weitzner]

Thank you for reminding me.

If even the world's largest and most well-endowed companies are not implementing their own voluntary commitments, there's little likelihood that Canadian juniors or companies will do so.

In the case of countries experiencing armed conflict, like Colombia, or countries like Suriname with large governance gaps, relying on voluntary mechanisms to protect human rights and the environment is simply not sufficient. While Bill C-300 cannot purport to address these realities in their entirety, it does offer an important mechanism with which to strengthen the current Canadian CSR strategy. Notably, Bill C-300 provides recourse to an investigation for communities that may have been subject to human rights violations by a Canadian company, whether or not the company consents to the investigation. This is currently not possible for the CSR counsellor, who is not authorized to investigate cases and can review them only with the consent of the company in question.

It also offers the Canadian government the possibility of withdrawing government, political, and financial support should an investigation lead to the conclusion that human rights violations did occur. In other words, it provides a mechanism for government accountability to the Canadian public and a stronger incentive for companies to respect human rights and environmental protections, particularly if they have received government funding, in contrast to the purely voluntary regime recently announced by the Canadian government.

It also offers the Canadian public some assurance that taxpayers' money will not be used to support extractive activities violating human rights and environmental protections, at least over the long term. Where a company is found to have violated human rights or environmental protections, it is not deprived of the chance to correct this behaviour and reapply for government funding.

Ultimately, Bill C-300 embodies the spirit and intent of the recommendations in the consensus-based document produced by the multi-stakeholder advisory group established under the Canadian round table on CSR process. If passed, Bill C-300 would bring the current government strategy in line with the outcomes of this public and democratic process. In addition, it would put in place mechanisms that would hold our overseas companies to account, as recommended by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Finally, it would place Canada as a front-runner, rather than a laggard, in addressing issues of corporate and government accountability.

Thank you.

[Viviane Weitzner, Senior Researcher, Trade and Natural Resources, North-South Institute]

Thank you very much.

It is a privilege to share with you today the North-South Institute's views with respect to Bill C-300, proposed legislation that takes critical steps towards Canadian government accountability in the extractive sector overseas. By way of background, the North-South Institute is an independent, non-partisan think tank that conducts research designed to inform policy development, stimulate public dialogue, and support efforts to reduce poverty and inequality.

Since 1998, the institute has been involved in research examining issues at the crossroads of corporate social responsibility, human rights, and the extractives. In light of growing investments by Canadian extractive companies in Latin America and the Caribbean in the late 1990s and increased reports of severe conflicts in areas that are the homelands of indigenous and tribal peoples, in 2000 the North-South Institute launched a collaborative research program highlighting indigenous and Afro-descendant perspectives respecting appropriate processes for consultation and decision-making in this region.

My talk today will draw on this extensive research program. I will use two specific case studies to highlight the need for the mechanisms established in Bill C-300 and to show that this bill takes some important steps forward in light of the challenges and realities faced by the communities affected by the Canadian extractive sector overseas.

The first case I will talk about is that of Colombia. I want to acknowledge the presence here today of Carlos Rosero, of Proceso de Comunidades Negras, a national Afro-descendant organization that is one of our research partners in Colombia. I encourage you to address any questions about the Colombian situation to Carlos during question period; we have provided translation services for this purpose.

On paper, Colombia has one of the most progressive regimes in the world with respect to constitutional and legislative protections of indigenous and Afro-descendant rights. In practice, however, indigenous and tribal rights are violated on a regular basis. Indeed, despite official reports that the Colombian armed conflict may be lessening, the reality is that for indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities the conflict is intensifying. There appears to be a direct link between increased violence in indigenous and Afro-descendant communities and interest in natural resources, particularly minerals and metals. Here are concrete and recent examples involving the communities and organizations NSI is partnering with.

On October 22, a paramilitary group faxed a written threat identifying organizations and several leaders of Afro-descendant communities in the municipalities of Buenos Aires and Suarez as targets for military action in light of their "not letting in multi-national companies that will bring benefits to the communities".

Far from being anti-mining, these are communities whose primary economic activity is artisanal mining, but whose lands and work areas are being concessioned or sold off to large-scale companies, and who are facing in-migration from small-scale miners, including demobilized paramilitaries. In the wake of new changes to the Colombian mining code, black communities undertaking artisanal mining in this area since the 1600s are now facing the possibility that their mining will be declared illegal and that they will be forcefully evicted.

I know of at least one Canadian junior whose activities are adding to the pressures in this area and whose activities have not involved prior consultation with the Afro-descendant communities, as required by ILO Convention 169 enshrined in Colombian legislation, or free, prior, and informed consent, upheld as a minimum standard in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is supported by Colombia.

Indigenous communities and their leaders are also the target of increased violence, even at the hands of local police. For example, on October 26, the Resguardo Indígena de Cañamomo Lomaprieta—an indigenous reserve, and one of our research partners—was subject to an attack in which four masked and armed men interrupted an afternoon soccer match and shot and wounded an 84-year-old and a 26-year-old man. Later, it was revealed that these armed men were members of the local police, who were later released. This event demonstrates not only the lack of protection by the police force, but the abuse of human rights indigenous peoples suffer, despite their clearly protected rights through legislation and special measures put in place by the Ministry of Defense.

Importantly, the collective territories of this reserve, together with the lands of the Afro-Colombian communities with which we are working in Cauca area, are within a large exploration concession area granted to a South African multinational that is in a joint venture with a Canadian junior.

Between March and April 2008, the indigenous communities of Cañamomo Lomaprieta experienced one month of fly-over exploration, including over sacred sites, without any form of prior consultation or consent. This created a variety of immediate negative impacts, including fear for personal safety.

Why am I telling you all of this? I am purposefully painting a detailed picture of the realities faced by indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities to highlight the extremely complex situation that doing business in Colombia entails from a human rights perspective. With the negotiation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and active promotion of Colombia as a safe place to do business, there will be increased investment by Canadian extractive companies in Colombia, and the pressures and violence experienced by communities in Colombia will no doubt increase further.

The current CSR strategy of the Canadian government simply does not provide appropriate tools for navigating this complex situation. The voluntary principles on human rights and security target only one among a multitude of potential human rights violations in which Canadian extractive companies, and by extension the Canadian government, might unwittingly become complicit, despite best intentions.

The second case I want to touch on very briefly is that of Suriname. This is actually a stark exception to the claims Mr. Wisner made that all countries have in place detailed systems for accountability. Suriname is the only country in the western hemisphere where there is no recognition or protection of indigenous or tribal rights; it also has no legislation mandating environmental and social impact assessments. In short, Suriname provides a perfect litmus test from which to gauge the feasibility and effectiveness of voluntary initiatives in addressing human rights and environmental protection.

Since 2004, the North-South Institute has partnered with the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname to support indigenous communities affected by proposed large-scale bauxite mining and related activities. The original proponents are members of the International Council on Mining and Metals, an industry association representing the world's largest multinational companies.

Our research has documented numerous instances in which these companies failed to implement their own or ICMM's policies and commitments. To cite one of the most egregious examples, the companies undertook advanced exploration in 2,800 square kilometres of primary rainforest, the traditional territory of the Lokono people, without any environmental and social impact assessment, contrary to company policies. The company has made several public apologies for this large oversight. However, saying “sorry” for not adequately protecting and mitigating social and environmental impacts in advanced exploration is simply not acceptable. It's also a harbinger of potential future practices and behaviour.

Our research in Suriname leads to two conclusions. First, left to their own devices, companies will try to get away with as little due diligence as possible, despite their own policies. Second, voluntary measures are simply not an effective means for protecting the environment or human rights.