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.

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

We agree on that. In fact, we built into Bill C-300 a section for frivolous and vexatious complaints. I agree with you. I don't want Canadian companies spending of dollars trying to defend themselves against complaints that are frivolous and vexatious.

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

Okay. Here I thought we were going to be arguing. In fact, we might be agreeing.

Essentially, at this point, there are three things on the table. The ombudsman, which you and I would agree is the ideal choice, would be a legislated position, independent of government. There would be guidelines on conducting an investigation, standards of proof, and so on. That's not going to happen. The government has shown no interest in doing that.

Now we're down to the press release or Bill C-300. Under the press release, it's an order in council, and what a Prime Minister can order, a Prime Minister can un-order. We've seen that happen. In fact, as we speak, Mr. Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is having his chain yanked by the government, because his information has been a little bit too cogent for the government.

My point is that it's a vulnerable appointment, whereas under Bill C-300 it's a legislated appointment. To take a person out of that position, you would have to repeal the legislation as opposed to having a pen and a piece of paper and repealing it.

The other big flaw in the government's press release is that a company can only be investigated if the company consents.

[Jon Baird]

It deals with corporate social responsibility, CSR in English. In terms of oil and gas extraction and mining, Canada has a presence throughout the world, in over 100 countries. As a government and as an industry, we must ensure that Canadian companies respect the local people, their government and the environment.

According to all quantitative surveys, there is no problem. Canadian companies are working on over 10,000 projects, half of which are in Canada and the other half elsewhere in the world and they behave appropriately. However, I should note that we are working under some very difficult circumstances in countries where there are no laws, where the customs and the language are very different. Problems do arise but very few that are caused by our companies.

Bill C-300 was introduced in good faith two or three years ago. Things have changed quite a lot since then. There has been a series of roundtables throughout the country where industry, government and all stakeholders came together to discuss. A report was produced that expressed a wide consensus. It took the government two years to respond to this report. We just received its response, two months ago. The industry is satisfied, even though a number of recommendations were not accepted by the government.

Industry has developed programs to ensure that our practices conform to reasonable standards. None of this was anticipated by the member who introduced this bill. So I would be happy to discuss it with him. Mr. Garneau said he would come. At any rate, this bill will not be beneficial to Canada, to the mining industry nor to other industries that are active throughout the world.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus what time I have in this debate on some of the urban myths that seem to be developing around Bill C-300.

However, before I do, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, for his tireless enthusiasm, following this issue over many years and his extraordinary knowledge about the issues of CSR. Liberals are, indeed, fortunate to have him in their caucus. We are fortunate that he is in the House as he has put forward and advocated this issue over a number of years. Bill C-300 and what is behind it would not exist except for the hon. member and the efforts he has made over these many years.

Last week, by a very narrow margin, Bill C-300 passed in principle. I want to speak to the issue that in the House we sometimes talk the good game, but we do not actually legislate the good game. We speak favourably at great length about the principles of CSR and environmental responsibility, but when it comes to actually putting some legislative teeth behind what we say we believe, we sometimes degenerate into some hand-wringing and raise, so to speak, a certain level of bogus concerns.

I thought I would take an opportunity to address four, five or six of these and see whether I can put to rest some of what I call urban myths. The first has to do with our companies being at a corporate disadvantage. The logic, apparently, is that if other countries are doing atrocious things in developing countries to people and/or environments, then our companies should not be prevented from doing the same things or be subject to new, onerous, unclear and unnecessary rules if others are not.

I am not quite sure how to handle an argument that if another country or company is not adhering to CSR or environmental standards, somehow or another our companies should be able to compete at that level. I do not think that is in the best interests of Canadians or, indeed, of companies that fly the Canadian flag.

I would like hon. members to take note that in Bill C-300 the IFC's policy on social environmental sustainability, performance standards, guidance notes to those standards and environmental health and safety guidelines, et cetera, are standards that are neither new or unclear nor are they deemed to be unnecessary or onerous. Indeed, the previous speaker spoke about the minister's March 26 statement wherein the minister in fact referenced some of those guidelines in his statement. If the minister references them in his statement, how could they, therefore, be new, unclear, unnecessary or onerous?

The second complaint we hear about Bill C-300 in particular but CSR in general is that we are in an era of financial instability. That is true. There are financial difficulties around the world and we are in the down part of the economic cycle. It follows, therefore, that apparently we should only introduce legislation when times are prosperous.

If that is true, then the government missed a wonderful opportunity in the last two years to respond to the round table reports and introduce legislation which would, presumably, encompass an ombudsman, as was suggested in the reports. Unfortunately, the government, for whatever reason, chose not to respond to the round table reports.

The third criticism that we hear is that Bill C-300 has massive sanctions. It is one of those criticisms that is so over the top that it reduces the credibility of the critics. Whatever the sanctions are in Bill C-300, they are hardly massive.

All that Bill C-300 proposes is that in the event that a finding is made and gazetted, the offender be cut off from the government's credit card. A lot of people, in fact hundreds of thousands of Canadians, do not want their money used in that way. If in fact these companies want the public dime, then they should be prepared to meet public expectations. The public has clearly set forth its expectations in subclause 5(2) of the bill.

The only sanctions that are contained in Bill C-300 are that the company, if it is gazetted, would not be entitled to access EDC or BDC or CPP or government promotional activities. Those are hardly massive sanctions. It is quite reasonable on the part of the public to say that if companies cannot adhere to corporate social responsibility guidelines and environmental standards, then do not ask us, meaning the taxpayers, for financial support.

The fourth complaint we hear is about frivolous and vexatious complaints. At present, good companies are actually subject to trial by media. Anybody can file a complaint about company X doing activity Y, and the company, particularly good companies have no effective recourse.

Companies that actually are doing these activities, however, appear to prefer taking on lawyers and public relations experts and spending massive sums on them rather than actually addressing the activity or in fact having an alternative dispute resolution process.

For companies that routinely breach CSR and environmental standards, hiring lawyers and hiring PR people may in fact be a preferable process, but for companies that actually value their reputation, this process that is proposed in Bill C-300 is a complete and full answer to frivolous and vexatious complaints.

The fifth issue is foreign and domestic standards, as if there might be some conflict between foreign and domestic standards. There is no conflict if in fact a local country has good CSR standards and good environmental policies, and therefore there would be no conflict between the guidelines set out in Bill C-300 which are internationally recognized and accepted guidelines.

If the jurisdiction exceeds those guidelines, we then have a happy situation and Bill C-300 certainly does not apply. If, however, the local jurisdiction does not meet or enforce its standards, then Canadian companies should surely be expected to adhere to something of a higher standard.

There is some complaint that somehow or another this is an imposition of Canadian law on foreign jurisdictions. Nothing could be further from the truth. International law 101 says that Canada cannot project its law onto other jurisdictions. Bill C-300 cannot be characterized as doing that regardless of how desirable it may be to impose Canadian laws and standards in a jurisdiction where maybe the laws are not adhered to as rigorously as one might hope. Extraterritorial application of Canadian law to another jurisdiction is not only beyond the scope of a private member's bill but is certainly beyond the scope of the government, as well.

The sixth criticism is that there is no consultation. I would suggest the critics take a look at the round table reports in 2007 and look at the signatories on those round table reports. It reads like a corporate who's who of Canada. Included in there are Enbridge Inc., Petro-Canada, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Shell Canada, Talisman Energy, et cetera. In addition, as one speaker referenced, there are well over 200 other witnesses, many of whom come from the corporate who's who of Canada. There has in fact been massive consultation.

When the government repeatedly refused to respond in spite of the re-tabling of the report, Bill C-300 was something of a response to that report. The government issued a press release in March 26 proposing an investigative process which is dependent upon the consent of the corporation involved. It is a little like being subject to an assault, and we can only investigate the assault if the person who is accused of the assault consents to the investigation. Rightly, many others have criticized the response of the government as inadequate and untimely.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to those urban myths.

In the event that there are others who wish to enquire about Bill C-300, I then commend my hon. colleague for his energy and enthusiasm in his motion.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the mover for this motion and also thank his colleague for the legislation he put forward.

I am going to start my comments by quoting an article that was written a couple of years ago by Eve Ensler. Her article, which was in Glamour magazine, sent shock waves through the world. It started off with, “I have just returned from hell”. Those words were conveying her return from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we see horrific violence. What she had just seen was something no one should ever see, but for sure no one should ever experience.

She had been to the Panzi Hospital. She had seen girls as young as eight years old who had been gang-raped. She had seen the effects of gender war on a civilian population. What she had seen is something that is still ongoing.

Hundreds of thousands of women and girls, children, have been subjugated into something that is not just deplorable, but something that has been contemplated. What we are talking about is rape as a weapon of war. Indeed, it is rape as a strategy in war.

I say this because it relates directly to the responsibility of our corporations to make sure that when they conduct themselves in countries abroad, they follow every single humanitarian, labour and environmental standard that they follow here.

Right now, the machines that we all use on a daily basis, that we keep our calendars on and send emails from, these BlackBerrys, contain a mineral called coltan. A majority of the coltan that is used in our BlackBerrys comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Right now, the money that is being earned by some companies is directly connected to the war that is going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indeed, if we recall years ago the whole issue of blood diamonds, we are now having to deal with the issue of blood coltan.

Right now, over 80% of the mineral coltan that keeps our PlayStations going, that keeps our computers going, that keeps our BlackBerrys functioning, comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the exact place where we see rape being used as a weapon of war and the exact place where unscrupulous mining techniques are being used to actually fund and keep the oxygen going for the conflict, where we have three to four proxy armies absolutely devastating not only the geography but the humanity of the area, and that is the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This is not just about a nice piece of legislation that we should all pass. This is about our commitment to human rights. I have to say, it is not good enough to say nice things about corporate social responsibility. Indeed, we must act when it comes to corporate social responsibility, and the only way to do that is what is contemplated both in this motion and in the bill that was presented. We must have not just guidelines but absolute certainty in how companies behave abroad.

Further to that, members might not be understanding of the issue, perhaps, but what has been proposed by the government is guidelines, instead of absolute, strict adherence to protocol abroad. Also, it says we would have a counsellor instead of an ombudsperson to make sure that these practices overseas are actually adhered to.

If we in this country are going to stand on the world stage and say we are doing everything we can to end gender violence, to end rape as a weapon of war, to stop the ongoing absolute war against women in the Congo, then we must actually adopt this motion. We should adopt legislation like Bill C-300, and we must make sure that everything we can do is being done to end gender violence, to end the war on women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

I would like to take a minute to give some historical perspective on this. My predecessor, Ed Broadbent, started this file when he asked that the government of the day conduct a study to have business and civil society work together to come up with recommendations about how companies should do their business abroad. It was carried on by Alexa McDonough. It is now in the House by a motion and by a bill by my colleagues in the Liberal Party.

This has been an ongoing project. It took the government two years to respond to a report that was done in concert, where we had civil society and business working together and what they came up with was that Canadian companies would adhere to the same laws and provisions that they adhere to here in Canada and that we would have an ombudsperson to make sure that would happen. My constituents would say that is a reasonable proposition. That is the proposition we have in front of us in the House.

The proposition that the government has put forward, after two years of having it in front of it, says we should have guidelines, which may or may not be followed, and a counsellor. It is not strong enough. If we are serious about Canadian companies, who by far have the largest footprint in mining and extractive industries of any other country in the world, we must adhere 100% to the laws that we have here in Canada. That means that no money goes to those who commit genocide. No money goes to proxy armies. No money goes to people who are using it to abuse the people who are supposedly benefiting from the presence of a company there.

Members should take the time to read the history of what is going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo right now. There is a direct connection between what is going on there and what is happening with the investments of multinational corporations. These are things that Canadians are waking up to. Over five million people have been killed in the D.R.C. since the late 1990s. Most people are not aware of that. As I said, hundreds of thousands of women have been raped, and many of those are children. Many of those are women who have been raped multiple times. Why? It is a tactic that is used by militias, not only to use violence against women, but a strategy to clear out villages so that they can get to the economic bounty that is fueling this conflict.

In sum, if we in the House, as members of Parliament, are serious about having an effect on femicide, as some people are calling it, on what is going on in the D.R.C., if we read the words written by Eve Ensler a couple of years ago that she has just returned from hell and then try to do something about that hell on earth, we must pass this motion. We must pass Bill C-300.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. Trade between Canada, Quebec and Peru is relatively slim. We are talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, except in one sector: mining. It was primarily to protect Canadian interests in the mining sector that the federal government, the Conservative government, promoted and sought out this agreement. We also have a problem with that. Had the government's response to the roundtables on corporate social responsibility in the mining sector come up to the expectations and recommendations, we could tell ourselves that, in the mining sector, Canadian companies in Peru will be operating in a socially responsible way that is acceptable both in Peru and internationally. Unfortunately, the response from the Minister of International Trade was to establish some kind of representative responsible for receiving complaints, basically an empty shell. I have no illusions in that regard. This agreement was not signed with the paper, lumber or forestry industry in mind, but for the Canadian mining sector, to give it a free hand with something similar to chapter 11 and with the federal government refusing to take its responsibilities, as requested by the roundtables.

I will conclude by saying that, thankfully—and I thank our Liberal colleagues for it—with Bill C-300, we will have the opportunity to discuss at committee this issue of corporate responsibility of Canadian companies abroad. Perhaps that extra element will ensure that the free trade agreement with Peru can eventually be made better. This would also be true of agreements with other countries which are currently smaller trading partners of Canada and Quebec.

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-300 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for their contributions to this debate. Naturally I prefer some members' opinions over others, but nevertheless that is the nature of debate. I thank each and every member who has contributed over the last couple of hours of debate.

We are in the final hour of debate on second reading and Bill C-300 will go to a vote on the principle of the bill.

The need for CSR supervision has already been decided. It no longer forms part of the debate. All sides agree, even the government, that there is a need for some form of CSR supervision. The debate has moved from should we do something to really how we should do it.

It may have taken the government a number of years, but on March 26, in its press release, the Government of Canada effectively admitted that there was a serious CSR issue in our country and in the extractive corporate sector. If there was no such issue, then there would have been no such announcement.

Now we will talk about whether Bill C-300 is the best response, or Bill C-298 or the government's press release.

As I said at the beginning of the debate, ideally the government would have taken over this issue and framed the response around the creation of an ombudsman, an independent officers of Parliament. Regrettably that did not happen. Now we have three choices: the government's press release, or CSR lite, as I have taken to calling it; private members' Bill C-298, creating an ombudsman; or Bill C-300, reposing the responsibility in the two ministers with sanctions.

Unfortunately Bill C-298 requires a royal recommendation and for reasons alluded to earlier in the debate, would be dead on arrival as it proposes something that a private member's bill cannot do, namely spend taxpayer money. Only government with the approval of Parliament can do so.

As delighted as I would be to support the NDP party, both for its previous member, the member from Halifax, Alexa McDonough and the member from Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent and currently the member for Ottawa Centre in Bill C-298, unfortunately this would be an exercise in futility.

That really leaves Bill C-300 or CSR lite.

Bill C-300 proposes a scheme of accountability which would include an ability to investigate, make findings, deal with frivolous and vexatious claims, report to Parliament and gazette the results. The government proposes an order in council appointment to assist in dispute resolution. Bill C-300 proposes a modest array of sanctions with BDC, EDC, CPP and various promotions. The government proposal is free of consequences for any offending company.

Bill C-300 proposes a review and report to Parliament. The government response, CSR lite, proposes a report by various ministers, and the tabling of that report by the Minister of International Trade to Parliament.

Therefore, should we not just declare a victory, issue a press release, pat ourselves on the back and go home? While I like and respect the Minister of International Trade, even he does not think that he is going to be the Minister of International Trade forever. A new minister may well not be so enthusiastic about CSR and may withdraw the order in council appointment. What a prime minister can make, a prime minister can also unmake.

The only meaningful protection is legislation. Bill C-300 is legislation. A press release, followed by an order in council appointment, is not. Legislation has to be repealed by an act of Parliament. An order in council proceeds at the whim of Parliament.

The effectiveness of the councillor is dependent upon the consent of the involved parties. Bill C-300 does not depend upon the willingness of the accused party to co-operate. In fact, it presumes the opposite. Bill C-300 may not have as optimistic a view of human nature as does the government, but possibly it is just a little more realistic.

While joining hands and singing Kumbaya may be a wonderful experience in Muskoka on a glorious summer night or even Haliburton, it does not cut it in the harsh light of daily life, let alone operating a business in some dreadful conditions.

I would urge all hon. members to support this bill. I am extremely grateful for the support that I have received, that this bill has received, over the past weeks and months from Amnesty International, CCIC, Development and Peace, EFC, Halifax Initiative, Mennonite Central Committee, MiningWatch, World Vision, and the list goes on and on.

I did want to thank each and every person who has supported this bill, and I hope that all hon. members see fit to vote in support of Bill C-300.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for presenting this private member's bill on corporate accountability.

In the 38th Parliament, a similar but much stronger member's private bill was presented by the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent. New Democrats have long stood for corporate accountability as a principle of international trade. I strongly believe that Canadian companies who operate overseas must be held to the same standards as they are in Canada.

Canada must see to the protection of workers, their families and the environment everywhere Canadian companies operate. I realize that that is what this legislative measure is trying to do. Unfortunately, I do not think it succeeds.

Bill C-300, an act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is not perfect. Its scope and application are too limited, and its enforcement mechanisms lack teeth.

There are three main areas of concern that I have with this piece of legislation.

First, the bill should be expanded to include all incorporated companies in Canada, not just companies receiving support from the Government of Canada. This is a significant loophole that would greatly weaken the application of the bill.

Second, the legislation should include additional provisions within the Criminal Code to strengthen its enforcement mechanism and to ensure that all companies operating in Canada have the same legal duty to protect workers' rights in their foreign operations as in their domestic operations.

Third, this piece of legislation should establish an ombudsman to carry out the provision of this legislation rather than relying on the minister.

As usual, the Liberal caucus and its members claim to uphold certain principles, in this case that of corporate accountability, but again they fail to deliver effective legislation to enshrine those principles into law.

While I always welcome progress on a matter of global corporate accountability, Bill C-300 would only encourage a fraction of companies operating in Canada and would have no meaningful enforcement mechanism. In other words, this bill is only aimed at encouraging companies to respect the principle of corporate accountability and not enforcing such behaviour.

Bill C-298 is a far more effective piece of legislation. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood should consider putting forth or accepting two amendments to his bill similar to clauses contained in Bill C-298, especially the establishment of an ombudsman.

Overall, I feel that these issues can be resolved at the committee level, which is why I will support this bill through second reading. The most troubling thing about this bill is that it is a private member's bill. The Conservative government should be making this issue a priority and investing the appropriate resources to finally address this concern.

As a retired steelworker and Vale Inco employee I know first-hand how important it is that we stand together as workers to protect each other. I have worked for close to 35 years for a mining company which has operations outside of Canada and I want to show my solidarity with my brothers and sisters throughout the developing world by supporting the bill through second reading.

As the late Rosemary Brown said, “unless all of us are free, none of us will be free”. It is time for our government to take global corporate accountability seriously and set out clear expectations and consequences for all Canadian companies operating abroad.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak about our Conservative government's commitment to promoting corporate social responsibility, or CSR practices, for extractive sector companies operating abroad.

I am very encouraged by the progress our government has made over the years with regard to CSR. This government not only encourages this approach to doing business but sees an active role for itself in supporting companies to develop and implement CSR practices.

In this regard, we share the goal of this bill in ensuring that Canadian companies follow the best possible practices at home and abroad. However, I am concerned that legislating corporate activity forces companies to follow a bureaucratic set of rules rather than to be innovative and create best practices that respond to a particular circumstance. The CSR best practices for one company in one region may not be suitable for another company operating elsewhere.

Not only would Bill C-300 limit the scope of CSR activities for Canadian companies by being too prescriptive, it would severely impair the ability of this government to provide the necessary guidance and assistance to avoid or mitigate potential problems. I should also point out that Bill C-300 is unnecessary.

The Canadian government's departments and crown corporations, implicated in the legal framework proposed by Bill C-300, already have in place a number of policies and guidelines to ensure that their clients are good corporate citizens. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is undertaking a comprehensive initiative to improve the capacity of its trade and diplomatic offices in Canada and abroad, so that they will have the information and tools that they need to provide timely and effective CSR counsel, advice and advocacy to our companies operating abroad.

A key element of this government's CSR approach has been adherence to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, which recommend voluntary benchmarks for responsible business conduct. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is home to Canada's national Contact point, a senior level official responsible for promoting awareness of the OECD guidelines and for reviewing reports of specific instances of non-compliance with these guidelines.

In addition, Export Development Canada, or EDC, established in 2005 a compliance officer to enhance its transparency and accountability. Much like an ombudsman, the compliance officer operates independently from EDC management, reviewing complaints from stakeholders and promoting dialogue.

Withdrawing the support from these organizations provided to Canadian companies, as Bill C-300 proposes, would restrict access to vital services and financial capital. It would be counterproductive to promoting CSR best practices within the extractive sector and would put Canadian companies at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Furthermore, the proposed legislative changes would not have their intended effect. Cutting companies off from government assistance after they encounter a problem overseas is precisely the wrong thing to do. It would only serve to exacerbate the issue, further damaging Canada's reputation and that of our companies operating abroad. The preferred approach of this government is to give them the tools and information they need to avoid these problems in the first place.

As we know, in 2006 the government hosted a series of national round tables on CSR and the Canadian extractive sector in developing countries. Following these round tables, the advisory group presented their recommendations on how Canadian companies could meet or exceed leading international CSR standards and practices. Since the conclusion of the round table process, the government has met with representatives of the extractive industries and civil society in a variety of fora to continue the dialogue on a number of issues related to trade and development, including CSR.

On March 26, 2009, the Conservative government tabled its new CSR policy in Parliament, entitled “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector”. This new strategy was developed through consultations undertaken with a number of stakeholders, including the national round tables, as well as recommendations raised by the former Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

“Building the Canadian Advantage” will improve the competitive advantages of companies in the Canadian international extractive sector by enhancing their ability to manage social environmental risks. This strategy is founded on four key pillars, which I would like to outline today.

The first pillar calls for continuing assistance from CIDA for developing-country governments to enhance their capacity to manage natural resources in a sustainable and responsible manner.

The Conservative government recognizes that resource governance, transparency and accountability in developing countries are critical to ensuring that the extractive sector contributes to poverty reduction. These factors are also essential for creating a business environment that is conducive to responsible corporate conduct in countries where Canadian companies operate.

The first pillar builds on existing initiatives where CIDA has played a key role. For example, in Peru, CIDA has worked extensively with the government, mining companies and affected communities to develop regulatory requirements for social and environmental management. CIDA has also assisted Bolivia to establish a tax collection unit for hydrocarbon, generating over $1 billion in annual revenues that have been reinvested in public services for impoverished Bolivians.

The second pillar of the strategy calls for the promotion of internationally recognized voluntary CSR performance and reporting guidelines. Building on Canada's adherence to the OECD guidelines, the government will promote the following international CSR performance guidelines.

First is the international finance corporation performance standards on social and environmental sustainability for extractive projects with potential adverse social or environmental impacts. This is the de facto performance benchmark for projects in developing countries that require substantial financial investment.

Second is the voluntary principles on security and human rights for projects involving private or public security forces. At the 2009 plenary in Oslo, Canada was welcomed to this process as the first engaged government under the new participation framework.

Third is the global reporting initiative, or GRI, for CSR reporting by the extractive sector to enhance transparency and encourage market-based rewards for good CSR performance. The government will work with stakeholders to develop GRI supplements for oil and gas and junior mining companies. These widely-recognized international standards will form the basis for Canada's commitment to increasing the quality and quantity of voluntary CSR reporting by Canadian companies operating overseas.

The third pillar of the strategy involves support for the development of a new CSR centre of excellence.

The government is currently discussing with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum in Montreal to provide a home for the CSR centre of excellence.

Finally, the fourth pillar of the strategy calls for the creation of a new office of the extractive sector CSR counsellor. This office would be responsible for providing assistance in the resolution of social and environmental issues related to Canadian companies operating abroad in this sector. The counsellor will review and document the CSR practices of Canadian extractive companies operating abroad and advise stakeholders on the implementation of CSR performance guidelines.

Requests for review by the counsellor may originate from an individual, group or community, or their representative, that reasonably believes that it may be adversely affected by the activities of a Canadian extractive company outside Canada. The counsellor will undertake reviews with the full consent of the involved parties. The counsellor will issue a public statement after each review and submit an annual report to be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of International Trade.

The strategy calls upon all Canadian companies working internationally to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with the host government and local communities, and to develop and implement CSR best practices. The strategy also proposes a voluntary dispute resolution process that ensures fast and effective results, while remaining independent and at arms reach from government.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that the Government of Canada, including the departments, agencies and crown corporations implicated in this bill actively support CSR principles and have independently taken steps to promote social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is absolutely essential in a globally competitive, well-regarded extractive sector. However, Bill C-300 is not an efficient, effective nor desirable mechanism for achieving this end.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour have already spoken very eloquently to this question, as have others I will just add a few brief comments from my own perspective.

Once we lived in a disconnected world, protected by distance, geography, oceans, mountains and deserts. Once governments and corporations could do anything they wanted, wherever they wanted to do it without any real consequences. That is no longer the case.

Now we live in a very connected world. Economic problems do not respect borders or distance nor do greenhouse gases, disease or security. What we do in one place as governments and corporations affects all of us at home in our place. That is the reality of the global world in which we live.

As to the impact of corporations on international relations, let us look at the history of the last 50 years, at the last century and more in Central America, South America, Africa and the Middle East and at what some companies have left behind. As the member for Ottawa South has said, they have left tailings and environment degradation, but some companies have also left a resentment toward the home countries of those companies that many years and decades later still define the relationship between those two countries, still define the understandings that those citizens have of those foreign countries.

Those are immense consequences for all of us, not just the companies, to deal with. It is those realities that are behind the need for Bill C-300.

About two years ago, I was in Sudan and Darfur and, like everyone else, I was haunted by Darfur. I tried to imagine what possible resolution there might be to its ongoing tragedy. What was so clear and so frustrating was the capacity of a country, Sudan, and its president, no matter the vehemence of world opinion, to do what it wanted to do if it wanted to do it with no real transforming consequences, to bog down, to distract with false hope, to wear out the patience, whatever, to do what it wanted to do.

Every governmental representative I spoke with from Canada and from other countries and every NGO said the same thing, that they were having no real impact on changing President Bashir's direction.

Only one country and one company could have an impact if they choose to do something and that country was China and the company was the state company of China Petroleum. Almost 80% of Sudan's GDP came from oil and the great majority of its oil goes to China Petroleum.

With China and China Petroleum's ongoing support, despite other sanctions and despite being charged by the International Criminal Court, Bashir knows he can continue on. What will be the results for Africa, for the world and for China's future in Africa? There are consequences of our global and corporate actions halfway around the world, and big consequences for the future.

One other thing I heard again and again in Sudan and Darfur was, “Where's Canada?” Beyond the aid offered, where was the voice, the diplomatic voice with those of many other nations that was needed to help bring this situation toward a human resolution?

What I kept hearing was that Canada had no idea how influential it was, that we had no history as a colonizer, no history of intervening or imposing on other nations, militarily or economically, and that we had no real history of exploiting and taking advantage of local governments and local populations. They trust us and know they can work with us. They know our reputation and it is a well-earned reputation. Our reputation is precious and it matters. It matters now and it will matter in the future.

In this global world, nobody is really the big guy. Even the United States, with all of its power, economically and militarily, nobody is truly that big and that powerful in a global world.

Our challenge for the future, even more than economic, environmental or security, is the challenge of getting along, and that means working with others and talking, listening, negotiating and compromising. That means trusting and being trusted.

That is our history and our instinct. That is our reputation and we cannot put it at risk. What Canadian companies do outside our borders matters. It matters to Canadians and it matters to the world, which is why Bill C-300 matters.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

The issue of social and environmental responsibility for Canadian companies abroad, particularly Canadian mining companies, has long been a concern for the Bloc Québécois.

Canada is a world leader in the mining industry. It has a huge presence in Africa, where most companies are Canadian or American and are incorporated or listed in Canada.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies when operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach.

Also, we have always defended the recommendations in the advisory group report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, whose recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry.

While Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction, we believe it has flaws in terms of what the national roundtables advisory group recommended. For example, Bill C-300 does not provide any clear, independent and transparent process to ensure accountability or to monitor Canadian companies' compliance with accountability standards.

Here is a review of Bill C-300 by Delphine Abadie, Alain Deneault and William Sacher, the authors of Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique, published by Écosociété in 2008.

First, the bill does not take the Canadian International Development Agency's policies and activities into account.

Second, it does not take Export Development Canada's lack of transparency into account.

Third, it does not take into account instances of political interference attributed, in some cases, to Canadian diplomacy in southern countries on behalf of Canadian mining interests.

Fourth, it does not take into account the harmful role of the Toronto Stock Exchange in the appreciation of mining claims often obtained suspiciously in southern countries.

Fifth, it does not say whether and under what terms, Canadian companies can or could be prosecuted civilly or criminally in Canada for injurious actions attributed to them abroad.

Sixth, it does not provide for an independent body to receive complaints from foreign nationals, leaving it rather to the minister.

Seventh, it does not provide a process to evaluate the damages to populations outside Canada and consider implementing redress programs.

Eighth, it totally ignores the numerous cases of abuse by Canadian companies already recorded in many credible documents. I am thinking of expert reports from the United Nations, parliamentary reports, conferences held in parliamentary precincts, reports from independent organizations like Amnesty International and Global Witness, comprehensive investigative reporting, compelling documentaries, assessments by recognized experts, and so.

Here are some representative cases cited in Noir Canada with respect to Canadian mining companies' detrimental activities in Africa.

The first example is from Bulyanhulu, Tanzania. In the summer of 1996, bulldozers and the national police force were used to expropriate several hundred small-scale miners and clear the way for Canada's Sutton Mining to exploit the area. Fifty-two people were buried alive in that operation. Sutton Mining was then bought by another Canadian company, Barrick Gold. Canada's diplomatic service was actively involved in the affair; allegations of interference are well founded. The Government of Norway, the Lawyer's Environmental Action Team, Friends of the Earth, Rights & Democracy—an organization founded by the federal government itself—Mining Watch and master's student Dennis Tessier have all stated publicly that these allegations are credible and alarming.

The second example is Banro, a company that helped kindle the bloody conflict in the African Great Lakes region in eastern Congo between 1997 and 2002. Millions died in that conflict, and untold distress was inflicted on the people in the form of rape, recruitment of child soldiers and destruction of villages.

The third example has to do with Diama-Manantali and Sadiola. The Canadian International Development Agency steadfastly supported dam construction projects that profited Canadian engineering firms. These dams, which have a catastrophic impact on the people—think of floods, loss of arable land, ecosystem destruction, disease, social tension and so on—allowed IamGold to turn a 38% profit on operating an open pit mine in Sadiola, another project with a disastrous impact on the people.

The fourth example is the Talisman corporation, which had to leave Sudan after, according to several sources, it apparently ordered the Sudanese army to violently remove any civilian presence in the vicinity of its development site. This passage from Noir Canada shows that Talisman was pressured to leave Sudan because it was registered on the New York stock exchange, not just the Toronto exchange.

Another book that has been written on this topic is Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, published by Hyperion in 2007. On page 62 is a paragraph that reads:

The Sudanese regime, supported by Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese oil companies, was able to wipe out whole populations in south-central Sudan, leaving the way clear for the oil companies to start pumping the oil.

This information is supported by a memo from the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The book I quoted from has an introduction written by none other than Barack Obama, who was then a U.S. senator, and a preface by Elie Wiesel.

Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction. But to put an end to injustices by Canadian and foreign mining, gas and oil companies, we must make sure that they fully respect human rights and environmental rights, without exception.

The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion that C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corporate social responsibility and Canadian extractive industry in developing countries

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for having his private member's motion drawn so early in the private member's lottery. I would also like to congratulate him for presenting such a worthwhile motion on such an important issue.

I am honoured to speak to the motion and I am honoured to have seconded the motion.

The motion dovetails with Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, presented by the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I would also like to congratulate members of the Development and Peace movement. I personally received over 500 signature cards from members of that organization who live in my riding.

I would like to thank those who sensitized me on the issue through private conversations either at town hall meetings or in my office, namely, Brian McDonough, André Bergeron, Dr. Mona Abbondanza.

I would like to thank those individuals who visited me in my riding office to discuss the issue and to impress upon me the importance of implementing the recommendations that my hon. colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard no doubt worked on when he was a member of the foreign affairs committee in the 38th Parliament.

I would like to thank Jack Zylak, Nathalie Doiron, Patricia Oliveri, Nelson Furtado, Thérèse Pereira, Lynn Jansen, June Francis, Yvonne Bourque, and Monica Lambton. These individuals worked hard to collect the signatures on the over 500 cards that I received. They have done a remarkable job of advocating for this cause.

All of us in the House are familiar with citizen lobby campaigns that use, among other things, direct mail techniques, but rarely have I seen such a professional, effective and strategic effort on the part of such a good cause.

I would like to give members a little context. As I mentioned, this initiative comes out of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which, during the first session of the 38th Parliament, became concerned about the increasing evidence that some Canadian resource extraction companies were conducting their operations in developing countries without adequate regard for local, social, environmental and human rights standards.

Accordingly, the committee recommended that the government undertake a comprehensive study of the issue by meeting with relevant industry associations, non-governmental organizations, development experts, environmentalists, human rights advocates, and government officials to determine the best course of action to move the issue forward.

As a result of that, the previous Liberal government initiated national round tables on corporate social responsibility and the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries.

What followed was 10 months of rigorous and meticulous negotiations and discussions with representatives from the extractive industry, advocacy groups, academics, government, and members of the public, all of which culminated in a report containing the very recommendations we are discussing today.

Canadian mining companies do not intend to violate environmental rights or human rights in developing countries. Often they are operating in very difficult jurisdictions that do not have appropriate laws and regulations. The executives of these companies are obviously operating at a distance from where the mining activities are taking place.

As we deplete mining resources, mining operations must go further into the outlands of the various countries in which they operate where no doubt the situation is even more nebulous and hard to monitor.

That is why one of the recommendations that came out of the advisory group's report, namely the recommendation that we create a mining ombudsman, would be so important. It would provide a conduit for information about what is going on in the field in these developing countries, a conduit for information not only to the government and to Canadian citizens at large, but to mining executives in Canada who would no doubt use that information to take appropriate action.

The mining ombudsperson would be mandated to ensure Canadian mining companies conduct their international resource extraction operations while adhering to standards of corporate social responsibility by, one, receiving and investigating complaints regarding potential violations of social or environmental standards by Canadian companies working abroad; two, quickly making recommendations to correct these violations; and three, releasing publicly the results of its investigations and recommendations for actions or sanctions.

For example, the ombudsman might recommend that the government withdraw services to an offending company such as by denying financial backing from Export Development Canada, discontinuing diplomatic support the company receives from Canadian consulates in developing countries, or disallowing Canadian tax deductions for tax paid to foreign governments.

The advisory group also recommends that the mining ombudsman play an advisory role, as I mentioned before, to focus the companies on situations on the ground, perhaps even to the point of helping to prevent conflicts in these countries and those regions of the country where the mining company is operating, before those conflicts begin.

Canada has made numerous contributions in the past to the progress of humankind through its foreign policy. We think, for example, of the treaty to ban antipersonnel landmines, which was a Canadian initiative. We think also of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, the doctrine that was developed by former Liberal member of Parliament and minister in Liberal governments, the hon. Lloyd Axworthy, an idea that was taken up by Paul Martin before and when he was prime minister, an idea that has been discussed and probed further by the current leader of the Liberal Party.

Canada has also been active through Liberal senators like Senator Dallaire, in terms of helping to address the problems in Sudan, namely in the Darfur region. We have another Canadian, Maude Barlow, who has made great efforts to raise awareness of water as an international environmental issue, an international human issue, and who is now special adviser on water to the president of the United Nations General Assembly.

We have a history as a nation of acting to promote humanitarian progress internationally. This is no different. This is an issue on which we can make a contribution, not least of all because Canada is a mining giant. Half of all mining projects in the world are associated with Canadian companies. We understand this industry, we understand how it operates, we have knowledge and experience, and we should use that knowledge and experience to reduce the hardships that many miners and communities that surround mines have endured for various reasons.

It is even part of our culture to understand that mining has many associated hardships. Of course, just about every province has a mining industry. The likes of Hugh MacLennan have written on the hardships of mining communities, and so on.

It is part of our culture and it is part of economic history, and we should use that to make the world a better place.