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.

Federal Courts Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to stand in this House to speak to Bill C-331, brought in by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I know this particular issue has been very dear to him over many Parliaments. It is really great to see that we are in the second hour of debate on Bill C-331, which means it is probably going to come to a vote next week. We will finally see where members of this House actually stand on this issue, because it does matter to a lot of people.

The long title of Bill C-331 is “An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)”. The reason this is so important is that, at present, human labour and environmental rights are subject to few concrete, effective enforcement mechanisms. This bill fills this need for the victims of international rights violations when there is no forum available to them in the country where the violations are taking place.

By way of addressing my Conservative colleagues' concerns, this is not going to result in a flood of people coming to Canada. It is really just providing a forum in Canada when no such legal option is available to the person in the place where the violation happened.

Specifically, Bill C-331 is going to allow non-citizens to bring a civil suit against anyone for gross violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, and for basic labour, environmental and human rights violations when they are committed outside the country. Furthermore, judges on the Federal Court would have to satisfy themselves that their court is an appropriate forum to hear these cases.

This legislation, if enacted, is not going to force the court to hear every single case. It still specifies within the bill that Federal Court judges will have the ability to judge the merits of each case before them, and whether in fact there is enough evidence to proceed with trial.

When we look at Bill C-331 in detail, it is an amendment to the Federal Courts Act. The bill would add a specific section 25.1 after the existing section 25. Some of the claims listed within the bill are genocide; a war crime or a crime against humanity; slavery or slave trading; extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of a person; torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment; prolonged arbitrary detention, and so on. These are crimes that really speak to some very horrible actions that take place around the world.

We are so very lucky to live in Canada under the rule of law. We have a judicial system that we place a lot of trust in. Generally, when people see police on the streets, we know they are doing their job. We have a lot of trust in those institutions, not only to keep us safe but also to hold people to account. In many places in the world, this is a luxury or simply does not exist.

Canadians, by and large, are fairly detached from some of the horrors that go on internationally. The unfortunate fact is that a lot of Canadian-based companies have actually been responsible for some of the worst behaviour around the world. We know some Canadian mining companies have been implicated in brutal crackdowns on local populations, because they were daring to protest a mining operation. They have employed paramilitary guards who have used sexual violence as a weapon. They have violated environmental rights by dumping mining tailings into a local drinking supply. These are companies that are based in Canada.

The issue here is to basically hold those companies accountable. We want to ensure that we are not engaging in a race to the bottom for economic reasons, while neglecting those very important rights.

We have corporations based here in Canada that generate a tremendous amount of wealth. That wealth is not equally distributed. Often, the wealth that is being generated is coming directly from the so-called global south and from countries that are rich in natural resources that are being exploited by companies, but the wealth is being unevenly distributed.

Therefore, corporate social responsibility should not be a voluntary thing. This is something we need to have firm legislation around and firm accountability. I believe that Bill C-331 is a step in the right direction.

If we look at Global Affairs Canada, we see, as I mentioned earlier, that 50% of the world's publicly listed exploration and mining companies are headquartered in Canada. If we look at the TSX, it is quite evident.

The federal government, just recently, in April, appointed Sheri Meyerhoffer as the first Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. Before I receive any applause from my Liberal colleagues, they may want to listen to the next part of my speech.

This is what the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability stated when that office was announced:

The government announced that it would create an independent office with the power to investigate. Instead, it unveiled a powerless advisory post, little different from what has already existed for years.

United Steelworkers Canada national director, Ken Neumann, said:

With today’s announcement...of the appointment of a special advisor, without the powers of an effective ombudsperson, this government has again disappointed thousands of Canadians who were expecting serious action on human rights.

Again, we cannot just create the office and then walk away without giving it the necessary powers, the legislative framework and the resources necessary to actually act on these particularly egregious crimes against humanity. As listed in Bill C-331, these are some of the worst crimes imaginable.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has long demonstrated a keen interest in this particular issue. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby, as I said in the introduction of my speech, has been pursuing this through multiple parliaments. Our former colleagues, Paul Dewar and Alexa McDonough, and the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood also saw this as an important thing. Several parliaments ago, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood presented Bill C-300, which unfortunately ran aground because not enough Liberals showed up at a key vote.

It is important that we act on this. It is a signal to citizens of countries where these rights do not exist. This is a signal to the world that Canada actually means what it says when talking about human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. Furthermore, we are actually going to provide a forum for the affected party to come here and use our Federal Court system to pursue justice. I can think of no better signal to the world than Canada actually standing by what it says and showing, through this proposed legislation, that it is going to follow through with it.

We have some great endorsements for this proposed legislation, and the endorsements have kept on coming from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. We have the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the National Union of Public and General Employees and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It is great to see Canadian civil society, and indeed international actors as well, come behind this legislation to recognize its importance.

To conclude, I am particularly and personally attached to this bill, because it is following in the same vein of what I am trying to do with my own private member's bill, Bill C-431, which would amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to make sure that our public pension monies are no longer invested in entities that are guilty of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights transgressions. It is particularly shameful, when we ask the Library of Parliament to do research, that we find the Canada pension plan still invested in companies that are committing these kinds of rights transgressions around the world.

I am happy to see that we are going to put force behind our words, as New Democrats always do. I congratulate the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on this important bill, and I look forward so very much to next week, when I can stand in the House and vote on it on behalf of my constituents.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this very important bill introduced by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. It is important to the New Democratic Party, because we have introduced it ourselves in several different forms in the past. I think this is really interesting. I am going to come at this subject from a different angle, by focusing on the Canadian aspect and the international aspect. I will also respond to the member for Winnipeg North's intervention.

First off, I want to point out that Canada already offers many advantages to mining companies. That goes a long way to explaining why over 50% of the world's mining and mineral exploration companies are headquartered in Canada. It is because we have a very permissive tax system and regulatory system, making Canada highly appealing to these corporations. On that note, I urge my colleagues to check out the work of Alain Deneault. He has written two fascinating books on this subject, Imperial Canada Inc. and Canada: A New Tax Haven. These books clearly demonstrate that the Canadian tax system was designed to minimize mining companies' tax obligations and corporate responsibility.

My colleague spoke of human rights violations in a number of countries. Over half of the world's mining companies are headquartered in Canada, which is why we need a way to hold them to account. We need to give the Federal Court the power to make these companies take responsibility for their actions and those of their executives and employees. We see that as crucial to ensuring true accountability, not just lip service.

Governments used to say that these companies were out of reach because they operate internationally. My colleague shared some examples of the many excuses that have been used, but none of them hold water. The excuses we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons do not hold water either. He said we do not necessarily need to give the Federal Court that power or have the Canadian justice system handle these issues because the government created the office of the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

The Liberals announced the creation of this office during their election campaign in 2015. Fifteen months ago, the government announced that the position was finally being created. The ombudsperson was appointed just this month, in April, but we still have not been given a breakdown of the duties of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. Organizations that monitor this file very closely, such as MiningWatch and the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, are not terribly impressed with the government's efforts. It makes no sense that the creation of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was announced 15 months ago, and we still have no idea what her job description entails.

This is crucial, because right now, the government, especially the minister of international trade, is under heavy lobbying from mining companies that are basically against increased powers for this office. They are opposed to the office being able to compel documents when it is investigating cases of mining company abuse in the world. They are opposed to the fact that this body could compel testimony from executives in mining companies. They have been heavily lobbied, as can be demonstrated through the lobby registry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claims that we do not need this legislation and its ramifications because the government has created something, but that simply does not cut it.

I find it interesting that he also referred to the efforts of one of his Liberal MP colleagues, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. He tabled Bill C-300, which was a step in the right direction. He said that it was a demonstration of the goodwill of the federal government on this file.

What he neglected to say is that at report stage for Bill C-300, back in October 2010, it failed by six votes. The bill was defeated by six votes. Fourteen Liberal MPs were missing during that vote, including the party leader, Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison and John McCallum. Most of the front bench did not show up for the vote on that bill. If there had been seven or eight more MPs, that bill would have passed. That shows that the Liberals had no intention of letting the bill through.

A bill like this is necessary because of the countless examples of abuse we have seen in the past, especially in the mining sector. The environment has been destroyed by these companies, and entire communities have suffered as a result.

People in these countries have been abused and even murdered, particularly those who were concerned with the workers' situation and tried to advocate on their behalf. Unspeakable atrocities have been committed, and the mining industry does not want to take responsibility for its actions.

The acting president of the Mining Association of Canada said that his organization does not support the investigative powers that human rights advocates and groups like MiningWatch want the office of the ombudsman for responsible enterprise to have.

I doubt they agree with my colleague's bill.

Mining companies will say that they have improved their practices and that they are better than they were at the end of the 2000s and early 2010s, but that is no excuse. I hope they have improved their practices because many of them were indefensible. It goes without saying that we are pleased that this is happening.

Does that mean we do not have to have a stronger framework and better tools, given that these practices may well re-emerge? Is this an excuse to get Canada out of requiring a minimum level of accountability and responsibility in exchange for the extremely good benefits it gives to mining companies?

The bill introduced by my colleague is indeed necessary. I sincerely hope that the government will take note and do what it should have done when it was in this position in 2010, namely stand up and vote in favour.

The bill is currently at second reading stage. We want the bill to at least be studied in committee, which would allow us to debate it and call witnesses from around the world. We want the countries that are currently being exploited by some of these mining companies to inform us of what has happened and why Canada should introduce measures to protect ourselves. The courts, police, and the systems of law and order in many countries where mining companies do business are not as developed and robust as ours.

We have the means to ensure that this accountability is not just lip service. Words are often forgotten and fade away. Accountability must be written into the law and the judicial process so that mining companies operating abroad start conducting themselves as they would here and be subject to the same monitoring and oversight they would have in Canada.

For all these reasons I will be voting for my colleague's bill and strongly urging all members of the House, whether in government or the opposition, to vote in favour of it. This will ensure that the bill is sent to committee and that we can start working on it to advance objectives and ideas that should have materialized a long time ago.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address what I believe is a very important issue, one which members on the government benches had talked about in opposition. It is an idea that I believe this government has addressed in a very tangible way, which the member across the way, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, somewhat pushed to the side, and that is the creation of the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

Let me make it very clear that Canadians have an expectation regarding corporate or company responsibility, not only within the boundaries of Canada, but even outside of our country. There is an expectation that our companies and corporations would behave in a manner that would reflect the kind of values we have here in Canadian society.

I know that, in a previous session, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood brought forward legislation, Bill C-300, that attempted to ensure there was more of a social conscience or accountability for mining corporations. It was my local high school, Sisler, that brought it to my attention and asked that I get behind my colleague and friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, someone who I believe has been a very strong advocate, not only in the last couple of years but for many years, for this critically important issue of the social responsibility of corporations and companies that go abroad. This government has taken that issue seriously.

As coincidence would have it, we just had the appointment of a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, Ms. Sheri Meyerhoffer. The Minister of International Trade Diversification appointed her on April 8, 2019. The ombudsperson will review allegations of human rights abuses arising from activities of Canadian companies abroad. For companies found to be involved in wrongdoing abroad, the ombudsperson can recommend measures, which could include the withdrawal of certain government services, such as trade advocacy. The ombudsperson can also make specific recommendations to companies, including in relation to compensation, apology or corporate policy changes. I think that clearly demonstrates a government that is really in tune with the type of values Canadians have.

We can take a look at the fine work that members, and I have cited my colleague, have done over the years, reflecting what I believe his constituents and the constituents of many of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber have been able to express, which is the expectation and value system we have, that it is not good to violate basic human rights outside of our boundaries and we need to be able to support that in whatever way we can. In a relatively short span, we had a very aggressive agenda on a wide variety of things that have had a real impact on Canada's middle class. I can tell members that this critically important issue has become a top priority and we have seen specific action taken by this government. When I look at the issue, I feel very comfortable knowing that, with this ombudsperson, we will have a positive impact.

I come from the city of Winnipeg, where we have the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. I drive by it every other week, when I am in Winnipeg and not in Ottawa. It is a beautiful symbol that constantly reminds Winnipeggers who drive by it or see it in Google searches just how important the issue of human rights really is for the constituents I represent and indeed anyone who is associated with Winnipeg and far beyond.

However, it is fair to say that Canadians recognize the importance of that issue. It is one of the reasons why this government has seen such an aggressive approach to provide some sort of action that would see tangible results. That will happen with the appointment of the Canadian ombudsperson, who will be responsible for enterprise. That is a good thing.

The proposed bill will amend the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to certain claims involving violations of international law outside of Canada. Under existing law, the superior courts of the provinces and territories can hear lawsuits involving events that occur outside of Canada if there is enough of a connection to Canada. Lawsuits alleging that Canadian companies have been involved in violations of international human rights abroad, which involve claims for negligence or other violations of Canadian or foreign law, are based on existing bodies of law.

The question of whether the common law also allows a person to claim damages in a superior court, specifically for a violation of customary international law, is at issue in the case of Nevsun v. Araya, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in January.

Unlike the superior courts, the Federal Court generally does not handle cases against companies or individuals for actions taken outside of Canada. The Federal Court's jurisdiction is limited both by the Federal Courts Act and by the Constitution. The Federal Court mostly hears cases involving judicial review of the decisions of federal boards and tribunals, lawsuits against the federal government and cases involving patents or maritime law. Civil claims between private parties do not usually end up in Federal Court except in those areas.

The bill would amend the Federal Courts Act to provide that the court may exercise jurisdiction over certain cases involving violations of international law outside of Canada. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said, the bill was modelled on the U.S. Alien Tort Statute, or ATS. It provides “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The ATS has been controversial in the United States and there has been a lot of litigation about its scope. This has included disagreements about what kinds of claims are covered and the application of the statute to foreign defendants and corporations. Bill C-331's main provision is more complicated than the ATS, but the idea is very similar.

I would like to make some observations about the kinds of cases in which the federal court would have jurisdiction.

First, Bill C-331 appears to give Federal Court jurisdiction over existing types of legal things rather than creating new ones. It provides that the Federal Court will have jurisdiction to hear cases involving claims respecting conduct that arises from violation of international law. Jurisdiction delineates the scope of the court's authority, either territorially or by subject matter. Jurisdiction is not the same as the right of legal remedy.

For example, the Federal Courts Act gives the Federal Court jurisdiction in all case in which relief is a claim against the Crown. However, that does not mean the Federal Court can address any complaint a Canadian might have about the federal government. The act gives the court jurisdiction, but the court can only give a remedy if one is provided by Canadian law, for example, by a law governing contracts if the claim is one of breach of contract.

Second, the bill would grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court rather than the provincial superior courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the Federal Court can only hear certain kinds of cases. It needs permission from Parliament in the form of a statutory grant of jurisdiction. In addition, the case must also be governed by an existing body of federal law.

I want to emphasize why it is important for us to recognize what this government has been able to accomplish on the trade file. We recognize the importance of international trade. We have also recognized the very critical importance of ensuring that companies and corporations behave in such a way that reflects what Canadian values truly are all about.

That is why, on April 8, we put in place the first Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. It is all a part of corporate responsibility. It is about international trade. It is about protecting Canadians, not only in Canada but also to protect people and human rights abroad.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his work. This is certainly not the first version of this bill. I believe he has gone through the 40th Parliament, the 41st Parliament and now the 42nd Parliament.

I know there may be some members who have qualms about this bill, but what is important to underline is that through this important amendment to the Federal Courts Act, we are not making the determination whether a case has merit; we are simply allowing an additional forum for plaintiffs to access the justice system. Ultimately, it is the justice system that will determine whether a case has merit and whether the plaintiffs are to be awarded funds.

In past parliaments, we have seen the Liberals support bills like Bill C-300. We know there are good intentions on the other side of the House to support these kinds of initiatives. I would like the member to just underline the important fact of his bill, for anyone who might have qualms about this, that this is simply enabling an avenue and it will still ultimately be up to the justice system to determine the merit of a case.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for corporate social responsibility in Canada. In the 10 years since the introduction and ultimate defeat of Bill C-300, the responsible mining bill, Canada has evolved from a strong resistance to naming an ombudsman for the Canadian office of responsible enterprise. This office will help support Canadian companies around the world to operate in accordance with international human rights standards.

Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on the appointment of the ombudsperson and the establishment of her mandate?

Mining Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, nine years ago this month, I introduced a bill on corporate accountability, Bill C-300. It proposed the withdrawal of consular and financial support from Canadian mining companies found to have breached international human rights or environmental standards. Companies told us that this would be the end of western civilization as we knew it. Hell hath no fury like a mining company cut off from its money and support.

Needless to say, Bill C-300 nearly died several times as it made its way from the House to committee and back again. However, die it ultimately did by six votes. However, it had an afterlife and lived on in the imagination of civil society, the international press, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians. At one point, 450,000 petitions were presented to the former prime minister, and ignored.

January 17 was resurrection day for Bill C-300, with the announcement of the creation of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the previous and current ministers of international trade, and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who kept the dream of Bill C-300 alive.

Corporate Social Responsibility of Extractive Corporations Outside Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to share some thoughts in regard to Bill C-584.

At the outset, I want to say that as a caucus, Liberals have had the opportunity to go through the member's bill. My colleague from Montreal has already had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading. We have indicated that we do support the bill going to committee, because we do think there is a great deal of value. It is about ethical standards.

The House of Commons can play a role in terms of ensuring there is more corporate responsibility when it comes to international affairs, especially in the area of development proposals and mining, for example, in some of the underdeveloped countries. We recognize the value of that. In fact, other members in our caucus have attempted to do something of a similar nature, in the sense of trying to raise the bar for Canadian corporations that do business beyond our borders.

In particular, most recently the member for Scarborough—Guildwood introduced Bill C-300. I had the opportunity to speak to that bill. From what I can recall, it dealt with mining and oil and gas companies. It would have ensured there was a sense of transparency through an annual reporting, including showing payments. I use that as an example.

I have heard some of the comments from the government in terms of this type of legislation, and the government tends to want to resist or turn down the legislation. I think that is a mistake. There is a great deal of value in seeing legislation of this nature advance through the process.

I believe it would have been a great value for my colleague's bill, Bill C-300, to have gone to the next level. It came very close, in terms of the actual vote. I believe that a number of members from the Conservative Party saw the merit in that particular bill.

In essence, the bill did what was currently happening in the United States, in that standards are set in legislation. The U.S. is not the only country in the world that has already done that. My colleague, on behalf of the Liberal Party, in his particular initiative attempted to do something here in Canada that was actually being done in other countries. It would have had a very positive impact.

I listened to the previous speaker when he talked about his three- or four-point plan, and it seemed to me that the government is not open, from a legislative perspective, to playing a stronger international leadership role.

I believe Canada has good reason to get involved, and good reason to pass legislation of this nature.

Recently the Canadian Human Rights Museum, one of our national museums, opened in my home city of Winnipeg. That museum is all about human rights and the importance of human rights. If this bill were to see the light of day and it passed, it would go a long way in dealing with some of those human rights issues that we often hear about.

We need to be aware that it is a very small world nowadays. There are many different forms of media. Constituents are very much aware of world issues today, and this is one of those issues that is raised on an ongoing basis.

A year or so ago, I visited a high school just outside of Winnipeg North. There was a group of students from grade 11 or grade 10, who wanted to talk about what role Canada should be playing in terms of corporate social responsibility in developing countries.

This is very admirable. It is encouraging to sit in a classroom and hear grade 10 or grade 11 students who get it. They understand that Canada has a role to play in dealing with international exploitation.

We know people are forced to work in horrendous conditions. We know many developing countries have all kinds of exploitation. We know there are Canadian investments and corporations, both private and non-profit, in many of those countries, where the exploitation of workers or the environment takes place. Because of the involvement of those Canadian-based companies or agencies, there is an opportunity for us to demonstrate, as those students did, that we understand what happens beyond our borders and that when there are those serious violations, whether it is on human rights or the environment, we are prepared to act where we can.

If we acknowledge that, what we should give the signal that we would like to see the bill go to the committee.

What does the government have to lose by allowing the bill to go to committee? We could then hear from some of the NGOs and other stakeholders on what they would like to contribute to the larger debate.

The idea in the bill is to have an ombudsman, an individual who has the responsibility of establishing some guidelines, putting things into place, then administering it and ensuring that it is being followed. It is definitely an idea that we should allow to go forward. There are number of things we could allow to move forward.

I made reference to my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood' bill, Bill C-300, from the previous session. If we had allowed that to go forward and it was passed, it would have meant that we had acted upon something that other countries had done.

There is a litany of different ideas are out there. We should try, as much as possible, to listen to our constituents to get a better understanding of what they believe. I think they believe there is a social responsibility for corporations, companies and non-profits that do business in those countries to do something when the people or the environment are exploitated, and we can.

The government should recognize there is a need for Canada to play some leadership role in this. I would challenge the government to come up with ideas and fulfill the leadership role that has been lacking to date.

Conflict Minerals Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora, because I am forever standing in this place saying that we should be working together, sharing information, and trying to make bills better. I hate to use the word “conflict“ when we are talking about this issue, but oftentimes, between the two sides of the House, there is more conflict than co-operation.

I would like to commend the member for the speech she gave. Now, after saying that, I take issue with a couple of points, but I will address only one. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill, the member for Ottawa Centre, will discuss later with the government other areas they seem to have concerns about.

When we say “voluntary”, to me that fails the test of true due diligence. I come from farm country, and that is like saying to the fox that we trust it not to come near our henhouse. It would likely not work there.

Again, it is very important in the House, especially as this session is winding down, that there be a glimmer of a possibility that all sides will work together on an important issue.

For the viewers who are just joining us now in this important debate, I would like to reiterate the fact that Bill C-486, once passed, would require Canadian companies using minerals from the Great Lakes region of Africa to practise public due diligence. I stress that word. It would ensure that no armed groups that are engaged in illegal activities would benefit from the extraction, processing, or use of these minerals.

In my past speeches I have often referred to Hollywood versions of stories. There was a movie made in the last five to eight years called Blood Diamond. It highlighted in a very personal way the particular problems in that part of the world.

The most important feature of Bill C-486 is that it would allow Canadians to know whether minerals that may have contributed to funding or fuelling a conflict are in the products they have purchased. It would empower them, as consumers, to make an informed choice. It would not order them to do anything, but it would be guidance that an awful lot of responsible Canadians would appreciate having.

This bill would continue the NDP's agenda on corporate social responsibility. It would have an important role in enhancing, as I said, consumer knowledge and control of purchasing choices. As the critic for international human rights, I can tell the House that New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian industry abroad.

I will step back for just a moment. The member for Newmarket—Aurora mentioned the Dodd-Frank bill. I had the pleasure a couple of years back of spending two hours with Barney Frank in Washington and listening to his passion. The member was fairly critical of aspects of his bill, such as the length of time and the delay. That would be an area I would suggest the member for Ottawa Centre discuss as well. If there is a better way of doing it, we would certainly want to look at it.

I remember that not that long after I was elected in 2006, we had Bill C-300. There was excitement in our activist community about the potential the bill had for holding Canadian companies to the same standards in foreign countries they are held to in Canada. As I recall, sadly, the bill failed by about 12 votes. More sadly, there were 15 Liberals who did not come into the House to vote. That bill was sponsored by a Liberal at the time, so there was significant disappointment.

Because Canadian extractive companies are among the most successful in the world, a fact that we are proud of, we believe that it is important that they lead in responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices in the world's extractive sector.

In my role as the critic for international human rights, I met, in a three-week period, indigenous groups from five countries. They were from the Philippines, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, and Guatemala. When they came before me, they made suggestions that bordered on accusations that Canadian mining interests in their countries were complicit in pushing them off their lands.

I do not think Canadian companies would do that with deliberate intent, but certainly the governments they deal with in their daily business often have people in charge who are prepared to do nearly anything for money, for greed. Therefore, when something comes before us that would make sure that Canadian companies are responsible and do not allow practices such as pushing people off their land, that to me is very satisfying.

Bill C-486 at its best is part of an international trend toward due diligence and corporate responsibility. Again, the member opposite, in her speech, referred to the OECD, the United States, and other countries. If legislators enforced regulations, it would no doubt lead to a more level playing field for all Canadian companies.

One of the fair arguments that could come from the government side is that if we put restrictions on Canadian companies that are not put on other international companies in that part of the world, that could be seen as handcuffing them and holding them back. Now that there is a broader consensus out there about the need for this particular type of legislation, there is less possibility of that.

Further, I believe that this bill would go far in ensuring environmental, labour, and human rights protections of which all Canadians can be proud. We know that when we talk to Canadians and listen to them, their expectation is that in Canada our corporate citizens will abide by all these laws, and for the most part they certainly do. However, they also expect that these companies will do the same thing abroad when they are working in other countries.

At its worst, the international illegal exploitation and trade of minerals from the Great Lakes region of Africa is funding and fuelling one of the deadliest armed conflicts, I would say, since the Second World War. Canadians are just now coming to understand that many of these conflict minerals, as various speakers have mentioned, end up in many of their products, such as cellphones and even tin cans and medical devices. One of the things I kind of smiled at was that they are in jet engines. I do not know quite how they would wind up there, because they are certainly not technically inclined in that area.

Clearly Canadians need support and guidance if they are looking to understand what products they should avoid.

Members no doubt know that mineral profits in the conflict zones provide revenues from trade, taxes, bribes, and fees imposed by armed groups, and those are substantial. Conflict minerals account for up to 95% of the revenues of these groups. Clearly, those minerals literally keep some armed groups in business.

More than half of all the mines, and all but one major mine in the eastern DRC, are controlled by armed groups that may also impose illegal taxes on minerals transported through the territory they control, which brings to mind what is happening in Iraq today. The insurgency in Iraq has taken over part of an oil field, and they are actually selling that oil and getting money, even though they illegally took it over. It is being reported in the news.

Much of the DRC's mineral output is smuggled into countries. Again, that goes to the heart of what the member across the way asked. Where do we do the audit, upstream or downstream? That is something to consider.

One of the things I am pleased to say is that virtually all the main technology companies are now watching where they purchase their materials, such as BlackBerry—a good Canadian company that I hear today is doing a little better than it had been—Microsoft, Apple, and Nokia. These companies are starting to take steps to avoid using conflict minerals in their products. As was said, the OECD also made moves, I believe, in May 2011.

It is very important that a country like Canada maintains it international reputation and takes a lead in this area.

Corporate Social Responsibility of Extractive Corporations Outside Canada Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this legislation forward. I was delighted to second the bill.

I want to pick up on what my colleague from the Liberal Party said. I am heartened to hear that the Liberal Party supports this legislation.

The last time we debated similar legislation put forward by the member's colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, the Liberal Party unfortunately did not support it entirely. At the time, the Liberal leader and some members of the front bench could not find a way to support Bill C-300, so I am glad the Liberals will be supporting sending the bill to committee.

These are really important initiatives. We have already had an overview of what the bill proposes to do, but for those members who are hearing about this legislation for the first time, it essentially says that Canadian companies doing business abroad should more or less follow the same rules that they follow here. That is essentially the theory around this legislation and that is what the round table came up with.

The round table, as has been mentioned, included members of civil society, industry, and government. Ed Broadbent, who formerly represented my riding, was very much a part of moving that forward.

Then Alexa McDonough had a bill similar to the one we are debating now; I also had a similar bill, and my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood put forward Bill C-300. We have had a lot of debate and discussion.

The government has said that it has acted. It has talked about its CSR Counsellor being in place. The government felt that this was taking care of people's concerns about the behaviour of Canadian extractive companies abroad. However, when that position was created, we all noted that the position was actually toothless.

It is important to note the title of counsellor, not ombudsman. When complaints came in, the counsellor did not have the power to investigate them. The problem with the counsellor position was that it was incumbent upon both parties, the party making the accusation and the company, to accept an investigation. To no one's surprise, there were not many investigations. The CSR Counsellor was not effective at all.

My colleague has brought this issue back to the House of Commons. It is fantastic to see the progress that has been made because of civil society. It really should be noted that civil society has incredible leverage, particularly when it comes to both foreign policy and domestic policy. Development and Peace and unions such as steelworkers that are involved with extractive companies have been front and centre in making this issue known to Canadians and to politicians. They want them to move forward, and they have not let up. They want Canada to be smart about what we do abroad and proud of what we do abroad. That way Canadian companies abroad are seen as responsible actors.

Development and Peace, the faith communities, unions, and everyday Canadians have been carrying this flag and making sure that we do not lose sight of this issue. It is terrific that my colleague has taken it up. She is carrying on the work that was done before.

I also want to acknowledge the change in mindset of the mining sector. In particular, for the record, I want to cite the Mining Association of Canada. This organization has written to government to advocate what we heard from my Liberal colleague, which is to bring in regulations on what we call “publish what you pay”, meaning that the transactions that any company does abroad would be made public. They want to see consequences if companies do not make those transactions public.

The government has said it is consulting on this issue, but industry is ahead of government. What is going on here? We need to get the government to listen more carefully, not just to Canadians but to industry as well. The government has to get on board and get moving on this issue.

I will read what the association said on this issue. It was noted, and I will not be surprising some members, that there was a bit of tension between industry and civil society representatives on the last iteration of this legislation, Bill C-300.

Here is what the Mining Association of Canada is saying in a letter to government:

The function of the Office of the CSR Counsellor should...be focused on the “front end” [at the beginning of the process] of any request for a review...to clarify the issues and the guidelines involved, to encourage the parties to address the issues through direct dialogue under local-level mechanisms, and to advise parties on the implementation of the guidelines. MAC believes companies will be motivated to participate in this front end of the process, as they have participated in the initial stages of the requests for review brought to the Office to date, and as an alternative to other, more formal forms of review.

It goes on to say, and here is the important part:

This first step is essentially to determine the nature of the dispute and whether mediation could be effective in resolving it. In MAC's view, this first step should be mandatory: a company's refusal to participate in this front-end process should have as a consequence a loss of public support for the proponent's project by the Government of Canada's Trade Commissioner service.

It is industry that is saying this. This is progress. This is the Mining Association of Canada acknowledging that collectively the industry has a responsibility to engage when there are concerns and complaints about activities on the ground.

The government says that somehow this is not in its domain. It is extra-territorial. It cannot be involved in these things, et cetera. Industry is saying no; we need to be engaged.

We have seen incredible advancement. We have seen engagement. What we need to see from government is to be at least at the same level as industry and adopt these measures that have been put forward.

The reason is that, when we see mining operations abroad—and we see it, frankly, here in Canada and we see it with gas and oil as well—and the fact that companies can make a profit from mining, no one has a concern around that. However, when we see that people's human rights are abused or that the environment on which they rely is being negatively affected and they feel they have no voice at all, what are their choices? I have Bill C-486 before the House on conflict minerals,

When mining companies, extractive industries, or oil and gas companies are abroad, they are not just any companies; these are Canadians companies, and there are certain values and responsibilities, I will say, that go with that.

We have heard stories of mining companies hiring security firms to clear the land, so anyone who protests any of the developments is cleared off the land and sometimes people are killed. This is extraordinarily troubling for many of us, but the question is, what are we going to do about it? Will we just continue to listen to these grievances, or will we act?

That is why the bill is so important. It says that there is a responsibility for the Government of Canada to have an objective person to oversee the concerns that may arise because of our activity abroad.

CSR is a great term. The problem I have noted over the last number of years is that it seems to only apply in-house to business and the corporate side. Frankly, I think it is quite obvious to many that it should be something that government adopts, that the cornerstone of part of our trade policy and our foreign policy should be corporate social responsibility, and the Canadian government should ensure this happens.

We just had some great debates in our foreign affairs committee about what happened in Bangladesh with the Rana Plaza collapse. Over 1,000 people died a year ago, on April 24. Why? It was because there were not proper standards and because the integrity of the building was not kept up. What happened? We saw 1,100 people die, many of them children, most of them women.

We can do better. We need to have oversight. The bill is a reasonable offer. We can make sure that when Canadian companies are operating abroad, we can say in good faith that they are following the same values and the same regulations that we want to see them follow here.

I would ask the government to at least look at what is being proposed and see if we can improve it, so that we can be proud Canadians when Canadian companies are operating abroad.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-584, although I have to admit I am disappointed with what I have just heard from the government side, which seems to suggest that everything is going along perfectly and there is no need to do very much. In fact, if one looks at what it has been doing, it has been dragging its feet for a very long time.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for this initiative. She is headed in the right direction and the Liberal Party will support this bill, An Act respecting the Corporate Social Responsibility Inherent in the Activities of Canadian Extractive Corporations in Developing Countries.

I would like to begin by thanking the large number of my constituents who wrote to me about this bill and about their concerns regarding the activities of Canadian mining companies in foreign countries. We would not be hearing from them if everything was going along perfectly.

Many Canadians care deeply about these sorts of issues and want to see us holding ourselves to a higher standard. I share those concerns and wishes. As I will be arguing, it is in everyone's interest that Canada adopt the highest possible standards in this area.

Corporate social responsibility is an important issue, and Bill C-584 is one of several private members' bills that have been introduced in recent years that seek to better regulate the activities of Canadian corporations working in the extractive sector.

My own colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, for example, introduced a bill in the previous Parliament. It was called Bill C-300. I have to commend him for this, because he really did make a very honest effort to address corporate social responsibility in the mining sector. It was a private member's bill that would have been the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. legislation passed in September of 2013, which requires mining and oil and gas corporations to submit annual transparency reports that disclose all financial payments provided by them to foreign governments for the purposes of furthering mining or oil and gas industry activities.

The bill before us today shares the same basic goal as the bill advanced by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, but approaches it from a different angle by proposing to establish an ombudsman who would be responsible for:

(a) creating guidelines respecting the best practices to be followed by corporations in their extractive activities in developing countries; and(b) monitoring the corporations’ extractive activities to ensure compliance with the guidelines.

Earlier I mentioned the importance of corporate social responsibility. This is important because it is through a good regime of transparency and ethical safeguards that corporations acquire the social licence to operate successfully.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood put it eloquently in a past speech, when he explained that:

Social license is more than a stack of legal documents and geological surveys; rather it is the social permission of the people affected to mine the minerals. Sometimes the people are well represented by their government and sometimes not.

The Canadian government has an obligation to ensure that companies based here are not engaged in corrupt activities that encourage foreign governments to not act in the best interests of their own citizens. This happens more than we would like.

For example, in January 2013, as documented by the CBC, Human Rights Watch reported that a Vancouver-based company failed to ensure that forced labour was not used in the construction of a mine it operated in Eritrea. The agency said that Eritrea's conscripted workers, some of whom had been forced to work for over a decade, face torture or other serious abuse, and revenge is taken on their families if they desert their posts.

Sadly, all over the developing world there are other similar examples of corporations failing to live up to the ethical standards that they need to adhere to. Most do, and do a great job, but we are here to make sure that they all do.

A failure to respect the human rights of workers and residents in areas affected by mining operations can lead to social instability and failed states. We all end up paying the price when this happens.

In the example I just cited, there is some evidence that the Canadian company tried to address the problem on its own, but evidently whatever action it did take was insufficient to prevent these abuses from occurring. This is bad for Eritreans, it is bad for Canada's global reputation, and it is also bad for the mining company itself, which was subjected to considerable criticism.

The company might very well have benefited from independent guidelines regulating how it should operate in foreign countries and a watchdog to ensure it was compliant with those guidelines.

In fact, there is already a broad consensus among civil society, NGOs, industry, and some governments that there has to be something done about the problem of unreported payments and corruption involved in a variety of enterprises, particularly the extractive sector, and that we need to have increased transparency in order to curb corruption. The government claims that it shares this goal, yet I note that it failed to support the bill from my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, which would have brought Canadian regulations up to par with American and EU standards. I suspect a similar fate, based upon what my Conservative colleague just said, will befall this bill presented by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I hope I am wrong.

The Prime Minister announced with much fanfare in June 2013—that is, a year ago—that the government would adopt a G8 initiative that requires companies to disclose any payments they make to foreign governments, but a year later, no such legislation has been introduced. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party said, “We're on top of this and our corporate social responsibility plan is just working beautifully”.

We are told now that something will be forthcoming by April 1, 2015. There is no excuse for this two-year delay. We will see if the government is any quicker at introducing these rules than it has been so far in, for example, regulating carbon emissions in the oil and gas sector. That was promised five years ago.

One way that it might demonstrate good faith and show that Canada is taking this issue seriously is to allow Bill C-584 to be taken to committee.

With regard to the bill itself, let me reiterate again that it is a very well-intended piece of legislation. Liberals recognize that, and we are supportive of it.

That said, there are a few areas that can be improved. For example, clause 9 of the bill indicates that corporations would have to report to the office of the ombudsman on any extractive activities within one year of the act coming into force. However, a later section, subclause 10(1), gives the office of the ombudsman up to three years to develop the guidelines. If the ombudsman does, in fact, take three years to develop the guidelines, how will companies be able to report in the first and second year in the absence of those guidelines?

However, that is something that could be corrected in committee.

Another problem is in clause 8 of the bill, which would require companies to:

(a) take all necessary measures to minimize the negative impact of its activities on the environment or on human rights in the developing country

Without defining what “necessary measures” are, the bill would leave major loopholes for corporations that the bill is supposed to close.

There are a couple of other things; however, my time is coming to an end. I would encourage all members in this House to vote in favour of taking the bill to committee, because its objectives are good objectives for Canada, good objectives for the extractive industries, and the right thing to do.

Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Ottawa Centre for putting forward this bill. In the past, we have had bills before this House that have dealt with corporate and social responsibility. It is an important issue, and I am most pleased to speak to it today.

I want to read one part of the bill. This is, “An Act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability...”. That strikes me as almost the Conservative mantra, when I see that.

However, the reason I am particularly interested in this bill and pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it today is that in my capacity as critic for international human rights for the last eight and a half years, I have had numerous delegations. In fact, in a one-month period about a year ago, I had indigenous groups from Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, the Philippines, and Mexico, all of whom accused their governments of removing their communities from their traditional lands to allow mining exploration and development, some of which was conducted by Canadian mining interests.

I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe that Canadian mining interests would operate and function with the values that we hold dear about human rights in Canada. Unfortunately, from time to time that has been called into question. This bill would require that Canadian mining, oil, and gas corporations submit annual transparency reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purposes of further mining, oil, or gas activities.

We know there have been Canadian companies called into question around Libya and other countries. We have some court cases that are under way. This type of legislative responsibility is important, not for the good mining companies, not for the people who follow the rules and have some pride in what they do, but for those companies that we would call into question their activities and how they proceed in foreign lands.

I spent time in Saudi Arabia, in the 1970s, and in that country at that time bribery was a huge undertaking. Nearly anything one needed or wanted to get done had a bribe attached to it. That is a culture that needed change. Part of the change is that countries that provide workforces to a country that functions on bribery have a responsibility to start that change.

From the reports of abuses that I heard from the indigenous groups who visited me, it is clear that part of the equation for change in those countries is contained in this bill. Clear reporting on those transactions will ensure that Canadian companies continue to use the proper due diligence in those countries with murky governments, and we all know what we are talking about here. There are governments out there that will use torture and will attack their own citizens. Members of the leadership of these indigenous groups are physically at risk as a result of standing up for what should be rights to their own traditional lands.

New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian corporations overseas. The member who sponsored Bill C-300 is with us here today. In fact, in that bill we had an opportunity to further corporate and social responsibility in the world by having Canada become a leader. Unfortunately, even though it was a minority Parliament, we lost, if I recall, by some 12 votes. We see that this bill further complements legislative efforts that the NDP members and others have made in this House to encourage that kind of responsibility and sustainable and transparent management practices in the Canadian extractive sector, which is then used around the world.

We also believe that the responsible management of natural resources means that part of the arrangement must provide the people of these countries with social and economic benefits. Rather than having all of the profits skimmed off, when they have a corrupt government that is practically willing to give away the resources in these countries, there must be some responsibility to ensure that the people who have lost their land receive the benefits.

It is clear to NDP members, as well, that corporate transparency about payments to foreign governments should further Canada's national foreign policy objectives, and we think it would do that.

Part of our goals as a country, for many years, has been to encourage the development of democracies around the world. Part of that, particularly, is governmental accountability. If there is a trail of transparency where we can see where the monies have flowed, when those get off base, it would be something that we could identify and act upon.

With this bill, Canada would join the growing international community that is starting to move toward disclosures of this nature. Another speaker earlier quoted the Barney Frank initiative in the United States. We also believe that enforced regulations would create a more level playing field for all Canadian companies.

In these countries, we know bribery happens and huge amounts of money are fed to governments under the table. When Canadian companies are abiding by the rules and being responsible but have been defeated in getting a chance to explore for a certain resource because someone else outbid them under the table, we have to develop international rules and regulations to ensure it does not happen.

Today, the EU, Australia, and the U.K. are considering standards similar to what was just imposed in the United States. Bill C-474 would put Canada on the path to joining those nations that believe their companies must show a commitment to corporate and social responsibility when dealing with resource development, particularly in the developing world. It would ensure that Canadian corporations are accountable for the payments they make, as I have said over the last few minutes.

The bill complies with the corporate standards of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Payments are required to be identified, under this initiative, and separated according to the specific extractive projects to which they apply. It is very direct, maybe in some terms simple, accounting for what people do, but if that payment is not linked to a specific reported project, it must be listed separately. If a payment that is listed generically is believed to apply to a specific project, the bill would authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to launch an investigation. That is what I would call true accountability.

The Transparency International bribe payers index ranks the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. Consider that for a moment, because Canada is a leader in resource development in both of these areas. We do not want our companies tempted or compromised into feeling they have to pay bribes in these other countries.

Two-thirds of the world's poorest people live in countries rich in natural resources. As I said before, if Canada is party to the extraction of those resources, it is part of our responsibility to ensure that those poor people benefit from that extraction and the sales of their resources. Note that I said they are their resources. Effective environment and labour standards in developing countries often depend on advocacy and activism by local populations; thus the groups that visited my office over last summer.

This bill would make sure local people are aware of the payments made to their governments by Canadian extractive companies. Beyond that, it would show where the give and take has been in those agreements and where the principles have been tested for the Canadian companies. We hope to be able to say that this bill would encourage those Canadian companies to the point where we will never see on record any evidence that they have bribed, been part of any coercion, or had anything to do with it. My belief is that companies do not do it, but this would ensure that it is not done and it would ensure direct accountability.

When the leaders of those nations see that there is an accountability chain that could cause Canadian companies to withdraw from their country, perhaps that is just the one lever that might be needed to start the change to where they treat their own people with dignity, they do not push them off the lands for exploration, and when the lands are taken and the delivery of the resources is done, the people benefit in a true way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by paying tribute to the bill's sponsor, my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood. He believes strongly in this topic and has been patient and tenacious over the years as he fights to get justice for people in developing countries where mining companies, many of which are from Canada, develop the subsurface resources that are so valuable to the global economy. He does not give up.

This is his second bill to hold mining companies accountable to the people who provide labour, without which mining would be impossible. His first attempt to hold this sector accountable, Bill C-300, narrowly missed being passed in the House.

I would also like to pay tribute to my constituents who come to see me or write to me regularly in order to ensure that I keep up to date on the latest developments in this matter. A number of them contact me after they have travelled abroad and visited mining areas to tell me about the situation in those areas.

I would like to mention the Reverend Shaun Fryday, who regularly visits some of the most violent and dangerous areas in the Philippines; Yvonne Bourque, who is with St. Thomas à Becket parish in Pierrefonds; Monica Lambton, from the Office of Justice of the Canadian English-speaking Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame; Father Ernie Schibli, pastor at St. Edward the Confessor Mission in Pointe-Claire; and the Reverend Ian Fraser, pastor of St. Columba by-the-Lake Presbyterian Church in Pointe-Claire.

They all hold out hope, even when their efforts do not seem to have any impact immediately. They take the time to meet with MPs like me in order to raise awareness about this issue and the urgent need to take action. Through these contacts and meetings that are patiently organized, one at a time, these and other committed Canadians hope to establish a critical mass of MPs who will be more aware of the urgent need to take action.

They hope that one day either this government will finally wake up and take progressive action, as in the days of the Progressive Conservatives, or we will have a new government in Canada that will do what is right in this matter.

I sincerely believe that there are members opposite who would like to support this bill from the outset. I hope that they will do so for themselves and for the people overseas who rely on their support.

The measures in Bill C-474 are long overdue. The fact that the government has not already proposed and implemented these measures is in contradiction to the principles that Canada has repeatedly endorsed on the international stage. I will come to that in a moment.

As we all know, Canada is a world leader in mining, oil, and gas, with the latter two sectors also falling within the purview of this bill. If I am not mistaken, about half of the world's mining companies have their head offices in Canada and trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange, yet we lag behind in demanding, through law, greater transparency in the accounting practices of these companies.

This bill, which would compel Canadian-based extractive companies operating abroad to disclose to the Minister of Natural Resources any payment made to foreign governments, would level the playing field, just as the U.S. and the European Union have already taken steps to legislate on this issue. In other words, this bill would bring Canadian companies up to international standards.

In 2008, following the financial crisis in the United States, a provision was included within the Dodd-Frank financial bill, the Cardin-Lugar amendment. The amendment would require extractive companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange to publicly disclose all payments made to foreign governments. A number of a major Canadian companies cross-listed on the New York Stock Exchange have been caught under this new regulation.

A similar bill is also under consideration in the European Union and will require companies to comply with regulations similar to those in the Cardin-Lugar amendment and Bill C-474.

What is also important, as I mentioned earlier, is that we be consistent with principles we express we are in favour of on the international stage. The Canadian government has expressed an interest in revenue disclosure in the past through various international forums. The government has indicated its support for the extractive industries transparency initiative, which promotes the disclosure of payments made to governments.

Canada's sustainable economic growth strategy advocates increased transparency to aid in the promotion of international development. Canada has also ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which requires state parties to take measures to promote the transparency of private entities and to ensure that the public has access to information.

Canada is also a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions; is a signatory to the G8 Declaration: Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy; and was party to the G8/Africa Joint Declaration: Shared Values, Shared Responsibilities, issued at the G8 summit at Deauville, in 2011.

It is not as if the government has never heard of this kind of measure that would require greater accounting transparency on the part of extractive companies doing business abroad. It is not as if it is a new issue. Not only is it not a new issue, it is one we support in words in the international arena.

Adopting this bill would simply be consistent with the path the government claims it wants to take. It would be beneficial to the mining companies themselves. Sometimes companies in the private sector balk at certain regulations. Then they find out later that, in fact, those regulations were beneficial to those companies in the long run.

For example, there are many investors, more and more, who want to invest ethically. They want to make ethical investments. If they see that these Canadian mining companies and other extractive sector companies operating abroad are being fully transparent, they will be able to invest. They will have licence, essentially, to invest in these companies. I think all CEOs and all management teams in all publicly traded companies want to have buy-in of their shares.

In the long run, this will be good business. It will also confirm, in law, the values we claim on the international stage to hold dear.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her remarks. Earlier the member for Winnipeg North was talking along the same lines and said that perhaps something could have been done earlier on this bill.

The member who just spoke was not in the House when Bill C-300 came before the House. I recall that night distinctly. The galleries were full of people from various NGOs and groups concerned about corporate social responsibility. It was debated when we had a minority Parliament. When the vote was called, despite the fact that it was a Liberal member's bill, it was lost, because 13 Liberals did not bother to vote.

We certainly have had an opportunity before to start addressing this.

Earlier I raised concerns that often we have NGOs trying to bring goods ashore to help people who are in difficulty. Often they are displaced persons or are even in another country. The NGOs have to pay an offloading fee or a tip, or we could call it a bribe. The reality is that those things facilitate getting that food ashore to help people.

Does the member see in this bill any concern about the fact that this might sideswipe the NGOs?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that my Liberal colleague is asking for my support and wondering if Canada can do more. Yes we can, and that is why the NDP introduced Bill C-300. That bill would have required mining companies that receive government support to comply with certain standards, but it would also have established a system for lodging and evaluating complaints against such companies.

Unfortunately, the government members voted against the bill. What people may not know is that 13 Liberal Party members, including the member who asked me the question, voted against the bill. Bill C-300 was defeated by six votes.

Yes, Canada can do more and so can the Liberals, by supporting NDP bills that are designed to strengthen these types of laws. We need to do more than just talk. We need to take action and vote the right way.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There are five motions standing on the notice paper for the report stage of the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale's Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations).

While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case it has been decided to do so given that the Speaker has received written submissions from the hon. members for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and Cape Breton—Canso, outlining exceptional circumstances surrounding the committee consideration of the bill.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee.

In the present case, however, there appears to be extenuating circumstances. The hon. members who have submitted motions at report stage were in attendance at the meeting scheduled for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Finance. In addition, they had both submitted motions in advance of this meeting and these had been circulated to all members of the committee. At first glance, it would therefore appear that the amendments submitted by these members could have been proposed during the committee consideration of the bill.

In his submission, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale explained the efforts that were made to ensure that the committee would actually begin the clause-by-clause study of the bill as scheduled in order to complete consideration of the bill within the prescribed deadlines attached to it. He reported that these efforts were unsuccessful and, as a result, there was no opportunity to propose amendments in committee.

The Chair has been met with this kind of circumstance before. On September 20, 2010, in the Debates on page 4,069, Speaker Milliken ruled on a case where the member for Scarborough—Guildwood faced a similar situation in relation to his Bill C-300, an act respecting corporate accountability for the activities of mining, oil or gas in developing countries. In that case, the Speaker selected report stage motions for debate because it had been established that the member had made clear attempts to have the clause-by-clause study take place so that amendments could be considered by the committee.

Similarly, in the case before us today, the Chair has carefully reviewed the sequence of events as well as the written submissions from the members for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and Cape Breton—Canso and is satisfied that these motions could not be presented during the committee consideration of the bill.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 5 have been selected for debate at report stage. They will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting patterns available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 5 to the House.

Bill C-377—Income Tax Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's attempt at brevity but I must say that it reminded of that old classic movie, Airplane from 1980, penned by Jim Abrahams and David Zucker.

What I kept thinking of when I was listening to his brief presentation was those continuous scenes where Ted Striker, the ex-army pilot who was afraid to fly would continue to tell stories to the people in the seat next to him and they would end up attempting suicide. However, I do want to thank my friend for being at least a little more brief than the official opposition House leader. I will attempt to be even briefer than my friend from the Liberal Party.

I rise to respond to last Thursday's intervention by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and yesterday's intervention by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert concerning a royal recommendation for Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations).

Bill C-377 was introduced on December 5, 2011, by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and has since been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations to provide financial information for public disclosure.

I would note that this bill was not identified by the Speaker as an item of concern with respect to the financial prerogative of the Crown, nor has it been the subject of an intervention by a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary on behalf of one.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie argued that the provisions of the bill requiring labour organizations to submit financial information and the requirement for the Canada Revenue Agency to publish the information on a website with search tools somehow represent new and distinct charges on the treasury which are not currently authorized.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert then added the information provided to the finance committee by the Canada Revenue Agency which provided estimates on the expected incremental costs associated with implementation.

There are procedural authorities and precedents for cases where a new royal recommendation was not required for incremental modifications to expand the operation of provisions already authorized by a royal recommendation. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie cited page 833 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The most relevant portion pertaining to amending bills, such as Bill C-377, is that a royal recommendation is required for:

...bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates. The charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Section 220 of the Income Tax Act provides the minister with the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the act. Indeed, this authority was cited in the same materials provided to the finance committee which the member for Saint-Lambert cited yesterday.

In particular, subsection 220(2) provides broadly and generally that:

Such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary to administer and enforce this Act shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.

Clearly, the authority to retain any necessary staff has already been addressed by Parliament.

It may also be useful to add here that subsection 5(1) of the Canada Revenue Agency Act provides that:

The Agency is responsible for

(a) supporting the administration and enforcement of the program legislation....

Program legislation is, in turn, defined in section 2 of that act as:

....any other Act of Parliament....

(a) that the Governor in Council or Parliament authorizes the Minister, the Agency, the Commissioner or an employee of the Agency to administer or enforce, including the....the Income Tax Act....

Indeed, this broad mandate already enjoyed by the Canada Revenue Agency is addressed in response to the Liberal question 1(a) in the finance committee materials the hon. member for Saint-Lambert cited, which asked how Bill C-377 aligns with the Canada Revenue Agency's mandate.

The agency replied:

A measure introduced by Parliament that is incorporated into the Income Tax Act and falls under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue will be administered by the CRA. Parliament determines if a measure will be incorporated into the Income Tax Act.

In other words, the Canada Revenue Agency has already been given a broad, sweeping mandate to administer and enforce federal taxation laws. Meanwhile, other existing provisions of the Income Tax Act allow the minister to require certain persons or entities to file information for the purposes of taxation.

Specifically, for example, subsection 149(14) dealing with qualified donors provides a requirement for public foundations to

—file with the Minister both an information return and a public information return for the year in prescribed form and containing prescribed information.

In other words, the act already requires information to be submitted to the minister in a prescribed form and containing prescribed information. Therefore, this does not constitute a new function, mandate or duty for the minister or the agency.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie also argued that making the information public represented a new and distinct activity that was not currently authorized.

First, the agency has a comprehensive website which publishes lots of information and materials, so that would not be a new responsibility for the agency.

As for making information public, I would note that the Income Tax Act provides provisions now to that effect. Subsection 149(15) relates to information that may be communicated in respect of charitable organizations. It states:

—the information contained in a public information return...shall be communicated or otherwise made available to the public by the Minister in such manner as the Minister deems appropriate...the Minister may make available to the public in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate...

In other words, the act provides the minister with the authority to publish in any manner the minister considers appropriate the content of a public information return. That other information would fall within an existing mandate and duty does not, I submit, require a royal recommendation.

Turning to some precedents, on February 10, 1998, at page 3647 of the Debates, Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, was found not to require a royal recommendation. In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Parent said, in a case where powers were expanded yet no royal recommendation was needed, that:

It seems fairly evident that the powers of the superintendent would be extended by Bill S-3. It may well be that additional expenditures would be incurred because of those enhanced powers of the superintendent. Should an increase in resources be necessary as a result of these new powers, the necessary allocation of money would have to be sought by means of an appropriation bill because I was unable to find any provision for money in Bill S-3.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie made mention of the additional tasks which would fall to the employees of the agency as well as training which might be required for the new filings. Your immediate predecessor's ruling, Mr. Speaker, at page 7261 of the Debates for February 23, 2007 on Bill C-327, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act answers this point, states:

Bill C-327 may or may not result in a greater workload for the CRTC, but the activities being proposed are within its mandate. If additional staff or resources are required to perform these activities then they would be brought forward in a separate appropriation bill for Parliament’s consideration.

More recent, on October 26, 2010, Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-300, an act respecting corporate accountability for the activities of mining, oil or gas in developing countries. The bill, among other things, required the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish a process for the examination of complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines. The Speaker ruled then:

—the Chair is of the view that the examination of such complaints is not a departure from or expansion of the current ministerial mandate under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act...Bill C-300 may put forth more stringent requirements, but it does not expand the mandate per se.

It may be that a reorganization of resources or even additional funds would be required, however, it appears these would be operational in nature.

I submit that Bill C-377 is consistent with the precedents cited in that it does not authorize a new expenditure of public funds. Rather it deals with the operation of provisions already authorized by Parliament which were accompanied by a royal recommendation at the time these provisions were enacted.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned that there was nothing set out in the recently tabled supplementary estimates (B) for this fiscal year. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert also claimed that this was confirmed in the agency's answers to finance committee.

Let us be clear. The usual practice we can expect to see unfold would be that the agency would account for its operations under Bill C-377, should it become law, in its estimates after the bill becomes law. That is a common practice with respect to any proposed legislation that has not yet been enacted. The supplementary estimates argument advanced by those hon. members is really a red herring in this entire debate.

Should Bill C-377 become law, the authority to spend for the purposes set out in the bill will be under the general authority of existing broader provisions of the Income Tax Act as well as the agency's general authorities under the Canada Revenue Agency Act. Should additional funds be required, the government would seek them from Parliament as part of the supply cycle through an appropriations bill in the ordinary manner for operating expenses.

I respectively submit that Bill C-377 does not require a royal recommendation and is properly before the House.

Criminal Code

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-310, which would amend the Criminal Code to address the cruel and serious problem of human trafficking in Canada.

I congratulate the member who sponsored this bill for introducing a bill that will have the support of all parties in this House. This is the first time I have supported a government initiative and I congratulate her on it. I hope that in the future the opposition parties and the Conservative government will have many opportunities to work together.

This bill proposes two very important amendments to the Criminal Code that will make it easier to prosecute perpetrators of human trafficking. This heinous crime has destructive effects on the victims, which reminds us that in a not-too-distant past, slaves were treated similarly by Canadians and by our neighbours to the south. Unfortunately, at a time when human rights and individual freedoms should prevail and at a time when we would have thought our attitudes had evolved enough to eliminate this abominable crime, there are still people in this country who can deny their own humanity and sell people who are just as deserving of freedom as any other person.

Therefore, I believe that the House has the duty and the power to hold these individuals accountable by proposing and adopting a legal framework to eliminate this form of slavery and severely punish the perpetrators, so that we can set an example for the rest of the world.

This bill targets the real criminals—the traffickers. This bill would extend Canada's jurisdiction beyond our borders, which means we could go after traffickers with Canadian citizenship or residency regardless of where they are in the world. I would once again like to congratulate my colleague opposite for developing a bill that targets the real criminals and not the victims.

However, since there is a distinction made between human trafficking and human smuggling, I have to wonder about Bill C-4, which targets the migrants instead of the smugglers in cases of human smuggling in Canada. Migrants are the victims in this fraudulent scheme, and the real criminals are those who deceive these people by promising them a better future. I would have liked to see the government use Bill C-310 as an inspiration and to withdraw Bill C-4 from the Order Paper.

The first section of the bill amends the Criminal Code in order to apply Canadian extraterritorial jurisdiction to the offence of human trafficking. This will give the Canadian government the legal means to prosecute a Canadian or a permanent resident of Canada involved in human trafficking, regardless of where he or she works, lives or operates. Introducing extraterritorial jurisdiction using the nationality principle in international law is compatible with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Palermo convention. Given the international nature of human trafficking, extraterritorial jurisdiction is crucial. We simply cannot allow Canadian traffickers to live a comfortable life without any fear of being held responsible for their crimes just because they can hide behind international borders.

Thus, I am convinced that our government has a responsibility to ensure that our legal system can prosecute those responsible for such crimes to the full extent of the law through this extraterritorial jurisdiction. We have the right to hold our citizens to a certain standard of behaviour, even those who are outside our borders.

In her introductory speech, the sponsor of the bill said that it would ensure justice in cases where the offence was committed in a country without strong anti-human trafficking laws. I agree with her completely, but I find it unfortunate that this government did not live up to this standard during the previous Parliament with regard to Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries. Once again, I hope the government will learn something from this private member's bill.

Coming back to Bill C-310, before 2005 the only legal action that could be taken against human traffickers was based on charges of kidnapping, threats or extortion. Section 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits anyone from bringing someone into Canada by means of abduction or fraud. In other words, human trafficking was not considered a criminal offence per se until 2005. Since then, only five people have been prosecuted on the basis of this new offence.

Crown prosecutors and experts blame the lack of prosecutions on the current definition of exploitation, which requires proof of a threat to safety. This proof is difficult to obtain, which results in traffickers being found not guilty.

This leads me to the second amendment to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill. The member sponsoring this bill has every reason to propose expanding the current legal definition of the word “exploitation”, which defines the conditions for a person to be considered a victim of human trafficking. The current legal definition of this word in the Criminal Code does not contain any precise examples of exploitation. Therefore, this second amendment would add evidentiary foundations to enable courts to give clear examples of exploitation, such as threats or use of violence, coercion and fraudulent manipulation. This would update the legal terminology and would give courts the legal tools they need to successfully prosecute these criminals.

Once again, I congratulate the member on her wise and well thought out bill.

I will conclude by talking about human trafficking in Canada. In Canada it is tragic to see that aboriginal women and girls are disproportionately more likely to be victims of human trafficking. This tragedy is the result of a number of factors, and to address this, our government will have to combat it from all sides. We absolutely must recognize that poverty, lack of housing and very difficult living conditions for aboriginal women and girls are factors that explain why they are disproportionately more likely to be victims of human trafficking.

I would like to point out a coincidence. Today, the Standing Committee on Status of Women will present its report on violence against aboriginal women. This report is the product of two years of study on a very serious issue and an unfortunate tragedy in our country. Over the course of this study, the committee heard from about a hundred aboriginal women and people working with victims and their families. I had the opportunity to listen to some of this testimony when I sat on this committee. It is clear that to fight violence against aboriginal women and girls, including human trafficking, we must acknowledge the poverty and economic marginalization they experience.

I truly hope that this report will lead to concrete recommendations for improving the economic conditions of these women and decreasing their vulnerability to violence and human trafficking. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues in the House and the general public to listen to the presentation of this report today. Once again, I thank my colleague for this wise and necessary bill.

Mining Industry

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have today a petition to present from literally thousands of Canadians across Canada.

The petitioners point out that they are appalled by reports that Canadian mining and oil and gas companies are involved in human rights and environmental violations around the world. In particular, they are embarrassed at the Canadian government's lack of action against such violations in eastern Congo, leading to the use of the term “the iron fist of Canada” to describe the Canadian government's support of activities harmful to Congolese communities.

Therefore, the petitioners request that the House the Commons legislate the standards for Canadian mining companies operating outside of Canada to be the same as the standards they must reach operating inside of Canada. This would include, but not be limited to, making participation in corporate social responsibility review process, allowing the corporate social responsibility review to produce legally binding judgments to include the violation of human rights and other harm to communities as part of any legally binding accountability mechanism and to revitalize the spirit and the principle of Bill C-300 of the last Parliament to hold Canadian extractive companies to the standards of decency Canadians expect of their government—

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to again stand in this House and speak on behalf of the constituents of Crowfoot to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act.

The legislation that we are debating today introduces our Minister of Finance's key elements of the next phase of Canada's economic plan, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

My constituents of Crowfoot know that our Conservative government is focused on creating jobs and promoting economic growth. Under the leadership of our Prime Minsiter, Canada has the strongest economy and the strongest job growth record in the G7. We have created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009.

The International Monetary Fund, IMF, projects that Canada will continue to be among the nations with the strongest economy and the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years.

However, Canada is not immune to the global economic turbulence. Bill C-13 provides our government with the means to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

One of the features of Bill C-13 is a temporary hiring tax credit for small business. It would make it easier for small businesses to hire workers or enhance wages. This is precisely the kind of measure that Canadian workers need at this time. This would create new jobs and help save the jobs presently had by the workers across this country.

Hard-working, tax-paying Canadians raising their families need stable and predictable employment to see them through this difficult economic time. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would help support Canada's economic recovery.

I just want to touch on a couple of highlights of Bill C-13.

First, it would expand tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments. According to what opposition members have said today, they will vote against that, the opportunity to enhance green investments and clean energy generation.

Second, the bill would extend the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors by one year to support Canada's mining sector.

I had the privilege in the past Parliament to chair the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and international Development. At that committee, we studied a number of bills, such as Bill C-300 and others. I know that the Canadian mining sector contributes over $300 billion to Canada's GDP each year and over 300,000 Canadians are employed in the mining industry.

The mining industry stimulates and supports economic growth, both in large urban centres and in remote rural communities, including numerous first nation communities across the country. However, again, the opposition members say that they will not support that.

Mining accounts for 19% of Canadian goods exports and $5.5 billion in taxes and royalties paid to the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The industry also generates considerable economic spin-off activity. There are more than 3,200 companies that provide the industry with services ranging from engineering consulting to drilling equipment. In addition, over half of the freight revenues of Canada's railroads are generated by mining.

Many Canadians are not aware of the large role that Canada's mining sector plays in our economy. However, it is important to nurture Canada's mining industry.

Bill C-13 also would simplify custom tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for all businesses.

Most Canadians do not know that Canada is a nation built by trade. We do more than $1 billion a day in trade flowing over the Canada-U.S. border. While many Canadians understand the important role of trade, they do not realize that trade just with the Americans amounts to $1.8 billion a day.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has been working diligently to boost Canada's access to markets, not just across the border with the neighbours closest to us, but all around the world, and we are having success.

I look in the House today and I see our agriculture minister who has been working hard at his desk here all afternoon. I commend him and our trade minister for the amount of work they have done around the world to open new markets and give, whether it is our agriculture sector or our manufacturing sector, the opportunity to market their goods in many of those countries. Yes, we are having success.

The agriculture producers, the farmers, who I represent work hard every day to take advantage of the opportunities that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are providing. We could feed the world from where I come from in Alberta and from the west, so we welcome all customers, and that includes the new customers. The more the merrier. We pledge to fill all the orders that our Minister of Agriculture and our Minister of International Trade can find for our agricultural sector.

The bill would extend the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years to support the manufacturing and processing sector. Bill C-13 would extend this well received measure from one of our previous budgets. Our Minister of Finance has been fighting the effects in Canada of the global economic recession since 2009. Canada's manufacturing and processing base has been using this measure to create and save jobs. They still want this accelerated capital cost allowance and our Conservative government is glad to give it and to be in a position where we can allow it to continue.

We are eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers the option of staying in the workplace. We know that Canadians are healthier and they are living longer than ever before in our history. In economically difficult times, older workers sometimes want to choose to stay working for another year or two and make some extra money for their families or for themselves in their retirement. This contributes to economic growth. Older workers have a great deal to contribute and our government is giving them the go-ahead. However, it sounds like the opposition will be voting against it.

There is a very important initiative in Bill C-13 for the constituents in my riding. The government would provide a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long term infrastructure funding for municipalities. Unlike the Liberal governments of the past, our government has returned gas tax revenues to jurisdictions where they were raised. We deliver these revenues to local jurisdictions earlier in the year than ever before so they can plan for the building in the summer season. This allows local governments to free up other funds in their budgets and get more accomplished through the calendar year.

In my riding of Crowfoot, we have many small county municipal governments and they rely on these funds. When I attend those council meetings, they let us know how much those funds are needed and appreciated. In some cases, the amounts of revenues in small villages or communities seem small but it makes projects possible and it allows small communities to grow when it spurs on local employment.

There are a number of other initiatives in Bill C-13 for creating and saving jobs and helping Canada's economy. Over the course of the debate on this bill, other speakers from this side of the House will detail some of these initiatives.

Bill C-13,, as already mentioned by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, introduces the volunteer firefighters tax credit for volunteer firefighters. When the opposition talks about tax credits for those who do not need it, well we are talking about the volunteer firefighters of my constituency.

The bill would increase the ability of Canadians to give more with confidence to legitimate charities by introducing a package of integrity measures designed to help combat fraud and other forms of abuse. I know that the people in my riding are very charity minded. My constituents are generous and engaged in many charitable projects. They appreciate this initiative to ensure their efforts are not in vain.

Bill C-13 has help for families. It introduces the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types to help with dependent relatives.

This is a good bill. I appreciate the number of opposition members who have been here to listen to the debate today.

When we are in opposition, it is not always about opposing. It is about standing up and supporting families in tough times in the economy. We would appreciate members' support.

Government Accountability

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives said they would clean up the revolving door between their government and lobbying firms. Yet Alanna Heath went directly from the finance minister's office to Barrick Gold as the director of government relations. Guess what her first job was? It was to kill Bill C-300, the corporate social responsibility bill for the mining industry. Then Rodney MacDonald left the Minister of Industry's office to become the director of government relations for Visa, the very file that his former boss was directly involved in.

What happened to those promises, what happened to the cooling-off period for connected political staff and what happened to the integrity of the government?

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak on behalf of my party to Bill C-46.

I commend the member for Hamilton Mountain on her intervention. It struck me, as she was answering questions, that the Liberal member stood in the House and basically said that it was trade at all costs. The reality for our country is that human rights and labour laws are the defining set of principles. To hear that kind of intervention from a party that proclaims human rights struck me as strange. It is not trade at all costs. As the member just indicated, our trade with Panama is around $100 million. That is an awfully cheap price to give up on the rights that Canadians believe so much in.

I want to go through a bit of the chronology on this bill. The Conservative government concluded the negotiations in August 2009. This agreement, by the way, as has been indicated by previous speakers, is very similar to the one with Colombia. We, of course, opposed the Colombia free trade agreement for weeks on end in the House because we felt that it was beneath Canada's dignity to be signing a free trade agreement with such a reprehensible government.

This agreement was signed May 14, 2010. On the same day, the government tabled side agreements in the House on Bill C-46. The NDP is opposing this bill for a number of reasons. In committee, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax haven situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as the poor record of labour relations in the country.

The previous speaker from the NDP, our labour critic, talked about the lack of labour rights in Panama. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved motions and amendments in committee that would have addressed some of the glaring failures in this agreement. Sadly, the record will show that they were opposed by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals.

We do have issues with the free trade agreement. For example, despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This is very troubling considering the large amount of money that is being laundered in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, similar to Colombia. Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has led the OECD to label the nation as a tax haven.

Just before the clause by clause review of Bill C-46, the member for Burnaby—Douglas proposed a motion to the committee that would have stopped the implementation of the Canada-Panama agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. Again, his motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that the double taxation agreement Panama had agreed to was satisfactory. We do not agree. Unfortunately, the double taxation agreement only tracks legal income, while tax information exchange agreements will track all income, including money made through illegal means. That was as proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear as to why such an agreement is necessary before signing the deal. Again, we hit a roadblock with both the Liberals and Conservatives on that point.

Subsequently, during the clause by clause review, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed nothing less than 11 amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These amendments included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and investment, a requirement for taxation transparency and provisions, and to corporate in the bill the protection of labour rights, including the right to free collective bargaining.

Other amendments would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult with labour and trade unions, as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement. It is one thing to sign these agreements but it is quite another thing to follow up and see what the impacts have been on both the country we sign with and in our own industries and businesses that are part of the agreement.

A final amendment would have required Parliament to vote to extend the provisions of the act beyond the first year. All of these amendments, once again, hit that same wall and were voted down by the Conservatives with the help of the Liberals.

The committee heard testimony from Todd Tucker of the Public Citizens Global Trade Watch. Mr. Tucker made a very compelling case when he said that Panama was one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government had intentionally allowed the nation to become that tax haven. Obviously there are benefits for a government seen in such a thing.

To summarize Mr. Tucker's testimony, he said that the tax haven situation in Panama was not improving under the current government nor under the conditions today in Panama. In addition, a trade agreement with Canada, in his opinion, would worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and Canada.

Another major issue for myself as a former labour leader is the status of labour rights in Panama and the complete failure of this trade agreement because these are pending agreements. They are like letters of intent in a collective agreement that have no legal weight. These side agreements on labour rights fall far short of what is needed.

Two of the amendments put forth in committee by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster would have protected trade union workers in Panama. The member for Hamilton Mountain made a point a few minutes ago regarding Bill C-300, as well as labour rights. Why would we sign an agreement with a country and not demand, as part of that agreement, equal rights in that country to the rights we have here in Canada. As the principal representative of Canada on the joint Canada-Panama commission, the minister should have consulted on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and from trade unions both here and in Panama.

Like all other amendments, those amendments were also defeated by the Conservatives with their friends the Liberals. Unfortunately, this creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour, a serious problem that is already prevalent in Panama.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee studying the bill regarding the agreement. She testified that while the ILO's, the International Labour Organization, core labour standards had been invoked in the agreement, the agreement was still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. By the end of the day, people will know the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who sits on this committee for our party.

The first amendment was with regard to sustainable development. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke a few moments ago in debate on this. The amendment would define sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland report, published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

The second amendment was with regard to the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would have defined sustainable investment as investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return. Again, that is a principle in this country of Canada that we should be sharing with any other countries with which we have agreements, specifically in areas of environment, social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations principles for responsible investment.

In addition to those issues with the Canada Panama free trade agreement specifically, there is also the fact that this agreement is just another step in the massively flawed Canada-U.S. strategy of pushing serial bilateralism in the form of NAFTA-style free trade agreements.

The NDP prefers a multilateral approach based on a fair and sustainable trade model. Bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals since they give preferential treatment to few partners and exclude the rest. This puts weaker countries in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis larger partners. A multilateral trade model avoids these issues while protecting human rights and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that even at this stage, after two years of debate on Bill C-300, the hon. member has not read or does not understand the implications of the bill.

Contrary to what he says, this actually would have been an opportunity for any company that he cited to have a full and fair grievance resolution process. However, he would rather take along with the mining companies their chances in the public media, and so our reputation continues to be degraded.

We continue to have to deal with this in a fashion that we bear the price. It has come to the point in some countries that it is not a good idea to identify oneself as Canadian. That has happened under the watch of this government and it is regrettable to the extreme.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing when we talk about establishing bilateral trade agreements that are so important for a trading nation like Canada that we have to descend into a discussion that once again impugns the good name of Canadian mining companies, companies like SGS operating in Lakefield in my riding, which work with mines around the world.

The member continues to talk about Bill C-300 which specifically targeted jobs not in other countries, but jobs in this country. He impugns the good name of Canadian mining companies and would limit their ability to compete around the world. Mining is one of the most important sectors in this entire country.

It is terrible that we cannot talk about a bilateral agreement, something important to Canada, without having a member stand up and impugn the good name of Canadian mining companies. I am disappointed.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty minor treaty. It is not a large bill by any means. The trade between Canada and Panama is fairly limited, some might even say “insignificant“. Certainly when compared with the daily trade between Canada and the U.S., it is not significant at all.

However, as a proposition, these treaties are important because they establish a legal framework, particularly with the reduction of tariffs and the freeing-up of trade. They are the beginning of the establishment of a legal framework for contractual relationships between countries and between corporations and persons. They are a small step in international law. However microscopic the steps might be, as a general proposition, it is a good idea to enter into these trade agreements. Members of the Bloc, my party and the NDP have rightly criticized the modesty of the agreement. That is what I wish to talk about while I have time in the House.

The side agreements with respect to labour and the environment are at least a step in the right direction. They are rather modest, hardly robust, but a step toward developing a legal framework between the two nations.

Last Wednesday I had the good fortune of listening to a lecture by Mr. Justice Ian Binnie at the University of Ottawa law school. His starting point was that if there is going to be an international economy, as there is, as nations trade more with each other and if they are to have economic relationships with each other, we must have and continue to develop our legal relationships with each other. In other words, at some point, somehow, somewhere, people who have grievances need to be able to redress them in some fashion or other, regardless of the merits. Frankly, I agree with Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, as I am sure you would, Mr. Speaker, that there is quite a gap between the development of economic relationships and the development of legal relationships.

A treaty is a modest step. As members may know, I was the sponsor of Bill C-300, which was a modest attempt to bring to Canadian corporations a degree of accountability with respect to their funding received from the government and the people of Canada.

It was ironic to me that the proponents of this Panama treaty were simultaneously very vigorously opposed to Bill C-300, when in fact all of this is the creation of a larger legal environment so that relations between people and corporations might be properly regulated. Had the government embraced Bill C-300 and, possibly, other forms of engendering corporate social responsibility, a treaty such as this might actually have been an easier pill to swallow for those who are opposed to treaties as a general proposition.

I want to quote Justice Binnie. He stated:

It is beyond question that companies have the ability to significantly influence human rights around the world for good or for ill. Sometimes influence implies obligation. In light of mounting evidence of “corporate complicity” in human rights abuses, there is, at the very least, an obligation upon the legal community—

—and I would add, upon the parliamentary community—

—to clarify the obligations of transnational companies as a matter of national and international civil and criminal law.

He then favourably cited John Ruggie and the work that he has been doing at the United Nations.

The big issue is access to justice. I do not profess to be an expert on Panamanian law, but as a general proposition I can say that the access to justice and the satisfaction one might receive from a court in a developing country is somewhat less than satisfactory.

It is quite clear that a lot of these courts are not robust, that corruption is rife, and that people seeking redress for very legitimate claims, be they regarding human rights abuses or forms of civil remedy, be they regarding environmental degradation or expropriation, do not receive satisfaction. From time to time it is Canadian corporations that are involved in these human rights abuses and there is no place for the individual to go.

If a Panamanian had a complaint with a Canadian company and wished to sue in a Canadian court, that individual would be precluded from doing so by the rule called forum non conveniens. It is a simple concept. Regardless of the merits of the individual's claim, regardless of how aggrieved the individual might be, regardless of the quantum of the individual's damages, that individual is cut off from access to Canadian courts by virtue of the fact that Canadian courts will say they are not the place in which the individual can sue for that particular grievance.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We could quite easily insert into a treaty such as this one the ability to modify in certain circumstances this rule of common law so that Panamanians in this particular instance would have access to Canadian courts so that they too could receive justice and redress from Canadian corporations.

I refer again to Mr. Justice Ian Binnie who said that a very practical level, domestic law reform is needed if domestic courts are to play a useful role in remedying international human rights abuses. He said:

For example, statutes of limitation are often unduly strict on their face or as interpreted and applied; statutory and common law obstacles to corporate veil-piercing exist and these may inappropriately shield parent companies from liability in respect of subsidiaries. There can be inordinate difficulty establishing...jurisdiction (especially where liberal use is made of the doctrine of forum non conveniens).

Justice Binnie said that in some cases there will be a good reason to limit or deny the possibility of civil recovery. However, as a general matter the state duty to protect means that a concerted effort be made to eliminate barriers to recovery that are unnecessary or arbitrary in their operation.

It is a pity that the government did not take this opportunity to open up a justice system on both sides which would allow Panamanians and Canadians access to a justice system which has some opportunity of receiving redress not only for states but for individuals and for corporations. The reason this is important is that not only does it affect the individual potential litigants, those who have been on the receiving end of human rights abuses, but it also affects us as Canadians and our reputation abroad.

I regret to say that our reputation in the last number of years has not been enhanced by the activities of some Canadian mining companies. I can literally take members on a world tour, from Mexico to Guatemala to Honduras to Peru to Venezuela to Colombia, over to various African countries, et cetera. In all of these instances people in those countries are alleged to have had some grievance with Canadian companies. There is no effective remedy for those grievances. For better or for worse, the Conservative government has cut those folks off from having access.

This could have been an opportunity to open up a legal system that is fair and just and one where there would be an opportunity for people to receive redress. Regrettably, the government chose not to do that and that is to our detriment and ultimately to the detriment of our national reputation which has been suffering around the world.

In conclusion, I see this as a minor treaty, but I also see it as an opportunity lost.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we need to take lectures from the members across the way about representing our constituents. I will bring a couple of illustrations into this. On Bill C-300, the mining bill that would be so damaging to Canadian industry, Canadian economy and Canadian jobs, and the NDP members fought against that.

The free trade agreements, particularly the one with Colombia, which our western Canadian farmers desperately needed for their special crops, the NDP members fought and fought against it and took as long as they could to see that stop.

The long gun registry is another example. Since coming here, I do not think I have ever seen anything that was handled as cynically as the NDP handled the long gun registry, allowing a few of their members to vote with us so the others could oppose it and ensure the bill was defeated.

Another example would be the economic action plan. Yesterday the leader of the NDP begged us to increase, improve, expand and continue our economic stimulus plan after he had opposed it at every turn.

When it comes to listening to Canadians, we will not take any lessons from the New Democratic Party. We have the environmental assessment process in place for these projects so everyone gets a chance to participate and government can make the best decision.

Opposition Motion—National Defence

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Markham—Unionville a question, but first I would like to make a statement.

We had a vote on Bill C-300, the mining accountability act, which was a Liberal private member's bill. We had the vote on Bill C-440 on war resisters, another private member's bill. We had the opposition day motion on maternal health. All were Liberal sponsored. However, the Liberals did not show up for a vote.

I want to know if they are going--

Opposition Motion--Foreign Takeovers

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the Liberal members have spoken in favour of this motion, maybe the member for Willowdale excluded, but we are not sure yet.

The Liberal Party has been known to speak in the House in favour of a certain bill and then not show up for the vote. Bill C-300 is a good example, where every Liberal member spoke in favour of the bill but when it came time for a vote, it was like entering a hunting camp in the fall and turning on the lights and the mice scatter all over the place.

Is that what the Liberals are going to do when it comes time to vote on this motion, scatter?

Opposition Motion—Foreign Takeovers

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes, Madam Speaker. We always support the people of Saskatchewan. In fact, just last week we showed how well we support them.

Mining is important to Saskatchewan.

The opposition coalition is not transparent. Those members were not clear or transparent with their constituents. They talk about mining and how they support it, but Bill C-300 would have devastated the whole mining industry.

We are working hard to adhere to the law and to the act.

As for BHP and the government of Saskatchewan, the industry was aware of the concerns raised by the government of Saskatchewan, and those concerns were taken into consideration. It is important for the member to know that we support the government and the industry minister in his decision yesterday.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know if a question was actually buried there. It seemed to be more like a rhetorical statement.

The fact is that in the lifespan of the Investment Canada Act, going back to the mid-eighties, there has not been a proposed transaction in the resources sector in the order of magnitude as the Potash case. This is the first one that has been this big, and we have been very clear about our position on the case of Potash.

We have also indicated that the major takeovers of large chunks of Canadian natural resources, whether that was Inco, Falconbridge or Alcan, they have all occurred since 2006 under the watch of the present government, not the previous government. I think the hon. member should pay a little more attention to the timeframe and direct his criticism where it belongs.

The stripping away of Canada's ownership of its natural resources in terms of the control factor has all occurred since 2006. If Potash were to be added to the list of Inco, Alcan and Falconbridge, many in the Canadian business community would look over the horizon and ask, “What is left? It is all gone”. It is very clearly time to draw the line in the case of Potash.

On the issue of Bill C-300, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that in the course of that vote, every Liberal in the House voted in favour and there were members of Parliament missing from all political parties at the time that vote was taken.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for a while I thought I was listening to an NDP member. The Liberals when in opposition can talk a great line and sound progressive but their history in government is something quite different. In fact, when they were in government they stopped absolutely zero in terms of foreign takeovers.

I want to take the member back to November 2, 1989, when Grant Devine was the Conservative premier of Saskatchewan. The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan was privatized. For many years it had been government owned and very successful. It was privatized by a Conservative government at that time. Mulroney was the prime minister at the time and the Liberals were the official opposition but I do not recall the Liberal Party of Canada taking a strong position against that particular issue.

Bill C-300, the corporate social responsibility bill sponsored by a Liberal member, which was recently before the House, would have forced Canadian mining companies to act responsibly in foreign jurisdictions and treat workers and the environment fairly. The member's own party held out sufficient members when it came time to vote so his colleague lost his bill. That is the way the opposition acts. The Liberals sit on both sides of issues but particularly with Bill C-300.

While the member made a great speech, we have some questions about how solid the Liberals are in terms of following through if and when they ever get back into government.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we will look forward to doing that in 30 days, when our legal requirements are up under the Canada Investment Act.

I would say to my hon. colleague on the other side that, from this government's perspective, every business is strategic that helps to drive the economy and create jobs. That is why we are dispirited when we see carbon taxes coming from the member's party; when we see support for Bill C-300, which would drive all our mining resources out of this country; and when we see the opposition talking about raising business taxes. That is why we get upset. That is why we feel that every business in this country is strategic.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and join my colleague, the Minister of Industry, in discussing, not so much the BHP bid and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, but the motion put forward by the NDP. The motion recommends that we change the way the Investment Canada Act would arbitrate these types of situations. It would also take away a lot of the end result decision making from the Minister of Industry. We are working under a legal precedent. However, if I remember correctly, this document first came about in approximately 1985, some 25 years ago, and everything should be updated. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

However, under the act, the Minister of Industry and government members, who are involved in whatever region that decision would have an impact upon, are constrained legally. I am distressed, to say the least, when certain members of the opposition, and I will not even bother to name them because they are inconsequential, bray at the moon and howl and scream when they know there are legally things that can and cannot be done. As a member of the democracy we call Canada and as a regional minister from Saskatchewan, when I look at the way some of the media and members of the opposition handled this I take affront to that. They went beyond the pale in their condemnations and their demands.

As we know, these companies are both major global players. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan has holdings throughout the world, as does BHP, maybe on a different scale but similar in that they are international. The legislation is set out as it is because of market disruptions. Ripples that would go through the marketplace would send the incorrect and devastating signals to a lot of investors and so forth.

I commend the Minister of Industry, my Saskatchewan colleagues, the overall cabinet and caucus of this great government for keeping this interior. The ultimate decision rests with the Minister of Industry. However, I know, from the Saskatchewan caucus perspective, we had some 17 meetings with all the stakeholders, everybody who had a role to play or something to say on this matter. We entertained that, took it to heart and passed it along to the Minister of Industry to help him make this decision.

A lot of the discussion is all about politics. Certainly from the opposition side, I see that. When we go back and assess what those members have said and how they have done it, it was all about partisan politics. I think Canadians at the end of this will condemn them for that. Whenever the coalition decides to bring this government down and go to the polls, I think Canadians will remember the disrespectful way it handled itself in this instance.

Now this is a one-up situation. There is a lot of discussion about how this would impact negatively Canada's place in the world when it comes to outside investment. That is absolutely ridiculous. These are all adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. More will happen. It could be today, or tomorrow or next week. We do not know. However, in a free-market enterprise like Canada, a democracy and the rule of law, we are a welcome investment. Look at the strength of our dollar. Look at the way we have come through this recession. A lot of countries entertain investment in Canada because of that stability, and we welcome that.

However, we certainly reserve the right to judge each one of these on a case-by-case basis as per the net benefit clause as set out in the act. It is what is in the best interests of Canada moving forward.

I can speak from an agricultural perspective. With the marketing we have done around the world now, in country after country, working with industry, working with my provincial colleagues, opening markets, rejuvenating markets, Canada is becoming of age again on the global stage. It had been dropped for some time. We were not really getting out there and doing the job.

When we arrive in a lot of these countries, one of the first things we are asked is where we have been. The Australians, the Americans, the European Union, Brazil, and some of the emerging economies like China and India are aggressive marketers and are getting to be more so. They welcomed us being there. They recognized the safety and security of the food supply in Canada. Part of that safety and security is also on the input side. When we look at a strategic resource like potash, which is the basis for fertilizers and so on around the world, we do a tremendous job of supplying both potash and foodstuffs, in a lot of cases to the same countries, for example, China, India, Korea. These are great markets for our fertilizers, as well as our finished foodstuffs. It gives us a power and a strategic position in the global food supply to be a major supplier of both the inputs and our crop and livestock production.

From a strategic standpoint, we have that in spades in Canada.

Under the net benefit, having someone different mine it certainly does make a difference in that Australia is a major marketer of a lot of the same foodstuffs that Canada has. We are a volume producer and so is Australia. For it to be able to go to the Indies and Chinas of the world and say that it now controls their fertilizer too, I think would have had a very detrimental effect.

I know the Minister of Industry took all of that under advisement and it helped him and his department formulate the decisions they have taken. At this time and place, it is absolutely the right decision. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I think the Saskatchewan people have recognized the great work done by my colleagues and the Minister of Industry on this file. I think they also recognize the questionable attitude of some of the members of the opposition in trying to make partisan politics out of this.

At the end of the day, the decision is based on the criteria that comes before the minister, straight up and that is it, and the right decision was made.

As we move forward, I am more than happy to have this debate about changing how we assess these because there will be more, not less. Canada is a land of wealth and riches. We have great raw materials. We have tremendous resource wealth. As we strive to open up our Canadian north, which we have done as a government, and secured that sovereignty there and as we look at our fresh water supplies and the growing demand around the world, we will have to come to grips with that demand from the rest of the world to either invest or buy outright these types of commodities.

At this time and place, we can say no because we do have some guidelines. Could they be better guidelines? Probably. We are looking at things that are in demand now that never were when this act was written in 1985.

I welcome the opportunity and the motion from the NDP. I take exception to some of the political undertones in it. The last line is an outright denial. I do not think we can do that in a free and democratic society in a global stage, where we are becoming and growing rightfully into a major player.

Some of this is couched in politics. That is what we do here and I welcome that. I love the rough and tumble of it. We get our elbows up in the corner. It is like a good hockey game. However, at the end of the day, there are rules and regulations and the referee is the Canadian people. They will adjudicate this deal. We are aware of the fact that a growing number of Canadian residents and a growing number of Canadian businesses, which are free traders, support this decision in the way it is written.

When I read editorials in certain papers and at certain authors who claim to be on the inside track, I wonder how they justify their stance to their subscribers and advertising purchasers. I also look through the lens of an opposition that votes for things like C-300, which in a global situation, and PCS and BHP Billiton are part of that, would condemn them and force them to continually fight a rear flank action with causes and situations that come up in some global outpost somewhere. We would have to shut down production on behalf of PCS and adjudicate that.

I also look at the opposition's stance on raising the tax on business. Part of what draws investment to Canada is that lower tax rate. All the opposition members stand in question period and condemn us for moving forward with tax cuts to business. They all go on about big business. However, the tax cuts pertain to little guys too. Every business in Canada is important. Businesses are the growth of the economy. They are the job creators. They are the engine of the economy. Everyone gets that.

Why do those members condemn tax cuts as we come out of the recession? We have seen net job growth in Canada, unlike our closest ally in the U.S. We see stability in our systems in Canada, unlike the turmoil in our closest partner, the U.S. We see a growing acceptance of Canada on the world stage. We see a growing acceptance that Canada can do more. I cannot understand their stance, other than it is a pure crass political situation. I condemn that, but I welcome the opportunity to have this debate.

Trade

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this time of continuing economic uncertainty, our Conservative government is continually striving to create jobs, boost trade and open new markets for Canadian workers. We stand in contrast to the Liberal-led coalition that continually promotes policies that kill Canadian jobs, such as their support of Bill C-300 or their promise to cancel the purchase of F-35s.

Could the Minister of International Trade update this House on Canada's ambitious free trade agenda and how it will benefit Canada's economy?

Corporate Accountability

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from about 50 residents of the Kitchener--Waterloo area who wish to draw the attention of the Government of Canada to alleged abuses of human rights and environmental degradation and who would have wanted the Government of Canada to consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300 and also create effective laws regarding corporate responsibility.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the government really has a lack of focus. It is confused. It lurches from misstep to misstep. The long form census is a really good example of that. I think the public are beginning to see this, but its confusion in some ways is exceeded by the confusion of the opposition party itself.

The member introduced Bill C-300 last week in the House, which we voted on, regarding corporate social responsibility for mining companies that operate in other countries. It was an excellent bill and his party had the ability to make it pass. Yet his leader had 30 members miss the vote so the bill would be lost. That gives a terrible message to people out there in the public who supported his bill, liked his bill a lot and wanted to see his party support him.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is probably no member in this House who has more knowledge and authority on the issues he just spoke about. The member is very articulate in showing the relative and absolute decline in the influence of CIDA as far as our nation is concerned. It shows an absolute decline in numbers.

For whatever reason, we have chosen to deal with our deficit on the backs of the poor of this world. We have recently suffered a slap in international prestige before the United Nations. CIDA is a diminished force. Of course, there is what happened to Bill C-300 last Wednesday night. All of this makes us, in my judgment, a diminished nation.

I am interested in the hon. member's views on the diminished nature of CIDA going forward.

Potash Industry

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard it all in this place, but the member for Willowdale thinking she knows what is in the best interests of the MPs from Saskatchewan is certainly a new high or a new low, I am not sure which.

I would also remind the hon. member that if she wants to talk about people looking out for their own interests, the hon. member's party had 13 AWOL MPs for the Bill C-300 vote yesterday. That shows that the Liberals are trying to suck and blow at the same time, which is a typical Liberal tactic.

In our case, we will do the best thing for Canadians because that is what we do.

Bill C-300—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Monday, September 20, 2010, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House as well as the hon. members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Mississauga South and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation for their comments.

In raising this issue, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Bill C-300 established a new, quasi-judicial function regarding Canadian companies engaged in mining, oil or gas activities in developing countries to be exercised by the ministers of foreign affairs and international trade. He also contended that the framework required to implement the provisions of the bill was not foreseen by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and that considerable expense would be required to put it in place. In supporting this point, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation noted that during 2009 the World Bank had expended $3.3 million conducting what he described as “parallel investigations” to those he believed would be required by Bill C-300.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons noted that in other cases, the Speaker had found that bills mandating an expansion of the functions of an existing department or agency required a royal recommendation. He referred in that regard to the ruling concerning Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and rate setting) Debates, June 13, 2005, pages 6990-1, as well as to the ruling concerning Bill C-474, National Sustainable Development Act, Debates, February 11, 2008, but I will not cite the pages.

It is in that context that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons maintained that the terms and conditions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act were therefore being altered by Bill C-300 and that funds would need to be appropriated to carry out the new function imposed by the bill. He concluded that for these reasons, a royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-300.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood asserted that the bill had been carefully drafted with a view to avoiding any requirement for a royal recommendation. He acknowledged that some reorganization of existing resources would be necessary, but that new resources would not be required.

The Chair takes very seriously the need to respect the requirements for a recommendation of the Crown to accompany any legislation requiring new expenditures. The Chair has therefore examined with care the details of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, as well as the precedents enumerated by the parliamentary secretary.

The case of Bill C-280, cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, involved the creation of a new employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund. Bill C-474, to which he also referred, assigned new functions to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, including the assessing of provincial performance in the meeting of sustainable development goals, which was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was correct in saying that both Bill C-280 and Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation. In the first instance, the bill created an employment insurance account outside the consolidated revenue fund as well as several other proposals. These included lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant; setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks of the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings; reducing the qualifying period before receiving benefits; and removing the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate. From a mere listing of the measures in the bill, one must clearly conclude that the bill had the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

As for Bill C-474, it sought among other things, to modify the mandate of a new independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Specifically, it sought to develop “a national sustainability monitoring system to assess...the state of the Canadian environment, nationally and by province” as well as “...the national and provincial performance in meeting each sustainable development goal...” listed in the bill. There is no doubt that extending the commissioner’s mandate into the provincial arena was clearly a significant expansion of the existing mandate.

Thus, we are in agreement on the issues raised by these two bills, however, it seems to me that the situation presented by Bill C-300, the case now before the House, is not analogous to the circumstances just described.

Bill C-300 does require the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to examine bona fide complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines to be established under clause 5, but the bill is silent with respect to the manner in which such examinations are to be conducted. The respective ministers appear to have entire discretion in this regard. Furthermore, the Chair is of the view that the examination of such complaints is not a departure from or expansion of the current ministerial mandate under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act to carry out such examinations. Bill C-300 may put forth more stringent requirements, but it does not expand the mandate per se. Hence, a parallel cannot be made to Bill C-474.

In addition, Bill C-300 does not actually call for the establishment of the quasi-judicial process referred to in testimony by departmental officials. Nor does it require that investigations be carried out in other jurisdictions. It may be that a reorganization of resources or even additional funds would be required, however, it appears these would be operational in nature. In short, there is little ground for comparison of Bill C-300 with Bill C-280 and Bill C-474.

Consequently, from a strictly procedural point of view, the Chair cannot find that Bill C-300 requires the expenditure of public funds for a new and distinct purpose. I therefore rule that there is no requirement that the bill be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The House may continue to consider it in accordance with the rules governing private members' business.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Mining Industry

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is attacking a key pillar of the Canadian economy. Bill C-300 would, among other things, subject Canadian mining companies to grievances lodged by foreign interests.

If the coalition has its way, many Canadian jobs will be lost in an industry that contributed $40 billion to Canada's economy in 2008 and which employs 351,000 workers. During the thick of the global recession, overseas contracts kept the mining industry afloat. At a time when the economic recovery is still fragile, why does the coalition want to make life harder for Canadian companies?

Unlike the coalition parties that simply want to score political points and jeopardize Canadian jobs, our government will continue to fight hard for Canadian working families.

Bill C-300--Royal Recommendation

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order regarding Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, introduced by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I recognize that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, rose on another point of order on this bill earlier this week. This also prompted submissions by members for Scarborough—Guildwood and Mississauga South.

I would like to submit my arguments as to why this bill would require a royal recommendation in order to proceed to third reading.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood submitted that we have been at this bill now for some 13 or 14 months and here we are at the last minute raising the issue of royal recommendation. I would like to point out that it was not until the last possible opportunity that the member put forward amendments to his bill. None of these amendments address the need for royal recommendation so now we are faced with a bill that should not proceed.

Standing Order 79(1) reads as follows:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, as we see in the Journals from November 9, 1978, the imposition of new duties on an existing department or authority requires a royal recommendation. Bill C-300 clearly assigns new duties to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

On September 27, 2006, you ruled a particular bill acceptable because you could not speculate on the functions that the legislation would force the government to disburse. Fortunately, in this instance, you need not speculate. Section 4 starts by saying:

In carrying out their responsibilities and powers under this Act, the Ministers shall--

It is obvious and does not require speculation that this bill attempts to ascribe new responsibilities and powers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

On November 9, 2006, Mr. Speaker, you ruled another bill needed a royal recommendation because it extended a program that would require funding. Bill C-300 required disbursement of funding in order for the ministers to carry out their duties ascribed to them.

I point out that I have information in hand that says that the World Bank's parallel investigations, for example, which is exactly what this bill is calling for, cost $3.3 million in 2009 to investigate 11 new complaints. Mr. Speaker, I submit that fact for your consideration as well.

We had the opportunity to hear expert testimony from our bureaucrats at DFAIT. Allow me to read into the record the testimony from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development meeting of December 1, 2009:

[The member for Kootenay—Columbia]: I want to be careful that I'm not putting words in your mouth. I believe, in answer to a question of Mr. Patry, your response was that in your judgment it would require a new section or arm or department, which would require additional human resources or financial resources. Is that correct?

Mr. Grant Manuge: Yes, that is correct.

Further I asked:

Presuming that there is a finite amount of money in DFAIT's budget, which there is, where would you take those dollars from? What department or current function that DFAIT is doing would have to suffer? Or in fact would it be possible to do it without having to come to the Treasury Board for additional funds?

Mr. Grant Manuge representing DFAIT said:

Thank you for your question. In this case, at this stage in our analysis, we are indeed aware that additional resources would be required, not only human resources, financial resources, but also significant investment in training or in recruiting highly qualified individuals who provide the competencies that would be required to carry out that function.

At this point in our analysis, we would not be in a position to indicate whether that could be addressed through reallocations within our department, but our departmental resources are completely allocated, so this would be a decision that would have to be reviewed very carefully. As you say, there could potentially be impacts on the ability to carry out our mandate in other areas of the department.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that you face a rather challenging situation in taking a look at the provisions relative to a royal recommendation, and that is it is not crystal clear that additional funds will be required. I am fully aware of that. If we take a look at the fact that we know from the World Bank that it cost $3.3 million last year to investigate 11 complaints, in the name of logic it is very obvious that additional funds will be required.

It is clear that this bill would directly affect the disbursement of public funds. It would assign new duties to an existing department where funds have already been allocated and functions have already been described for that department.

I realize there is often a good deal of discussion regarding royal recommendations. However, it is the Speaker who is duty-bound to protect the Constitution through the Standing Orders of the House and to assure that bills that should require royal recommendation do not proceed.

I would also like to quote from Hansard, June 1, 2006:

I am also aware that a bill may be repaired at committee or during report stage and also that a minister at any point in the legislative process can come forward. That is not a problem and I believe the member for Scarborough--Guildwood has a bill on international development which I think can be repaired in that fashion.

Clearly, the bill has not been repaired. Bill C-300 is the current version of the legislation to which I reference. The bill was recognized by the member for Mississauga South as needing a royal recommendation at that time.

The clauses in Bill C-300 still stand. The need for a royal recommendation still stands, even though the member for Mississauga South has apparently changed his mind. Fortunately, he is not the Speaker of the House.

It is clear that even at a time the Liberals realized this bill needed a royal recommendation or amendments to address the problem. That was a matter of a year ago.

The precedents are clear. The member for Mississauga South was clear in 2006. Without amendments addressing this issue, Bill C-300 does require a royal recommendation.

Mining Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents from London, Ontario, and a number of residents from Regina, Saskatchewan, with respect to the issues of Canadian mining companies.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada that the alleged abuses of human rights and degradation of the environment by Canadian mining companies are a violation of the principles of fundamental justice. The petitioners feel it is the duty of Parliament to hold Canadian companies responsible for their activities when operating in foreign jurisdictions.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to create effective laws with respect to corporate social responsibility and to consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

Mining Industry

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by approximately 400 individuals who wish to create effective laws regarding corporate social responsibility, particularly in the area of mining. They ask that we consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by quite a number of folks in Canada, calling the Government of Canada's attention to alleged abuses of human rights and degradation of the environment by Canadian mining companies.

Whereas the petitioners feel that it is a duty of Parliament to hold Canadian companies responsible for their activities when operating in foreign jurisdictions, the petitioners humbly call upon the Government of Canada to do the following: create an effective series of corporate social responsibility laws and consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300.

Corporate Social Responsibility

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on the same subject. The petitions represent about a hundred of my constituents. They strongly support Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

Bill C-470

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think that we should be taking a look at, bearing in mind that of course we are governed by the documents that are currently on the Table, is the issue of the additional expenditures that would be required by a given department from time to time, as a result of private members' legislation.

Let me give an example. We presently have Bill C-300 before us at committee. If we were to take a look at the documents on the Table of this House, there may be some question as to whether that bill, should it succeed to come back to the chamber, would require a royal recommendation. Perhaps within the documents on the Table, there are a number of questions about that.

There is no question, however, with respect to that bill, and perhaps with respect to my Liberal friend's bill, that there will be either a complete reordering of finances within a given department in order to take care of the requirements of being able to enact a piece of legislation that again is not specifically covered by the documents with which we govern ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a very knowledgeable traditionalist, in terms of taking a look at what has gone before and what the rules of the House are. I invite you to take a look at the additional aspect with respect to a royal recommendation where, for example, if I may use the example of Bill C-300, we received testimony just this morning from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, that in order for that bill to be enacted, it would require many millions of dollars of expenditure by the department.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that is not covered by the specific rules that you have on the Table in front of you, and perhaps the advice that you would normally receive by the Table.

However, the fact of the matter, nonetheless, is that there will be a further expenditure, either that or a starving of current programs that are run by DFAIT or run by my minister, the Minister of International Cooperation.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at this intervention by my Liberal friend, I do invite you to take a look at it in the broader picture. Because there are other private members' bills that are going to be coming back to this chamber, which may or may not be successful. However, in the event that they are successful, you are going to be challenged with the fact that, in spite of the specific wording within the given bill that comes back, nonetheless, the government's hands will be tied and the President of the Treasury Board and the government will have to make other financial considerations other than what is currently contained on the Table.

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.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement among all parties to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the motion to concur in the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, to consider Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries) be deemed adopted.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-300.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member, in his speech, complained a lot about Bill C-300. Unfortunately, his government was basically the author of that bill by not reacting to the major exercise he talked about, which was corporate social responsibility.

The Government of Canada-sponsored round table with industry and NGOs came up with solutions and recommendations. This was quite a rare situation where everyone agreed to that extent and came up with some good solutions, yet the government did not react. It sat on it for months and months, even though everyone agreed. Even though the government was a sponsor in part, it did not react.

What the member was complaining about was unfortunately caused by his own government's inaction. Even after Bill C-300, it came up with an inadequate response. It was the government's inaction that inspired Bill C-300 and also the motion by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard to take action on something that industry and NGOs had agreed upon.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to the issue of corporate social responsibility today as it relates to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I agree completely with the Liberal foreign affairs critic when he says that there are those of us who support this agreement. I also agree with his statement that NDP members are talking nonsense when they say that by supporting this agreement we are condoning murder or human rights abuses or the violence that is taking place in Colombia. That is totally misleading and is fearmongering by the NDP, done by the NDP to support the position they always take, which is against this free trade agreement.

Why do they not just say they oppose it because of their ideology? To say that this is directly related to violence is absolutely nonsense. I want to make it very clear that is not the position here.

Today I am standing up to talk about the corporate social responsibility that Canadian companies undergo when they go overseas to do business. The free trade agreement with Colombia would allow a lot of Canadian companies to go there, so social corporate responsibility becomes a key element in the operation of Canadian companies and what Canadians have come to accept.

The Government of Canada undertook a very lengthy in-depth analysis of corporate social responsibility with stakeholders in Canada, with all those involved in corporate social responsibilities, including NGOs, government people, and industrial people. We came up with a voluntary code of conduct which the government has now provided to Parliament in response. This extensive corporate social responsibility analysis done by the Government of Canada and all Canadian stakeholders has laid the foundation for what is expected of Canadian companies when they are in other countries.

I was in Tanzania in April of this year as well as in Zambia where Canadian companies are working. I had the pleasure of talking to the companies to see what they were doing as part of their corporate social responsibility. I was very impressed at the amount of effort Canadian companies are putting toward corporate social responsibilities such as providing fresh water, schools, and little dispensaries which the local government cannot provide. These Canadian companies are providing these basic services on a voluntary basis and giving hope to many.

Canadians should be proud of many of these companies. The majority of companies that operate overseas do a fantastic job with respect to corporate social responsibility. That is why Canadian companies and Canadians in general have such a high reputation around the world.

This is something the NDP should go and see. Those members would never go to countries where progress has taken place. They will always choose countries that are mired in violence and come forward with their ideology to oppose the free trade agreement.

As a result of the in-depth consultation that took place, the Government of Canada will soon be creating a new consular office to help resolve any issue that could arise between Canadian companies and the communities in which they operate. An announcement will be made very shortly. This is one way of ensuring that everyone will voluntarily comply with what is expected, which has come out of the round table conference. The government has taken this strong, positive step to ensure that all stakeholders adhere to the recommendations regarding corporate social responsibility.

The Government of Canada is also going to support a new centre of excellence. This centre of excellence should be outside of the government to develop high quality tools for corporate social responsibility to see what our best practice is. This is a joint venture with the stakeholders. These are some of the positive steps that this government is taking arising out of the consultation process, which is the right way to do things when we talk about this.

This brings me to the question of looking at what the government's approach has been in talking to stakeholders. We have a Liberal member's private member's bill, Bill C-300, which is now before the committee and which has been hastily prepared without stakeholders' input into it. It was badly drafted and would penalize Canadian companies doing business overseas. The bill is one of those bills that has been emotionally created without input from company stakeholders. It just follows an emotional outburst.

This is not how a minority Parliament should work. I would be very much interested to hear the stance of the Liberal trade critic, whose speech I read, and the Liberal foreign affairs critic, who just spoke about how free trade agreements have a potential of helping in this country, on Bill C-300. This is contrary to what they have been talking about. I hope that common sense prevails on the other side and that when it comes before the committee they will kill this bill. This bill has the potential of damaging the great reputations of people doing business overseas.

The intention is good. We all want corporate social responsibility to take place, but the way it was brought forward, the way it was drafted and the way it has lacked consultations and been coached is just using the minority status to push through something that would have serious consequences for Canadian companies, NGOs and everybody else. There is a small minority of NGOs who are supporting this, but I think that overall, under this major exercise that the Government of Canada undertook last year on corporate social responsibility, that is the way the government should be working. That is how we should work on this thing.

I am very happy to state that the Government of Canada is taking corporate social responsibility very seriously. As I have just said, we will be making announcements about our new councillor as well as the centre for excellence. It must be recognized that the free trade agreement, with its side agreements on labour as well as the environment and other issues, will ensure that there is a rules-based system in our dealings with Colombia.

That is what every Canadian wants because that would ensure strong ties between Canada and Colombia. At the same time, we can engage with Colombia on issues of human rights and others.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know that there is a great concern among Canadians about corporate social responsibility. I am sure that he has been receiving lots of letters about the responsibility of Canadian corporations when operating in the extractive sector.

We have in this Colombia free trade agreement an opportunity to put Canadian companies to a world class standard of corporate social responsibility. This would ensure that when Canadian companies are operating in Colombia and elsewhere, they operate to the highest environmental standards, to the highest human rights standards, et cetera.

It seems to me that if Canada had a legislated corporate social responsibility standard for Canadian corporations operating abroad, a lot of legitimate concerns raised by folks would be somewhat alleviated. May I suggest Bill C-300? I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I am not surprised that the Conservatives plan to vote in favour of the agreement. After all, they have already signed it. It is in line with their right-wing ideology, as we have seen in other trade agreements.

However, I am surprised that the Liberals will be voting for the agreement. They tabled Bill C-300 in the House, a bill to ensure that Canadian mining companies behave responsibly in terms of workers' rights and the environment. They also moved Motion M-283, with which I am sure my colleague is familiar, to implement the recommendations of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries advisory group.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. In his opinion, why did the Liberals vote in favour of those two measures if they are voting against—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-24.

Many have spoken of the concerns they have around this trade agreement. I think Canadians are listening carefully to the difference between what some call free trade and what we call fair trade. There is actually a shift in the debate around trade agreements and around how trade is done globally. I think we are going to see a change in the use of the term “free trade” because of the collective experience of countries with these agreements.

When we look at the details and drill down into some of these trade agreements, the notion that there is anything free is a misnomer. When we look at the give and the take, and what we end up with at the end of these trade agreements, many people have, quite rightly, been critical. I think we are going to move toward something more in line with a sectoral approach, that we really should not be doing these massive pieces of architecture to say that we are going to be all in or all out and give certain powers to certain sectors of society over others.

When we look at the experience with NAFTA, for instance, and chapter 11, and when we look at what was given up by Canadians to allow private corporations to meddle in the affairs of our governance, it actually undermines the fundamental premise of democracy. This is not free. This is actually a change of power where we end up with less and certain entities end up with more.

It has to do with the notion of sovereignty, as well. I think that most people would agree that our Parliament should be able to pass laws that are unfettered, in terms of outside interference, and be vigilant with respect to our obligations internationally, but also provide good governance for our citizens.

That is not the case when we look at the experience of chapter 11. In fact, not just people in this corner of the House have stated that but people outside who have critiqued these agreements have said that. That is one of the problems with this trade agreement. It continues down the ill-fated path of the chapter 11 experience. If we look at it, it really puts investors' rights over the rights of citizens. The fact that private companies can sue governments, with these chapter 11 provisions over our public policy choices, is a clear indication that there is something more than a free trade or an exchange or an opening of trade. It means that we are actually laying hands on certain people and giving them rights over others; in this case, private corporations.

I want to take that observation and align it with where Canadians are at and look at what is happening right now with another bill that is before us, Bill C-300, the corporate social responsibility bill. It is interesting. When people have critiqued Bill C-300, and I have a private member's bill that is similar to it and motions have been passed on corporate social responsibility, they have been concerned that extraterritorial provisions would be given to the Government of Canada over investments abroad in the extractive industries. It is interesting because when we take a look at chapter 11, what we are actually doing is legislating the rights of extraterritorial private interests to have influence on governance here. We do not hear them talk about that.

So, on the one hand we are saying we do not want to have too many rules for corporations when we are doing business overseas because that might interfere with the conduct of the business of certain countries, and on the other hand there is this chapter 11 cheque written out and handed over to private corporations with which we do these trade deals .

I think that is an important issue. I think Canadians want to know why these facets within these trade deals are being set. Who is benefiting? Is this helping the citizens of the countries with whom we are entering into these trade deals? I suspect not. I know that it is not. I think it is important because when we look at this trade deal, it again is reinforcing that.

When we look at this trade deal and we look at the side provisions on environment and labour, they are just that. They are side agreements. The language is voluntary. We cannot have voluntary human rights. Either human rights are embedded and we have strength in terms of support to ensure that those human rights are being granted or we do not. Having voluntary human rights, we might as well not bother. It really does a disservice to the whole concept and notion of human rights.

I can only think what John Diefenbaker would say to that. We have side agreements on human rights. I suspect that he would not be in favour of that notion and I think that is important.

I suspect that because the government thought there would be a furor over the lack of environmental and human rights provisions, it would do a little political inoculation and put a side agreement in, put a ribbon on it and everyone will be happy.

We on this side of the House see through that. We either have it embedded and strengthened with legislation or we do not bother. To have it on the side, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Conservative Party earlier in his intervention, makes it voluntary. It is like the response by the government to corporate social responsibility where it has taken a very robust report from both business and civil society about how we can do corporate responsibility and turned it into a suggestion box, that if we have a concern we can put the concern in this box and perhaps the government will deal with it. That is not good enough. We need to take this issue seriously because it affects the lives of ordinary people.

The trade agreement, sadly, is putting on the altar environmental protection and human rights protection for what? For profit. For the bottom line. As I said, I think people will see through that and we certainly do.

I would also like to point out where Canadians are in their view of where Canada should be when it comes to trade agreements. I want to reference a document that recently came out called “Back on the Map”. It is a very comprehensive overview of a study that was done for a new vision for Canada in the world. It was done recently by a non-partisan group called Canada's World during a national citizen's dialogue. The director is Shauna Sylvester whom I met with recently. She was pointing out to me the research that was done on what Canadians want to see in their foreign policy and in their trade agreements. One of the things in the research report said that Canadians wanted to see good governance as it relates to promoting good governance in trade deals. The report is based on researchers talking to Canadians about what they want to see in our foreign policy and trade deals.

They want to see the Government of Canada take a leadership role in convening and facilitating the reform of international financial development agencies; promoting fair trade practices and corporate social responsibility, particularly among Canadian companies with overseas operations; supporting a stronger voice for developing countries within international institutions; investing in public diplomacy; shielding effective programs from partisan politics; and instituting a federal process to help with that

What they want to see is Canadian governance in trade deals promoting fair trade, promoting corporate social responsibility and promoting the values that are embedded in our Canadian fabric, not to hand over to certain companies and interests a blank cheque to decide what they want to do with it and undermine not only our democracy but the interests of those in the country of origin; in this case Peru.

For those reasons our party will not be supporting this trade deal. I wish that we would have the support of the Liberals to oppose this trade deal because it is not good enough.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is, in principle, in favour of Motion M-293 on the accountability act and Bill C-300, which also deals with accountability.

We agree in principle. Canadian companies abroad should be made more responsible, so this is an important step. There may, however, still be a sizeable gap between the laws and regulations of the country with which we are negotiating a free trade agreement and our own laws and regulations.

Accountability should also impose severe regulations relating to protection of the environment of these foreign countries. I believe that these two aspects can, and must, complement each other.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise a question with my colleague from the Bloc that stems from a related bill in front of the House right now, Bill C-300, which addresses corporate social responsibility.

In light of my friend from the Conservative Party raising the issue, if we really want to deal with corporate social responsibility, I want to get his take on whether it would be better to have it embedded in a policy, not just for trade agreements and voluntary, which is the problem with this trade deal, but to have that kind of approach, that legislation, embedded in the Canadian governance model right across the board, for all companies.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to this bill. As I have already indicated, the Bloc Québécois does not support this free trade agreement, basically because it does not meet a number of criteria and objectives that are necessary when concluding trade agreements that will create fairer, more equitable trade, rather than trade that fosters inequalities.

We believe that all new free trade agreements must contain clauses requiring that minimum standards concerning human rights, labour rights and respect for the environment be met. The free trade agreement with Peru, for example, would open many doors to Canadian investments in mining in Peru, but it does not include adequate provisions to protect workers and the environment.

There is no doubt that Canada is a leader in the mining sector. The federal government uses tax credits and financial and logistical aid to support companies operating abroad. The current federal government promotes Canadian companies' activities, but does not seem too concerned about whether any particular company complies with minimum human rights and environmental standards. The federal government, with support from the Liberals, of course, refused to adopt mandatory social responsibility standards for Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

It is ironic, if not downright pathetic, to see the Liberals oppose the adoption of mandatory standards even though they are in opposition. People say that when the Liberals are in opposition, they have a New Democratic agenda, but when they are in power, they have a Conservative agenda.

On the one hand, they support this agreement, but on the other, they introduced two legislative measures this session: Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood; and Motion M-283 on the social responsibility of the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries, by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. Despite supporting the agreements with Colombia and Peru, they have introduced motions to support and, as they put it, encourage companies to respect the environment and labour rights abroad. They introduce bills like that, then they turn around and vote in favour of agreements between Canada and Colombia or Canada and Peru. That is a major contradiction. I would like to expand on that.

Take Bill C-300, which the Liberals introduced in the House. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Canadian mining companies behaved responsibly and complied with international human rights and environmental standards. The Liberals introduced that bill, but now they are voting for the Canada-Peru agreement and the Canada-Colombia agreement. Unbelievable. That is a basic contradiction. That is what I call political hypocrisy. It is unthinkable that a party could take such positions.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements—it happened in Colombia—significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations, as has occurred with many union members working in Colombia, for example. That is why Bill C-300 was introduced and that is why the Bloc will support the Liberals' bill.

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

I would like to point out that the Liberals have not taken a consistent position in this House. It is disgraceful for the Liberals to be voting in favour of this agreement. I would like the Liberal members to explain their logic because I have a great deal of difficulty understanding it.

They support the Conservatives and refuse to include mandatory standards in the agreement with Peru when there is clearly a need to adopt mandatory standards for the social responsibilities of Canadian mining companies. Now they are presenting these two legislative measures. It is a contradiction.

What can we say about the Liberals in this debate? I hope they will go and hide. Fortunately, stupidity and ridicule are not deadly; otherwise there would not be many Liberals left in this House. I would say they are being devious in this matter. I have been listening to them since yesterday and I am amazed.

As I was saying, rather than imposing mandatory standards, the government continues, on the contrary, to believe in the myth that Canadian companies act responsibly. It naively continues to defend the idea that a voluntary commitment is enough to guarantee that the activities of Canadian companies abroad will be conducted in a responsible manner.

It is important to remind the Conservative and Liberal members that the radical reforms imposed by the government of Alberto Fujimori between 1990 and 2000 reduced the size of the state and undermined its capacity to intervene effectively and to impose standards over its entire territory. We must not forget that.

Since then, yes there have been reinvestments, and Peru is currently in a phase of good economic growth. We must, however, consider Peru a developing country.

The Canadian government is responsible for ensuring that its legislation does not run counter to the needs of the populations concerned. Development must be sustainable, fair and equitable. It must be harmonious and respect local populations.

It is not enough just to say that our legislation creates jobs or stimulates local economies. This is why the Bloc Québécois has always favoured the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies in other countries.

This bill does not even reflect the recommendations by committees whose representatives had been to the field. The industry has studied the matter. By turning its back on the numerous recommendations by industry and civil society contained in the report by the advisory group to the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility, in which all parliamentarians took part and which dealt with the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries, the Canadian government has made itself complicit in the human rights abuses and environmental damages caused by the actions of certain offending companies. I cannot accept that.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is voting against these agreements. A trade system that results in the exploitation of developing countries is not viable.

Contrary to what the government may say, increasing exports through a free trade agreement between Canada and Peru will not automatically resolve the economic inequalities, social problems and poverty related to that country's development.

Including in the agreement a clause protecting investments, patterned on NAFTA's chapter 11, will allow businesses to sue the government. This clause will, I am sure, limit the Peruvian state's capacity to ensure equitable social and economic development for its population.

In this context, the free trade agreement with Peru contains some basic elements that prevent us from supporting this bill.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, he and I have managed to find ourselves on different sides of many issues, but I respect the fact that he and I have also had occasion to work together for the kind of common good to which he has spoken. He would also know there is currently a private member's bill before the committee, which was passed by the House, Bill C-300 on the issue of corporate social responsibility.

We have been studying it as recently as this afternoon and the thing that has been most interesting is the aggressive action that the Government of Canada is currently undertaking with respect to corporate social responsibility.

I put to the committee today the concept that there was not one person in the House, and probably not one person in Canada, who was not serious about wanting all of our corporations to be involved in the world with the concept of corporate social responsibility.

The only thing I would suggest for my friend is this. An awful lot of the time I have been in the House and have taken occasion to listen to the speeches of the NDP, it always seems so dower, so down and so negative. we cannot do this and we cannot do that and those great big greedy corporations. There is all this negativism.

What the Government of Canada wants to do with this Peru free trade agreement, as with other free trade agreements, is to open up the possibility for Canada and Canadian workers to have more opportunity in the world because Canada is such a free trading nation.

Would my friend not want to put on a more positive face, a bit more of a smile, rather than always being concerned about being dragged down? Canadians are the most productive creative people in the world. We are a nation that can carry our own and we can carry these things to Peru and to other countries to help them bring themselves up to a higher level.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Québec for her speech.

I listened to her very carefully and she talked about the mining industry. As we know, two Liberal members have presented two measures, namely, motion M-293 from the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Bill C-300 from the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Both measures relate to corporate responsibility in the mining sector.

The Liberals are getting ready to vote for the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru, even though they know very well that the investment agreement based on chapter 11 allows mining companies to sue the state if it improves its legislation concerning the environment, workers' rights and occupational health and safety. They want to liberalize trade, but with such liberalism comes responsibility. How can the Liberals bring forward motions and bills to improve corporate responsibility among mining companies on the one hand, and on the other hand, accept and support such a free trade agreement, when the government should be sent back to the drawing board and forced to take a new approach to free trade agreements?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and conviction that I rise again to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

Once again, the environmental and labour issues are being dealt with in side agreements, which aim for the minimum requirements established by the country with which we are signing the agreement rather than promoting the environmental and labour rights and laws in that country. Every free trade agreement always contains a section on investment. We agree that there should be a minimum of protection for foreign investment and that it should be properly regulated. However, there must be limits on the powers given by agreements, for example NAFTA's chapter 11.

We are in an era of innovation. We must innovate not only in the sciences, social sciences and business, but also in free trade agreements. We are discussing bilateral agreements. We must be innovative and promote environmental rights, labour rights and, in some countries, human rights.

This innovation could start today, in the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, simply by our telling the government to redo its homework. The government must do it again and innovate in terms of bilateral free trade agreements, as in this case.

An aside, if I may. The Bloc Québécois strongly advocates multilateral agreements. It must be pointed out that, in this sort of agreement, the same set of rules applies to everyone. Even the WTO must protect human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. That is the end of my aside.

The government talks of liberalizing trade. An American author said that increasing the freedom of trade index by 1% could and would increase trade. Hence the mad race by all countries to establish agreements with other countries to liberalize trade. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that freedom must also rhyme with responsibility. When the government makes an agreement with another country it must be responsible for its actions and for the decisions and agreements it makes. They can create a multitude of problems for people in emerging countries who want to improve their situation.

We see this responsibility clearly in the mining sector, among others. At the moment, Canada's mining companies operating abroad cause damage to the environment and displace many people. They are responsible only under the environmental laws of the other countries. This agreement does not promote environmental rights strongly enough to ensure our mining companies are responsible. Their responsibility is voluntary, to all intents and purposes. It is why a significant number of mining companies from around the world incorporate in Canada, for then they are not responsible for their actions abroad.

Thus they can save a lot of money. But they create catastrophes as well, and they should be responsible for them. If I have the time, I will come back to the subject of mines.

In my remarks, unlike in the speeches we often hear, I would like to return to the testimony given before the Standing Committee on International Trade. This testimony was heard long after the agreement was signed and long after the parties had indicated what stands they would take on this bill.

I have notes on a number of witnesses, but not all, because I could have spent an entire day on it. A number of things were said in committee that most of the Liberal and Conservative members did not hear, unfortunately. Perhaps it would be a good idea to tell them that this might be the perfect opportunity for this agreement to become the model of agreements for Canada in the future. We oppose this agreement and hope to have the support of the majority of members in this House in order to innovate. Although we would prefer multilateral agreements, when bilateral agreements are made, they must be made in the best possible way.

For example, I will quote a witness who appeared in committee on May 7, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is the largest agricultural association in Canada with over 200,000 producers. In Quebec, there is an expression that the witness used at the beginning of his testimony. He said that this agreement ce n'est pas le Pérou, meaning that this agreement is not perfect, it is not a cure-all for all of the current trade problems or irritants. But it is being signed with Peru.

The president said that it is obviously not perfect, far from it. But he and his producers would still like it to move forward as quickly as possible. He also criticized the negotiators. I would make a distinction. There are negotiators who negotiate. Often, the negotiators negotiate what the government asks them to negotiate. The negotiators focus on things chosen by the government. The negotiators also negotiate by leaving out some aspects, because the government has asked them to leave them out. The government asks the negotiators to sign, at any cost, almost any condition, whether or not it is favourable to the people, to entrepreneurs and to businesspeople. He criticized the negotiators because, according to him, if we compare this agreement with the one signed with the United States, the reduction was faster in the United States than in Canada. The quotas were also much larger and there was no most favoured nation clause. He said that some sectors benefited more—grains, wheat, barley and pulses. Of course, some sectors lost out. We never saw an impact study from the government or the negotiators. According to them, some sectors stand to gain, and others stand to lose. However, we have never seen an impact study and projections of these impacts, not only for the business of people who export, or for the benefit of some who import, but also for all workers in Quebec and Canada.

Impact studies would tell us what will happen in a given industry or in a given sector and what the gains and losses will be. We should also ask ourselves what our priorities are and why. We never had impact studies on free trade agreements. We are not asking anyone to tell the future by looking into a crystal ball. In fact, it is obvious that there are not too many crystal balls around. I know a government that went from a zero deficit to a $50 billion deficit in a span of a few weeks or a few months. So we do not really need a crystal ball.

There are various other products, but I will not name them.

Of course, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was aware of deficiencies with regard to labour and environmental laws. He still argues that even though our farmers do not enjoy the same treatment as American farmers and even though progress is slow, we should sign the agreement. Again, there has not been any impact studies on producers and farmers, nor on the population as a whole whose quality of life we must look to improve to a certain extent. For example, to show the difference, in the United States, the tariff on certain products, including pork, will be eliminated within five years. However, in Canada, it will take 17 years. So the difference is quite substantial.

The president of the federation told us also that the federation agreed to multilateral negotiations. That being said, he kept repeating that negotiators would have to adjust, but also that ,in turn, it would be mostly up to the government to adjust.

We heard from other witnesses, including the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat sector is obviously among the biggest winners.

I mentioned pork. I want to show the relative importance of that agreement for Canadian pork, for instance, on international markets. Director General Jacques Pomerleau said:

Knowing that we would never get what the Americans received, our negotiators became very creative in ensuring that we would still get some benefits. They accepted a longer tariff elimination period, 17 years instead of ten, but they were able to get for us a duty-free quota that will allow our exporters to better position themselves at the very beginning. We have to admit that this quota of 325 tonnes, that will progressively extend to 504 tonnes over 10 years, is relatively small for an industry that exports over one million tonnes every year.

There are little aberrations like that. Others, like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, are very much in favour. The only thing, really, is that we do not want to be overtaken by other countries that could sign a FTA with Peru, among others. The same holds true for other agreements. Because Colombia and the United States were negotiating an agreement that did not get Congress approval, Canada raced like mad. It was intent on signing and implementing an agreement before the United States did. This was crucial to the government, even if it meant doing so at the expense of Colombia or human rights. Globally, a mad race was on, with businesses from all countries trying to globalize, as we do. Soon, every country on this planet will have bilateral free trade agreements with the 199 other countries. Naturally, variances and differences will develop. Why not focus primarily on multilateral agreements? I think it would be the most sensible way to go.

I was talking about environmental laws earlier. The Canadian Environmental Law Association was represented in evidence given before a committee on May 26, 2009. Ms. McClenaghan, executive director and counsel in that association, criticized the fact that investors can access the states. She said it was a serious problem. Particularly when we talk about investors, we must of course refer to the investment agreement that echoes chapter 11 of NAFTA whereby investors have access to the state, which could be problematic. We know that investors can sue countries for various reasons under the major heading of expropriation, which includes two elements. There is direct expropriation, that is, in the true sense of the word, and indirect expropriation, which, no matter what happens, relates to a business' loss of anticipated profits.

To give an example of such a free-trade agreement, Ms. McClenaghan referred to the agreement between Australia and the United States whereby no investors had access to the state. It was also a model of social and environmental protection. In terms of labour laws and occupational health and safety, Canadian businesses are operating in a country where little attention is paid to people's rights.

I must briefly come back to the topic of mining. Regarding mining companies and corporate responsibility, we have motion M-283, moved by the hon. Liberal member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Bill C-300 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The Bloc Québécois supports both items—the motion and the bill—because their goal is to make mining companies accept greater responsibility in countries like Peru and Colombia. If the Liberals are to be consistent with their bill and their motion, they must also, for that reason, vote against the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I therefore call on all Liberal members, including those from Quebec, and all members to vote against this implementation act.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear in the parliamentary secretary's comments a renewed commitment to corporate social responsibility. I think that is welcome news.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is aware that there was a parliamentary report by the foreign affairs committee in 2005 that was followed up by round tables in 2007 to which his government did not respond. The round table's report was retabled in 2009, to which his government did not respond. It was then followed by my private member's bill, Bill C-300. Only lately has the government got religion, in March of this year, with a proposal that has the appearance of doing something but in fact is doing very little and may actually be counterproductive.

Some of the initiatives in that press release are actually good, and I encourage the government to pursue those. However, the ones that are most objectionable are the ones having to do with the actual investigative power of the councillor.

Would the hon. parliament secretary commit to incorporating the CSR obligations or responsibilities in the press release and the mandate of the new councillor into Bill C-300 as this bill goes forward?

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.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on introducing Bill C-300. It is a very good bill.

As I pointed out, it is going to be two years on March 29 since the round table presented its report and nothing has been done by the government. The thing that really upsets me is that the Prime Minister, at the G8 summit in Germany, pointed out that Canada will be the leader in the world, but we are still waiting.

A motion by itself, if it is adopted by this chamber, would bring support for the round table. More than 200,000 Canadians supported the round table and the presentation done by the foreign affairs committee. If my colleague's bill passed, it would be the law of the country, but we hope the government will come out with a response as soon as possible. In 2008 the ministers of industry and international cooperation pointed out that the government would be coming out with some guidelines on this, but we are still waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his initiative, one which is well worth supporting. In many respects it parallels Bill C-300, the bill I introduced last week on the same topic. I have two comments on which I would ask for the hon. member's opinion.

The first has to do with the reluctance of the government to respond to the round tables. It is now over two years and there is still no response. I take it that has something to do with the reason the member moved his motion.

The second has to do with a letter I received from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce this morning. The hon. member mentioned that over 200,000 people have actually written in asking for support of Bill C-300, but also on the hon. member's motion. However, the Chamber of Commerce does not like punitive measures, such as no access to funding on EDC, no access to funding on BDC, no access to funding on the Canada pension plan and no consular promotion.

I would be interested in the hon. member's response to both of those issues.

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

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, being newer to the House, I must tell you that four minutes seems like an eternity at one level.

It is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Canada's role in promoting effective corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing. Also, as a new member of the House and a rookie in the international trade committee, I take seriously the role that corporations must accept in their capacity as positive contributing members.

Let me thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for introducing Bill C-300 on February 9 and all the opposition parties for their continued dialogue on this important issue, because their contributions make this House better.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many constituents of London West who have taken the time to send me their opinions on the subject. I have received many postcards and emails from constituents, many of whom I do not know, who have expressed a desire to see Canadian companies demonstrate more corporate responsibility.

We all know that London is a growing hub for international business and that corporate success comes from serious responsibilities. I know Londoners care and business cares. That is why they are concerned about issues like this.

I consider my role as past president of the London Chamber of Commerce, which provides a thoughtful perspective on corporate social responsibility with companies in my city which are world class, a very personal insight.

The Conservative Government of Canada already encourages and expects Canadian companies working internationally to respect all applicable laws and international standards to operate transparently and in consultation with host governments and local communities and to develop and implement corporate social responsibility practices.

My concern is that Bill C-300 would impose a rigid legal framework of corporate social responsibility standards that has not undergone the necessary degree of consultation and analysis. The framework would abandon the use of multilateral standards and instruments that create a unilateral corporate social responsibility regime against which the Government of Canada would assess the activities of Canadian companies operating abroad, raising concerns of both privacy and extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Moreover, this legislative framework would affect the ability of the government departments, agencies and crown corporations to fulfill their mandates, and its compulsory nature would entail a rigidity that would not be beneficial in today's economic climate.

Londoners believe we can, and should always, encourage greater efforts toward corporate social responsibility, but unfortunately, I believe this proposal falls somewhat short.

Bill C-300 specifically addresses how two crown corporations and one government department encourage Canadian companies to act in a socially responsible and sustainable manner. The bill proposes substantive changes to the legislation that establishes Export Development Canada, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade without due consideration for the consequences, nature or enforceability of those changes. Those departments and agencies have already incorporated corporate social responsibility initiatives into their operations.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade actively promotes corporate social responsibility best practices to the companies it serves. As part of this commitment, trade commissioners in Canada and around the world work with companies to help improve their corporate social responsibility records.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade chairs Canada's national contact point for the OECD guidelines, an interdepartmental committee with representatives from a number of federal government departments whose role is to promote awareness of the guidelines and ensure their effective implementation.

At Export Development Canada, Canada's export credit agency, corporate social responsibility has become an integral part of the operations and risk management practices. It provides expertise to Canadian exporters and investors and its worldwide partners.

Export Development Canada recognizes that in the extractive industries, transparency and environmental responsibility are paramount to a project's sustainability.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would again like to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for taking the initiative in presenting this bill. I had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance and, although I do not wish to cast any aspersions, I would not put him in the left wing of the Liberal Party. This gives the bill even greater merit, because he considered the fact that it would be advantageous to the entire industry, as well as all operations in such countries, to move forward with Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

I am rather surprised by the government's position, considering that March 27 is fast approaching, the second anniversary of the report on the national round tables on corporate social responsibility and the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries. The government member says the bill is redundant, but I do not think it is.

The members of this House want the government to take action on this. We are currently examining this bill, a motion will be debated next Monday and another bill is the subject of a notice on the same issue. It is therefore in our best interest to examine this bill, and the Bloc Québécois will support it, because we think it is a step in the right direction.

Here are a few facts: 60% of mining companies are registered in Canada; these companies contribute over 40% of global budgets spent on mining exploration; and it is estimated that approximately US $2.2 billion is invested every year by these corporations in exploration activities abroad. Thus, we see that this is a major economic force and that a great deal of investments are made abroad.

It is important to look at the social and environmental responsibility of Canadian firms abroad, especially Canadian mining companies. The Bloc has been concerned about this issue for a very long time, in fact, since 2001. At the time, we put forward motions to require companies to comply with certain criteria.

I do not believe it is possible to simply rely on companies' good faith. Most companies, like most people, are honest and do their work properly. Unfortunately, some demonstrated in the past that they had unacceptable behaviour, and it is our responsibility to discipline Canadian companies working abroad and give them the chance to behave in a way that is respectful of the entire industry.

Canada is a world leader in the mining industry. It has a huge presence in Africa in particular, where most companies are Canadian and American and are incorporated or listed on Canadian stock exchanges. Canada therefore has a vested interest in making sure that these companies behave acceptably, as its international image is at stake.

For a number of years, several companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support for repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations. We must put an end to this savage behaviour and have much more definite enforcement. That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies that work abroad.

But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach, which unfortunately is what the government representatives are still calling for today in this debate. We also defended the recommendations in the report entitled National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries. It is important to note that these recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry.

I gained an awareness of this issue through Development and Peace, a NGO that is mobilizing citizens on the importance of ensuring highly ethical behaviour internationally. They conducted a post card campaign. Thousands responded to the appeal by Development and Peace. We must thank them for this initiative. Many thousands sent post cards asking their MPs and the government to promote this issue. The bill before us reflects this concern.

This bill does not contain all measures found in the roundtables report but it does seek to ensure that extractive corporations will act responsibly and respect international standards for human rights and environmental law.

The bill assigns responsibility for preparing guidelines to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Practices reflecting these standards are based on recognized documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each MP is to receive an annual report on the application of this law. In this regard, the bill is headed in the right direction. It is important to support it and to ensure that it will be studied in committee. At that point, we can take a closer look and determine whether the roundtable recommendations should be added to the report.

The report examined the social and environmental responsibility of Canadian corporations working abroad and issued 10 recommendations urging the Government of Canada to adopt a number of very specific measures to:

—ensure that Canadian companies have the necessary knowledge, support and incentives to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner and in conformity with international human rights standards.

Three specific committee recommendations proposed some concrete objectives relating to the Canadian government's assuming responsibility for follow up and more effective monitoring of Canadian mining operations.

The committee's recommendations were described by several Canadian NGOs as real breakthroughs. There was much hope of their prompt implementation. However, it was pointed out that problems such as those raised by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development would increase in number and severity in the years to come. So the present inaction of the government, its lack of response to the report thus far, is one way of contributing to the disorganization and this is unacceptable behaviour. It is therefore important, this finding and the government's insistence on voluntary measures with other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the other OECD member countries notwithstanding, that there be a more specific legal framework for Canada and for Canadian companies.

We do not share the Conservatives' belief that the responsibility needs to be laid at the feet of the host countries or the industry. The issue for these countries and for the extractive industry is to ensure that natural resources contribute to reducing poverty and promoting economic and social development, and the mining industry does fulfill that function. The problem does not arise from economic development in the developing countries, but it comes from the way certain businesses behave, businesses that should be subject to more supervision and possibly more discipline.

I have referred to our desire to integrate a number of improvements into the bill. Among them, I mentioned the creation of an ombudsman position. We will need to look very seriously at the possibility of integrating all of the recommendations into this bill, even though it might need a royal recommendation in the end. I understand that the hon. member wants to see his bill passed. That is completely normal. But why not put some effort into giving it more teeth and making it more effective? The bill needs to contain as many possibilities and as much efficiency as possible. That aspect of the bill can be improved, and I am convinced that the hon. member will concur and we will be able to move forward with it.

In conclusion, despite these shortcomings, Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction. It fails to act on most of the round table recommendations, but a step in the right direction is still progress. That is why we support this bill in principle. We believe that the situation is so critical that we must act now to ensure that Canadian resource extraction companies comply with international human rights and sustainable development standards so that Canadian companies can contribute to economic development, social development and the redistribution of wealth worldwide, not just to exploiting natural resources with no concern for how they do it.

We can ask the Chinese and Indian governments to introduce environmental protection or worker's rights regulations, but the Government of Canada has to abide by the same standards.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the issue of corporate accountability as it relates to the activities of Canadian mining and oil and gas companies operating in developing countries.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood, for introducing Bill C-300 today, and with regard to the opposition party, for their continued interest in this very important issue.

The Conservative government attaches a great deal of importance to the question of corporate social responsibility, often referred to as CSR. We encourage and expect Canadian mining and oil and gas companies working around the world to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with the host government and local governments, and to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.

Canada is, after all, a major player in the international extractive sector, a sector that has significant investments and operations in developing countries. Canada is a world leader in mining.

Between 1998 and 2008, the share of worldwide mining exploration attributed to Canadian companies increased from 30% to 43%. Canadian mining companies invested over $60 billion in developing countries abroad, including $41 billion in Latin America and Mexico and almost $15 billion in Africa. Total foreign direct investment in all developing countries is $80 billion.

The economic downturn that started in 2008 will likely decrease or delay further Canadian mining investments. However, the projected figures remain very impressive. For 2009-10, Natural Resources Canada estimates additional Canadian investments in Africa to be between $10 billion and $12 billion.

These investments play a very important role in Canada's economic development. Our companies not only drive prosperity here at home, they also provide jobs, opportunities, and other benefits in what are often small rural, indigenous, and isolated communities abroad. In many cases they bring vital infrastructure to communities that are without roads, hospitals, or even clean water.

As a member of the international trade committee I have had the honour of travelling to some of these communities, whether in Yemen, or last May, in Colombia, seeing the shanty towns and the displaced individuals, working with them, and seeing the Canadian companies and how they are bringing the corporate social responsibility method to the communities' tables, to bring the philosophy that a rising tide lifts all boats and all ships, and every individual has an opportunity to be a better individual with a more prosperous future.

Through global investment, this sector is making its presence and Canada's felt throughout the world in helping other countries to develop their own mining industries.

As Canadians, we recognize that with this presence overseas comes numerous social responsibilities for our corporations towards local communities and stakeholders. That is why our government actively supports CSR best practices for corporations based on internationally recognized CSR standards and principles such as the International Finance Corporation, otherwise known as IFC, and performance guidelines and the voluntary principles mentioned in the bill.

However, our Conservative government goes beyond that. We also look to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, otherwise known as OECD, the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and other leading standards around the world for inspiration. Indeed, Canadians want our companies to be a positive force in the communities in which they operate.

In fact, adopting CSR practices can be an important benefit to Canadian companies. It can improve their situation and facilitate the business climates in which our companies operate. It can promote trust and goodwill in communities and with host governments. It can also send a powerful signal to the world that Canadian businesses are upholding CSR principles and should be partners of choice around the globe.

Many Canadian companies from every sector already recognize these benefits. They have put in place voluntary CSR practices to help them manage the social, economic and environmental issues they encounter in their daily operations. They recognize that a commitment to CSR is a commitment to their own success. It makes them more competitive by giving them an enhanced social licence to operate in communities. It enhances the brand and reputation they have and helps them manage risks and therefore improve their access to capital and other financing and insurance opportunities.

Unlike these voluntary practices, Bill C-300 mandates ministers to issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards but leaves the legal effect of these guidelines unclear. Therefore, our government does not believe this bill is the right approach to take. As mentioned, we support the voluntary nature of the internationally recognized CSR standards and principles.

Several Canadian industry associations and companies have been globally recognized for their leadership in CSR.

Our Canadian companies are doing their part, and the Conservative government is there to help them. Our trade commissioner service provides counselling and advice on local market conditions including local laws, risk assessments and advocacy through more than 150 offices across Canada and around the world.

The Canadian International Development Agency does tremendous work building the capacity of host governments to support economic and social investments aimed at promoting the sustainable development of rural populations within the areas of influence of the extractive sector operations.

Our partners at Export Development Canada, otherwise known as EDC, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board also believe that working with Canadian business to foster CSR best practice is more effective than creating a rigid and punitive legislative regime. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board already has a policy on responsible investing by which it engages the companies in which it invests. In defining this policy the CPP investment board has taken a broad view of the impact of environmental, social and governance factors on long-term investment performance.

Let me also say that while our companies clearly recognize that CSR is an inherent part of doing business, they have indicated that there is a limit to what they are capable of providing in the area of support for the social, health and educational concerns of the communities within which they operate abroad.

Responsible business conduct cannot substitute for host government responsibility for, and therefore governance of, social and economic policy.

It can already be quite challenging for our companies to do business overseas. Unpredictable business environments, limited services and protection for investors, ill-defined or unevenly applied regulations, legislation and property rights, and weak host government institutional capacity to manage extractive sector development and associated social and environmental considerations are only some of the challenges they face, particularly in developing countries.

In that sense, while environmental stewardship and successful community involvement is a shared responsibility, and Canada can certainly offer a range of assistance to help developing counties build their own capacity to manage CSR issues, host governments ultimately remain responsible for the transparent development of legislation that meets the needs of their citizens.

Following a 2005 report on mining and CSR by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Government of Canada organized the 2006 national round tables on CSR and the Canadian extractive sector in developing countries. The national round tables provided a unique opportunity to encourage a practical and solutions-oriented dialogue on ways to expand the knowledge and capacity of Canadian companies to conduct their operations in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

The government shares the view that more can be done to enhance the ability of the Canadian extractive sector to manage the social and environmental risks of its operations abroad and at the same time enhance the benefits arising from their investments for the local communities and the countries in which they operate.

While I know that some hon. members would prefer to address this issue by creating a punitive legislative regime and broadening the scope of our sanctions legislation, we believe it is far more effective to work with our companies and host governments to achieve these goals. Where efforts to work with host governments fail, we do have tools at our disposal. Canada has the ability to impose sanctions against foreign states in response to a call of an international body or when a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred.

In closing, I ask for the support of all hon. members, from both sides of the floor, as we continue to take steps to ensure that Canadian companies can make the most out of global opportunities while setting a high standard for CSR excellence in the communities in which they operate.

Since our government will soon be introducing and announcing a more comprehensive CSR approach for the Canadian international extractive sector, I trust that this bill is redundant.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House on this important issue, and I look forward to discussing it further with my colleagues.

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

moved 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 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Madam Speaker, it is a matter of quite considerable pride for me to introduce this bill into the House and to hopefully precipitate a full debate and ultimately move it on to the committee.

We are all proud Canadians. Everyone in the chamber is a proud Canadian. The people in the gallery are proud Canadians. The people watching on television are proud Canadians. We are proud of our hockey team. When the men and women won gold in Salt Lake City, it was an enormous matter of pride for our nation. Students travelling in Europe are so proud of their country that they sew a flag on their backpacks. They do this for a couple of reasons: one, to say they are proud Canadians, and two, to say they are not Americans.

We are so proud at times that we are at pains to tell others that we are not like those Americans, and sometimes we are right. Certainly we have superior banking and health care systems. We do not have a subprime crisis. However, there are times when we are morally arrogant to the point of being insufferable. At times our superiority is unbecoming to a nation of dignity.

Last week I was visited by some folks from Ecuador. They talked about a Canadian mining company that was behaving in a way that was distinctly un-Canadian, and certainly at variance with our sense of self, of our nation and of how we operate in this world. The video they presented showed the ugly Canadian. It was the ugly Canadian corporation trying to gain a commercial advantage over indigenous people. It showed a company willing to engage in violence, use its superior financial resources, abuse the environment and abuse human rights in order to get its own way.

To be fair, the video did not show the company's side of the story. Basic rules of procedure and fairness require that we at least listen to the other side. Nevertheless, this was a pretty damning indictment of a Canadian company using its financial clout to develop a copper mine.

I wish I could say this was merely an isolated example. Unfortunately, I cannot. There are documented abuses by Canadian companies operating in Guyana, the Philippines and possibly in as many as 30 other countries, Canadian companies that are acting in manners that are unbecoming of our sense of self as a nation, our sense of how we operate in this world and our sense of how Canadian corporations should operate in the world.

The Toronto Stock Exchange is the most active mining exchange in the world. More money for mining and exploration is raised there than anywhere else in the world. Sixty percent of the world's mining and exploration companies are listed in Canada.

It is not my intention to overstate the case by painting all Canadian extractive companies with the same brush. Many companies are quite responsible and actively pursue their responsibilities in terms of both the environment and human rights. They are seriously engaged in environmental compliance and respect for human rights.

However, all our reputations are at risk through the behaviour of certain companies. Not only is there a behavioural risk to an individual company, but there is also a risk to our national reputation.

When a Canadian company behaves badly, our national reputation suffers. All of the hard work done by many Canadians, through NGOs and indeed through the government, gets swept aside when our own companies and our own people abuse human rights standards and environmental standards. Our reputation for responsible environmental stewardship gets swept aside when we degrade and we debase the environments of other countries.

So, what to do? Ideally, the government should be presenting this bill or, if not this bill, certainly a beefed up version of this bill.

The national round tables on corporate social responsibility and the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries presented a report on March 29, 2007. Those round tables were actually sponsored by the government. Yet here we are, almost two years later, and we have yet to hear the government's response to their report.

In fact, the round tables re-deposited their report just in the hope, the faint hope possibly, of trying to solicit a response from the government. To date, there has been silence.

These round tables engaged everyone, from government stakeholders, to NGOs, to corporations. In fact, it kind of reads like a who's who of the mining industry. Mr. Tony Andrews from the Prospectors and Developers Association was part of the round table. Jim Cooney from international government affairs for Placer Dome was in on it. The VP for exploration, Dennis Jones, from IAMGOLD Corporation was there. Talisman was represented. Various other corporations were represented at this round table, in addition to various NGOs and in addition to, if I may say so, the usual suspects.

So, this was a series of round tables engaged in by all of the stakeholders. They presented a comprehensive report and yet, we have no response from the government.

As I say, ideally, this would be a government bill because the government could do so much more than can a private member. For instance, a private member cannot propose the spending of taxpayers' money. Only the government can propose, upon parliamentary approval, the spending of taxpayers' money.

The limitation of every private member's bill that is presented here is called a royal recommendation. We cannot, in a private member's bill, present a bill which would require the government to spend money.

The problem in this case is, ideally, the responsibilities for the implementation of this bill would be reposited in an ombudsman, or an ombudsperson. Unfortunately, however, if we do draft our bill so that the responsibilities are deposited with an ombudsman, we would trigger a royal recommendation and so, the bill would be ruled out of order. Unfortunately, we have had to draft around the issue of a royal recommendation. So, the responsibility in this bill is reposited in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade.

In a lot of other respects the bill looks a lot like the recommendations as contained in the round tables recommendations. The basic purpose of the bill is:

--to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada’s commitments to international human rights standards.

Paragraph 5 provides that:

--the Ministers shall issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards for mining, oil or gas activities.

And make reference to specific internationally recognized standards for the environment and human rights.

So, we set up the purpose, and then we set up the guidelines, and adopt these guidelines.

Once the guidelines are adopted, a scheme is set out whereby the minister or ministers, as the case may be, may receive complaints, conduct examinations and publish their results, presumably in the Canada Gazette. That is where the problem arises.

This does not have the force of law such as the Criminal Code. It is not regulatory. They are guidelines for which there is no explicit sanction such as a fine or imprisonment. The reason is that there are limits to the extraterritoriality of Canadian law. Just as other countries cannot and do not apply their law to our country, so too Canada cannot apply its laws and its regulations to other countries.

Where is the teeth in this bill? What would happen to a company that offends these guidelines?

The first sanction is reputational. I would expect that good companies will work at not finding themselves being gazetted. All of us here in this chamber indeed work at protecting our own reputation. What is true of individuals is also true of companies. Companies spend a lot of money preserving and enhancing their reputations. Being gazetted under this bill would not enhance a company's reputation.

Remember the Nike issue, where Nike was accused of engaging in dubious labour practices? Nike had to not only reverse its labour practices but it spent millions and millions of dollars trying to restore its reputation.

There are some companies that simply do not care. There is just way too much money to be made to worry a little bit about a reputational downside and if that reflects badly on Canada, so be it. There is a certain cynical truth that some companies will conclude that it is a lot cheaper to engage a bunch of lawyers and PR people than to comply with internationally recognized guidelines for corporate behaviour in third world countries.

If they are not overly worried about their reputation, and they are aware of the limitations of Canadian law as it applies to activities in other countries, what additional sanctions should we apply? The proposal in Bill C-300 is that we put a bit of financial bite into these guidelines.

If a finding has been made and gazetted, then the company in question will not be eligible for Export Development Bank of Canada's services, EDC. It may be that such a corporation really does not care and it does not need government help. As well, the corporation cannot expect anything from the Government of Canada other than basic consular services.

In the language of the bill, “no undertaking made through a program developed by the Minister in the exercise of his or her powers under this section shall promote or support mining, oil or gas activities”. In other words, basic consular services and nothing else. If the corporation is gazetted, it will basically be on its own.

Maybe the corporation does not care about EDC or does not care about promotion by the government. Maybe disallowing the Canada pension plan from investing in the corporation will get its attention.

With the passage of this bill, CPP would have to assure itself that it has no assets invested in the offending company, in other words, no CPP money, and because CPP is so heavily weighted in the market, other pension plans may well follow suit.

Money just got a whole lot more expensive for a corporation that ignores this bill. Corporations which have nothing to fear and much to gain, those are good corporations. Those corporations will be enhanced. Their reputations will be enhanced. They will be entitled to assistance from EDC. They can expect support from the government and their money gets cheaper. It does not get much better than that.

Let me conclude by urging all hon. members to support Bill C-300. Good ethics make for good business. Good business makes for good ethics. Everyone should win if these guidelines are adopted in this legislation. Canada should win. These corporations should win, and citizens from around the world should win.

Win-win seems like something to be supported and I would urge all members to support this bill.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to promote environmental best practices and ensure the protection and promotion of international human rights standards in respect of mining, oil or gas activities of Canadian corporations in developing countries. It also would give the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade the responsibility to issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards for mining, oil and gas activities and it would require the ministers to submit an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the operation of this act.

In the business section of The Globe and Mail this morning was a very timely article about this very issue. I am hoping that this bill will receive favour among hon. members here and that it will, in fact, create a debate on what is a very difficult issue for us all. I thank my friend for Lac-Saint-Louis for his generous support.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)