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.

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

[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.

[Jamie Kneen]

I understand that the Panamanian government has been revisiting Bill C-30. At the same time we've lost Bill C-300. The opportunity is there. As I say, the question is, what kind of investment would be made by Canadian companies in the absence of any particular requirements?

In Canada, under the land claims agreements, for instance, we have specific powers for first nations and Inuit to require impact benefit agreements with profit-sharing, employment and training, and so on. We have other examples in the provinces of mining companies engaging in long-range planning and training projects in order to bring local people into those better jobs.

In Latin America it has been less successful. Even in countries with mining experience--and Panama is not one of those--it has been more difficult. Countries like Peru have been able to move their own people into the better jobs, but only over time and with some cost. I think the difficulty is that instituting that kind of investment in a virgin territory, for lack of a better term, is not going to lead to success in the short or even the medium term.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Last June, the Panamanian government introduced Bill 30, which many people considered anti-union legislation. A few weeks ago, the Parliament of Canada introduced Bill C-300, which was defeated.

What do Panamanians still have to help them access jobs that are of the slightest degree of quality? Do these people still have means?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of you for being here today.

I have about seven pages here; this is one of those times when it's almost difficult to know where to start. You're calling this national plan, in very polite terms, a band-aid approach to a very, very serious situation.

From your comments on village-to-village work and work on the ground, it sounds to me as if that's one of the things that you think is a very sore point in this plan, that it's not going anywhere. Also, it sounds like your analysis says there is no strategic direction; you have departments over here, but they don't have anything to coalesce around.

There's another thing that jumped out at me, Ms. Lebert, when you were talking about local resources and extraction companies. You weren't very specific on that. Are we talking about Canadian companies? Because we just had Bill C-300 before the House, which I'm sure you're aware of. It was quite a conversation piece for a number of years and was worked on by a number of people from our party, the NDP. Are there concerns about our extraction companies over there? Is that something you'd feel comfortable talking about?

I have one last question, and it's going to sound right off the wall. Funding for both of you is independent of government, I suspect. No, it's not?

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.