Bill C-486 (Historical)

Conflict Minerals Act

An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa

This enactment requires Canadian companies to exercise due diligence in respect of the exploitation and trading of designated minerals originating in the Great Lakes Region of Africa in seeking to ensure that no armed rebel organization or criminal entity or public or private security force that is engaged in illegal activities or serious human rights abuses has benefited from any transaction involving such minerals.

Conflict Minerals Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, September 15, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-486 under private members' business. The question is on the motion.

The House resumed from June 19, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Conflict Minerals

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have petitions from right across the country, but primarily from Calgary. These petitioners are asking the government to deal with the horrific conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 5.4 million people have died since 1998. The petitioners want the government to enact Bill C-486 to stop the revenues coming from conflict minerals and the trade therein. They are also asking that the government support Bill C-486, which, as I noted today in question period, is being supported by the Mining Association of Canada.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, our government has long been committed to combatting conflict minerals and is always looking for ways to improve our efforts. Unfortunately, Bill C-486 is fundamentally flawed, and instead of making tangible progress on the issue, it stigmatizes the region in Africa and creates burdens and red tape that would only serve to harm the people of the Great Lakes. Canada will continue to work with the Great Lakes region and the Canadian industry to increase transparency and accountability in resource development.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents in and around Guelph calling on the Government of Canada to end trade in conflict minerals by adopting Bill C-486, the conflict minerals act.

The petitioners call on the government to adopt the hon. member for Ottawa Centre's bill as a means to end conflict in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where over 5 million deaths and untold suffering are being financed by illegally mined minerals, by ending trade in conflict minerals.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from Canadians from right across the country.

The petitioners want the Conservative government to join with other governments to stop the spread of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo by dealing with conflict minerals.

They ask that all parliamentarians get behind my bill, Bill C-486, to stop the revenues that go to the militias that do horrendous things in the eastern Congo. They also ask that we support those who are affected by gender violence.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more than five million people have died as a result of the war in the Congo. The conflict is fueled and funded by minerals we use in our cell phones, computers, jet engines, and jewellery. If we stop buying these minerals from armed groups in the Congo, we can end the war, just like we did with blood diamonds. That is why I proposed Bill C-486, the conflict minerals act, now approaching a vote at second reading. That is why thousands of Canadians have signed petitions and written letters to me and other parliamentarians supporting this bill. That is why a grassroots network has developed on the issue, bringing together human rights advocates, student groups, and environmental organizations.

Tomorrow night, for 486 minutes, Canadians across the country will take part in a national day of action for this Just Minerals campaign by turning off their cell phones to show solidarity and create awareness. I invite all members and all Canadians to join in this action tomorrow night. Together, let us take conflict out of Canadian homes.

Conflict Minerals Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking all of my colleagues, in particular my colleagues on this side. I particularly want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments. I will deal with her concerns in a minute, but I first want to say how proud I am to stand to speak on Bill C-486, the conflict minerals act.

Five years ago, as I have mentioned many times in this House, I was in the Congo. I saw the exploitation of mineral resources and their contribution to violence. As I have said before, all of us have these little devices that we carry around, and thus we carry a little piece of the conflict with us—unknowingly for many. That is really what this is about. I am tying the purchases that we make to the conflict that is happening in the Congo, which, as has been stated before, is the rape capital of the world. It is where rape is used as a weapon of war, and where 5.4 million people have died since 1998. It is a tragic war.

I want to say that the bill has already helped. We have had an incredible dialogue here in the House and around the country about the connection between minerals and conflict. We have heard some of that debate tonight and an acknowledgement from the government that this is a concern.

Thousands of people across the country have signed petitions and written letters in support of this legislation. Groups as diverse as the Grandmothers Advocacy Network, the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Students Taking Action Now, the Canadian Fair Trade Network, the Enough Project in the States that is partnering with us here in Canada, Engineers Without Borders, and many church and faith groups have got behind the Just Minerals campaign in support of Bill C-486. I am so thankful for their advocacy on this important legislation.

The bill has made parliamentarians in this House take note of an often forgotten and overlooked crisis in Central Africa. The last time the bill was debated, all parties agreed that further action was needed by Canada. We have a consensus on that, which is important. In the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

I am pleased to say that this government agrees wholeheartedly...that further engagement by Canada is warranted to find effective and efficient ways to address the issue of conflict minerals.

I could not agree more. That is an important consensus. We heard it from the parliamentary secretary again tonight, and I take note of that.

Moreover, all parties agree on the principle of the bill, the crucial point that Canada can help to disconnect the minerals in Canadian products from the conflict in the Congo. However, I have to underline that this is not about Canadian mining companies. In fact, I am engaged right now with the Mining Association of Canada, and if the government sees the agreement, I hope to get support from them. This is actually about bad actors, about those who are mining in the eastern Congo and controlling the mines with conflict, using child soldiers and rape as a weapon of war. This is not about Canadian mining companies; this is actually to give Canadian mining companies a good reputation, so let us put that aside. While it is not about Canadian mining companies, it is about the supply chain of those companies.

I will now address some of the stated concerns of my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

She is concerned about the scope of the bill. She said its scope is too big. To address her concern directly, what we are saying is that we need reporting along the supply chain. That would simply be about keeping tabs on a computer about where people are sourcing their supplies. It is very simple. It would actually help.

That addresses her second concern, the focus of the bill, which is the Great Lakes region. Why? It is because that is where the conflict is and that is where the minerals are. That is why the bill is focused on it, just as the OECD was and just as the legislation in the United States was. It is because we can make a difference if we focus here.

The parliamentary secretary said that the bill is too narrowly cast on the Great Lakes. The good news is that we learned from the Dodd-Frank Act that the reporting would not just be here in Canada, but that we would also share it with the people in the Congo so that the government there could track and trace where these minerals are coming from. That would help build up their capacity and help people in the Congo.

Second reading is about agreeing on principle. I would ask that the government look to the consensus, and if second reading is about taking it to committee to improve the bill, then I would ask the government and members to consider that. If we want to take conflict out of our devices and give Canadians a clear choice on what they are buying, I would submit that we have to get this bill to committee and third reading, so we can improve it, save lives, and stop the horrendous conflict in the Congo by doing our fair share. That is the least we can do for the people of the Congo.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his excellent work on this issue. It is important to highlight this work that has been so well done. My colleague’s bill requires Canadian companies using minerals originating in the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence to ensure that no armed groups engaged in illegal activities benefit from the extraction, processing or use of these minerals.

More than half of the mines located east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are controlled by armed groups that place illegal taxes on the minerals passing through areas under their control. The DRC's mineral production is for the most part smuggled out to other countries. Subsequently, these minerals end up in products such as cell phones, tin cans, medical devices and jet engines. This is how the illegal exploitation and trafficking of minerals in the Great Lakes Region of Africa finances and perpetuates the most violent armed conflicts since the Second World War. The media do not talk about it enough, but what is happening in the Congo is really tragic. There have been millions of deaths and there are millions of refugees. It is important to show concern for them and worry about the consequences of our actions.

This bill is part of the NDP agenda to support corporate social responsibility while allowing consumers to make more informed choices. In fact, one of the most important aspects of the bill is that it will make it possible for Canadians to find out whether the minerals contained in the products they buy may have helped finance and perpetuate conflicts so that they can make better informed and more knowledgeable choices as consumers.

As the deputy critic for consumer protection, it is very important for me to give Canadian consumers an opportunity to make informed choices. In order to do so, companies must tell them whether the minerals they use in manufacturing their products help finance wars. The situation is far from trivial or insignificant. To explain how conflict minerals can cause harm, I will give you a few facts.

Conflict minerals generate $180 million per year for armed groups, literally keeping some militias in business. In fact, conflict minerals account for up to 95% of the income of armed groups.

In addition, up to 40% of those working in the mines are children, who are exploited and abused. They then become prime targets for recruitment by armed groups. We all know the story of too many child soldiers.

Finally, it is estimated that 5.4 million people have been killed either directly or indirectly in the conflicts in the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

I would like to take a few moments to mention that I met with people from my riding and the Quebec City area who are working with Development and Peace and who are doing an outstanding job. Just like myself and the NDP, their aim is to make our Canadian companies socially responsible, both at home and abroad.

I have received messages from hundreds of constituents in my riding who support an approach similar to that of my colleague, that is, to ask Canada, as a major player in the international extractive sector, to promote responsible management practices. I would like to thank them for their support and I would ask that they continue writing to me, as this is precisely how we can bring pressure to bear on the government, to ensure we are heard and that we can make the government listen to reason.

I still need the support of the people of Quebec City and elsewhere to do this.

In other words, the constituents of the Quebec riding that I represent here in Parliament think that Canada and Canadian businesses must exercise due diligence, responsibility and especially transparency in their operations abroad. I am proud to say that the bill being debated today will help guarantee that the international activities of Canadian businesses comply with a standard that we can all be very proud of.

Members of the NDP have long advocated for greater transparency and responsibility from Canadian businesses that operate in other countries, primarily in the mining industry. This bill forms part of the NDP's legislative efforts to encourage responsible, sustainable and transparent management in the mining industry.

My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île has also put forward a bill that would create an ombudsman for the corporate social responsibility of extractive corporations, specifically. This demonstrates how active we are. The NDP wants to ensure that companies that exploit minerals in developing countries are not only, as I said, socially responsible, but also ecologically responsible.

Canada must take the initiative internationally on this matter. Canadian mining companies are leaders in the global market and it is now high time for Canada to also become a leader in corporate social responsibility. Almost every high technology company, from Microsoft to Apple to Nokia, have already adopted measures to avoid using conflict minerals in their products.

In May 2011, the OECD adopted a due diligence recommendation and guidance. In August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced rules requiring corporations to show reasonable due diligence in their use of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold. I will quote, the former U.S. Secretary of State, the esteemed Hillary Clinton, on the subject of conflict minerals:

With respect to corporations responsible for what are known as conflict minerals, I believe that the international community must start looking at steps we can take to try to prevent the mineral wealth from the DRC ending up in the hands of those who fund the violence here.

It is time for Canada to join this international movement and play a leading role in efforts to put an end to the conflict in the DRC. The bill would incorporate the OECD guidance in Canadian legislation, which would be a first for the OECD. It would be good to show initiative and take the first step. That would be a change.

In closing, this bill could be another step in the right direction leading to an end to a conflict that, as I mentioned, has victimized more than 5.4 million people and is financed and fuelled by revenue generated by the minerals in the products we buy.

Canada has a duty to be at the forefront when it comes to efforts to put an end to conflict mineral trafficking. I am listening to what the people of Quebec City are telling me and they want our companies to be successful, responsible representatives of our country. They want our companies to comply with international standards. We want consumers to be given the information they need so that they can buy products that do not finance war. I truly believe that they have that right. That is why our proposed bill is so worthwhile. I sincerely hope that this bill gets passed with the full support of the House, and I hope that it will restore our international reputation abroad. That reputation has been badly tarnished in recent years.

This initiative would give the organizations that we work with a renewed sense of hope. We would get the feeling that this is the Canada that we used to know, the one that made us proud. I am talking about the Canada of Lester B. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I sometimes think about that Canada. I would like Canada to be a country that is fairer and more responsible, an example on the world stage. That is the direction we should be headed in. I invite my colleagues to move forward with this bill and give it their full support.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for a very balanced and thoughtful presentation. I also wish to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for the work he does for his constituents, the incredible work he does in his capacity as critic for international affairs, and the very steady, compassionate, and solution-oriented work he has done with regard to conflict minerals and the impact the struggle to finance war, insurgency, and militia groups has on vulnerable, innocent victims and communities.

This debate and this bill are about human beings, human beings who are trapped and terrorized by those who wreak havoc in many regions of the world. This afternoon I am going to speak about the violence in places like the Great Lakes region of Africa; the victims, many of whom are women and children; and the purpose and possibility of Bill C-486, standing in the name of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. It is a very important discussion.

Briefly, the illegal exploitation and trade in minerals in the Great Lakes region of Africa is, as has been said, funding and fuelling a brutal and deadly armed conflict. This is a war that had its origins in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Refugees from that horrific slaughter flooded into the eastern area of the Democratic Republic of Congo, an area formerly known as Zaire. During the Congo wars from 1996-1997, and later from 1998-2003, the conflict involved nine countries and more than 40 rebel groups.

At the present time, there are about three main armed groups operating in eastern Congo, all of them competing for the resources they need to continue fighting by exploiting the illegal trade of minerals in this region. We have to remember how very lucrative the minerals are. They include cassiterite, coltan, wolframite, tin, tantalum, and tungsten. The profits from these illegally traded minerals are estimated at between $140 million and $225 million, and as has been said, they provide up to 95% of the money that keeps these armed groups going.

The human cost has been horrific. More than 5.4 million deaths are directly attributable to this trade, and the devastation goes beyond death and murder at the hands of combatants. That devastation comes in the form of sexual and gender-based violence. It has become a weapon of war, and it is used as such in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are at least 40,000 survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in the DRC. No one knows how many women and girls have died at the hands of their tormentors, these armed men who rape.

All of this violence, all of it, is to instill fear in communities and is used as a form of vengeance. Women and children are the stable base of society, and in this case, they are specifically targeted by these militia to undermine the very fabric of that society to destabilize communities and make it easier to pillage them for those valuable minerals we have been talking about. The result is traumatized women who are often marginalized because they are forced to bear the children of the enemy. These women, some as young as 13 or 14, are rejected by their communities, and so are their children. No one is safe. Women are raped and men are subjected to torture and humiliation. The victims include children as young as four and adults as old as 65.

For many, the injuries never heal. The survivors suffer from a number of health problems, including damaged reproductive organs; fistulas, in the case of women; sexually transmitted diseases; and HIV-AIDS. Many survivors have also been robbed of their possessions or can no longer work as a result of their injuries, and they cannot afford medical care. The DRC is one of the most dangerous places in the world, particularly for women.

Locals in mining communities are forced to take part in the illicit mining economy. Money earned from the sale of these minerals, as I have said, is used to further the violence. Minerals are smuggled out of the Congo through neighbouring countries and are shipped to smelters around the world for refinement.

Once minerals are processed in this way, it is really difficult to trace their origin. Conflict minerals easily make their way through the United States to Canada and to consumers in our countries. This underscores the purpose and the importance of Bill C-486.

It is supported by a wide range of Canadian and international civil society and corporate organizations. Consultations were a part of the drafting of this legislation. My colleague has done many consultations, including with representatives from Partnership Africa Canada, BlackBerry, KAIROS, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Enough Project, and Global Witness.

Bill C-486, quite simply, requires Canadian companies using minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to practise due public diligence to ensure that no armed groups engaged in illegal activities benefit from the extraction, processing, or use of those minerals

The bill would allow Canadians to know whether minerals in products they purchased may have contributed to the funding and fuelling of conflict and to the horrific crimes against human beings. It would also empower Canadian consumers to make more informed choices.

The New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian corporations overseas, including those in the extractive sector. The bill complements other legislation and efforts made by the New Democrats to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices in all sectors, including the extractive sector.

Bill C-486 is part of an international trend toward due diligence and corporate accountability. Enforced regulations—and it is important that they be enforced regulations—will create a level playing field for all Canadian companies while ensuring environmental, labour, and human rights, the protections of which we can be proud.

As we know, there is a vast trade in these minerals. They support electronics and jewellery companies. We simply have to know that the products we are buying are not financing atrocities. We, as Canadians, deserve to know that.

It is critical to build a clean mineral trade in the Congo so the people who live there and the miners who work there can have decent living conditions and know that their region is a place where they can eventually build safe communities, conflict free, where people can survive and live in harmony.

Unfortunately, as we have heard, the government is primarily focused on voluntary industry and government initiatives in regard to the extractive industry. That is unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that we have seen opposition to bills like Bill C-300 that would require Canadian extractive companies to behave as they do in Canada when they work abroad.

Canadians want to choose products that do not fund war and human rights violations. Canadians need to know that companies that provide electronic products and jewellery are not funding those wars, that there is corporate transparency, and that Canadians can absolutely rely on the products that we have in our homes and know that they are not causing undue harm and terror for those people living in areas like East Africa.

[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.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today and participate in the second hour of debate on Bill C-486.

First I would like to reiterate that the government fully agrees with the hon. member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre on the importance of finding ways to address the issue of conflict minerals. Indeed, the first hour of debate demonstrated that there is a shared concern over how the illegal trade in minerals fuels conflicts. The good news is that Canadian companies, civil society, and government have shown significant leadership and have been at the forefront of creating global consensus on responsible mining and sourcing practices in the gold, tin, tungsten, and tantalum sectors. I know that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre appreciates Canada's active engagement, because he cites many of our activities in the preamble to Bill C-486, such as our participation in the development of the supply chain due diligence guidance at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

This government believes that the extractive sector has demonstrated that it can be a positive force not only here at home but around the world by helping create sustainable economic growth and development in countries where it is active.

At a recent event co-hosted by Canada and the World Economic Forum, the hon. Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie stated, “Canada is well known as a world leader in responsible resource development. We have robust strategies that support economic growth and diversification, that promote responsible business conduct, that ensure environmental sustainability and that strengthen community engagement so all stakeholders can benefit from natural resource development”.

Our efforts to stop the trade in conflict minerals are a part of the same narrative. Our engagement at the OECD, where we work with relevant actors in government, the private sector, and civil society, is emblematic of the constructive approach our government has taken to enhance the positive contribution of the extractive sector to social and economic development. Indeed, the Government of Canada is committed to working with partner countries to help them develop and manage their natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way that benefits all of their citizens. It is only by putting the right systems in place on the ground that we can hope to address a multi-faceted problem like conflict minerals.

There is more that can and should be done to curb the trade in conflict minerals. The Government of Canada is actively engaged on this issue, and we are always looking at ways to improve our efforts. However, the approach outlined in Bill C-486 is, in our view, fundamentally flawed. To be more specific, the government believes that Bill C-486 is questionable in its efficacy, overly broad in its application to companies throughout the expansive supply chain, and unduly limited in its geographic focus.

Allow me to elaborate on our concerns in more detail.

First, on the question of efficacy, simply put, there is no evidence to date that mandatory reporting on due diligence activities would actually stop conflict minerals from entering international markets. As noted in the first hour of debate, Bill C-486 is modelled after U.S. legislation, specifically section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This legislation has been around since 2010, but the first reports were not due until June 2, 2014. Why should we blindly follow a model that has not yet proven that it actually works?

Some may argue that we should not sit around and wait for results in order to take action, but what about unintended consequences? One of the concerns related to the U.S. legislation is that companies have simply avoided buying designated minerals from the Great Lakes region as it is estimated that the region may account for as little as 15% of the global supply of tantalum and much smaller percentages of the other minerals.

Companies can and are sourcing these minerals from elsewhere, which is having a significant economic impact on the region in general and the people of the DRC in particular. The risk of Bill C-486 reinforcing this de facto embargo of minerals from this region is real. Some may argue that this is not a problem. Indeed, they might argue that this will only help the fight against conflict minerals. Unfortunately, the reality is that while investment in the region may have declined dramatically, the illicit trade has continued.

Questionable efficacy is not the only problem with Bill C-486. Our second concern relates to the bill's overly broad application.

According to the bill, any company incorporated in Canada that extracts, processes, purchases, trades and or uses any of these minerals from the Great Lakes region of Africa could be required to provide an audited report on an annual basis. To use the example of the gold supply chain, this could include miners, refiners, bullion banks, gold exchanges, alloy processors, manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, artisans, and retailers. Moreover, gold is used in numerous industry sectors, including jewellery, medical supplies, aerospace, automotive, and of course, electronics.

As a result, an extremely wide range of companies of varying sizes, functions, and sectors would potentially be implicated by the bill and saddled with significant costs associated with reporting. Indeed, if one's dentist has an incorporated company, he or she may be required to submit an audited report on the activities undertaken to demonstrate that the use of gold fillings has not inadvertently contributed to armed conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

Interestingly, the implication of the entire supply chain is not an approach favoured by other initiatives, including the U.S. legislation, which is only focused on companies involved in manufacturing processes.

The requirement of an independent third party audit of the report also differs from the OECD due diligence guidance, which recommends audits at the smelter and refiner level, not at every point along the supply chain. Even the proposed directive by the European Union is focused on one particular point in the supply chain, importers of designated minerals. Moreover, while Bill C-486's proposed mechanism is legislative in nature, the approach the Europeans are taking is a voluntary one.

Imposing a potentially significant reporting burden on the entire mineral supply chain may be great news for auditing companies, but is generating a mountain of reports really an efficient way to address the issue of conflict minerals?

Can we really hope to tackle a global issue if we only focus on the Great Lakes region of Africa? This is the third concern I would like to raise with respect to the bill. Taking a narrow approach that only focuses on a particular region risks stigmatizing conflict minerals as an exclusively African problem, and they are not. Trade in conflict minerals is an issue with a global reach in terms of the repercussions on peace, security, and democratic development, as well as on local communities and multinational companies in countries around the world.

Through our participation at the OECD, we are actively trying to expand the promotion and implementation of guidance, which applies to all conflict-affected and high-risk areas in relevant country contexts.

This government believes in working with, not against, our partners in both the public and private sectors to foster an enabling environment for meaningful engagement and change. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bill C-486 would hinder these efforts. Canada's continued involvement in international initiatives related to conflict minerals will help identify the most promising and effective way forward. When that happens, we will undertake the necessary consultation and analysis to ensure we can achieve the desired impact on the ground.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was in the process of explaining, unfortunately when the government refers to this bill, it often equates these transparency provisions with red tape that will impede investment and economic growth in the countries in question.

Sadly this rhetoric, which is central to the Conservative’s discourse, has no basis in fact. The bill sponsored by my NDP colleague calls for a responsible, progressive course of action and brings to the forefront the issues of human rights protection, the right of consumers to be informed and environmental protection.

Given the Conservatives' refusal to exercise due diligence, their blind partisanship and their belief in the benefits of deregulation, controlling the supply chain of extractive sector companies is a responsible course of action. Conflicts within the Great Lakes Region of Africa, fueled by mining companies, and their repercussions place a heavy burden on a government that, unfortunately, is only concerned about passing legislation that benefits lobbyists.

Some UN experts have called on the federal government to hold an inquiry into mining companies that fail to comply with OECD principles regarding ethical practices. In March 2009, the government announced its building the Canadian advantage strategy, which called for the appointment of an ethics counsellor devoid of any power.

Without a requirement to exercise due diligence, the activities of Canadian extractive sector companies will continue to fund social injustice and human rights violations in conflict areas. In the absence of regulations, companies seeking short-term returns on their investments will be a lightning rod for instability and will hinder direct foreign investment. Long-term investment projects are tied to the stability of political institutions.

However, the proliferation of armed groups chases away foreign investment and isolates this region, which is plagued by serious political unrest and devastating economic stagnation. In terms of foreign policy, Canada has acquired expertise in providing humanitarian aid and managing peacekeeping operations.

The development of this expertise rests on Canada’s faith in strengthening international legal instruments. As a result, Bill C-486 introduces the principle of corporate social and environmental responsibility, as well as legal provisions aimed at protecting civilian populations.

Bill C-486 contains provisions that are consistent with traditional principles of Canadian diplomacy, principles that this government is unfortunately dismantling through the excessive deregulation of the activities of Canadian companies operating abroad. A stable market, one that is conducive to investments, requires a state of law and strong political institutions, at the very least, hence the need for responsible supply chain management.

According to the French organization Coface, the prevailing political climate is one of the determining factors for a company that is seeking to invest. In the absence of regulations, activities will continue to fuel political instability, to the point where this region of the globe will become a region of bankrupt states where anarchy reigns, a region with the potential to become fertile ground for international terrorism.

Finally, when it comes to minerals, we have to understand that Canadian consumers have no way of tracing their movement. For instance, when we buy a toaster made of metals and other substances, we do not know where each of the metals came from. The same can be said for many consumer goods. There is no way of knowing exactly where the metal used was mined or processed. If consumers knew that the goods they were purchasing were manufactured with conflict minerals, and by purchasing them, they were perhaps contributing to the climate of political instability or fuelling unrest in certain areas of the world, I honestly believe they would not buy these products.

For this reason, I believe it is important to require Canadian extractive sector companies to be more transparent and more open about the movement of products. This would help to ease the instability and decrease the incidence of human rights violations in these regions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently to speak to Bill C-486 respecting the extraction of conflict minerals.

As the official opposition energy and natural resources critic, I am especially interested in this bill. The Great Lakes Region of Africa is currently plagued by chronic political and economic instability. Paradoxically, the abundance of natural resources is one of the causes of this instability. In fact, these natural resources should be driving the socio-economic development of the people living in this region. Resources are plentiful and financial opportunities abound, but instead of enabling the community to develop, these resources create instability. That is very unfortunate.

This brings me to the bill. In addition to this situation, it is unacceptable that future profits earned by Canadian mining companies will help fund extremely violent internal conflicts and will contribute, whether directly or indirectly, to the suppression of basic rights. For this reason, Bill C-486, which was brought forward by my colleague for Ottawa Centre, provides for mechanisms to thoroughly monitor the movement of a mineral from the extraction site to its incorporation in the final product for end consumers.

The bill also provides for the participation of an independent third party that would produce a report on the exercise of due diligence. This process would ultimately depend on the co-operation of the companies involved, the expertise of the third party and on Natural Resources Canada’s duty to inform the public.

More specifically in this instance, the bill allows the government to endorse Canada’s traditional position on responsible supply chain management. As a signatory to the OECD's Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, the government has, by extension, supported the OECD guide on due diligence.

The bill in fact formalizes the main points of the OECD guide. It is highly contradictory to ratify an international agreement while at the same time refusing to adopt it in the form of a federal bill. Unfortunately, this is not the first contradiction of which this government is guilty.

I would like this government to act logically when it ratifies international conventions and I would like to see it apply these conventions in its bills. This is not the case here and for that reason, we need to take action and to lend Bill C-486 our support.

This bill is in line with the New Democrats’ position that companies should act in a socially responsible manner while allowing consumers to make more informed choices. The government equates transparency provisions with administrative formalities that can hinder investment and impede economic growth in the states located in the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

This rhetoric, central to the Conservative’s position, clearly has no basis in fact. The bill sponsored by my NDP colleague calls for a responsible, progressive course of action.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Conflict Minerals

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding the war in the Congo that has been raging since 1998, where 5.4 million people have been killed and where rape is being used as a weapon of war. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass the conflict minerals act, Bill C-486. The petitioners are from the Ottawa region, including Kanata. They want the government to pass Bill C-486 to stop the revenues that are going to these militias who are creating so much conflict in the region of the DRC.

Corporate Social Responsibility of Extractive Corporations Outside Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on introducing this bill.

This issue has been troubling me for a long time on a personal level. I did my studies with a specialization in Latin America. We often studied cases about mining companies going to developing countries, in very poor communities in particular. They built mines and promised many jobs to the locals. However, they did not talk about the negative consequences, such as the displacement of people. They did not talk about the environmental damage caused by the mines.

I am also very pleased to be able to speak to this bill for another reason, even though I have only a couple of minutes. I had the honour of working with my colleague from Ottawa Centre on Bill C-486, seeking to regulate the mining sector and dealing with conflict minerals in the region of the Congo. By bringing all these bills together, we can right the wrongs. We are putting in place a social responsibility system for extractive sector corporations.

I would very much like to talk about this some other time.

[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.

Conflict Minerals

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Canadians from right across the country who want the government to pass Bill C-486, known as the conflict minerals act. They note that since 1988, over five million people have died in the conflict in eastern Congo and that by bringing in supervision and supply chain regulations for conflict minerals, this could help end the conflict. They want to see the government adopt Bill C-486.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to support Bill C-486, which I had the honour of supporting. It calls on all members of the House to support this bill, which will put an end to conflict minerals.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians right across the country, everywhere from Ottawa to Gatineau, Montreal, Calgary, Saskatoon and Toronto.

The petitioners call upon the government to adopt Bill C-486, a private member's bill put forward on conflict minerals. They want Canada to take a stance and end the revenue streams for the militias that right now are responsible for heinous human rights violations, including rape and using rape as a weapon of war.

Conflict Minerals Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-486 put forward by my colleague from Ottawa Centre.

I have been working with the member opposite since 2006 in various capacities, on the foreign affairs committee and everywhere. He is extremely passionate about this issue and has been standing up and fighting for a way to stop this conflict. In principle we all agree with him. We agree that the mineral conflict is absolutely atrocious. It is so atrocious that it is unbelievable, and this is the right approach to take. Therefore, his passion for this issue is to be commended.

However, my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands indicated why this particular bill is a problem.

Let me take one step back and tell the House why I agree with the member for Ottawa Centre as to the need to address this issue.

A few years ago, I went to the Great Lakes Region in the DRC. I was leading the friends of the Great Lakes Region who were working toward bringing development into the process.

I landed in Goma in the evening by way of a small aircraft. Goma is in the eastern province where all of the fighting is taking place. Due to the volcanic explosion, the runway was cut in half; it was not cleared and so it was very small. Early the next morning I met with the civil society. I was not far away from the airport, and every 10 minutes I could hear an airplane taking off. Having been an air traffic controller myself prior to coming here, I had to wonder where all these aircraft were going. Half the runway was not there; no commercial flights were coming into that airport. These aircraft were smuggling the minerals out of DRC, what we now know as conflict minerals. They were constantly going out of that country.

I have seen first-hand what a devastating impact this can make to a country's economy. It is up to the international community to settle this issue because of the armed conflicts we have talked about and the horrendous human rights abuses that have taken place in the DRC area a result of armed gangs that are making money out of this illegal business, in co-operation with others over there. Of course we saw that and so we brought in the Kimberley Process as one way of addressing this issue.

We must continue, because the business of conflict minerals still carries on. It has not stopped. Groups use these minerals for money for funding. In Afghanistan, the Taliban use drugs to buy arms, which are creating havoc there. In Colombia, the FARC regime does the same thing. Wherever there is armed conflict, funds are obtained illegally. In this case, the funds are obtained through illegal mining. Henceforth, it is everyone's responsibility.

As my colleague has said, the bill presents a problem for us. Canada has recognized that this was one of the key things that are part of the Kimberley Process. We went ahead and brought in reporting procedures. We worked with the international community and brought in the office of the ombudsman on a voluntary basis. We tell our own companies about their corporate social responsibility. In turn, Canada has a very good record.

How do we address this issue? We address this issue by working together with all the international communities to stop it, but we must also be very careful that our actions do not harm the areas we are trying to help. In this case the bill has the potential to harm the DRC, because its focus on the DRC will stop investment from coming there.

What is important is to try to help the DRC to build capacity, to build a mining industry that is beneficial to their own citizens, as Canada and other countries have said. It is very difficult at this stage, due to armed conflict and regional issues, but as we know, Canada is working with the regional countries, with Uganda and Rwanda as well as the United Nations and the ICC, to stop the war in that part of the region, and there have been many successes.

We are very happy to see that the African Union and the countries of the region have taken dramatic steps by providing soldiers and resources to stop this warring, as well as by working with the United Nations to bring those who are responsible for leading the conflict in those areas to justice before the international tribunal court and through other means.

This is one aspect that we are working on. Once we bring peace into that region, the Government of Canada's role over there is to help these countries build their capacity for their own citizens.

Of course, that does not mean that we will close our eyes and say we will wait until that happens. Of course, we have to do something, and our government has been very clear about what we have done. For example, we have brought in more voluntary approaches through several Canadian companies that are members of the World Gold Council.

We have already taken strong action in DRC by establishing five mineral trading centres in eastern DRC where they can sell the gems. The NGO that came in is working very hard for those miners who are working legitimately. There are small-scale miners in DRC who are legitimately mining over there. We want to help them go through this whole process. We do not want to create a reporting process where this year miners would be penalized.

We are taking these kinds of steps to help them out. We are working with OECD. We are stakeholders, and we will continue supporting this whole process.

I want to say to my friends that yes, we have to do something about it. Yes, we must bring something there. Yes, attention needs to be paid. However, we must also be sure that when bills do come forward, they take the right approach. My good friend bringing this bill has brought out the American side here, but we are still not yet very sure, because the reporting process has not yet been done, whether that is the right approach. However, let us work together on these things.

Although we do not agree on the bill for the reasons mentioned by my colleague, I can assure him that in principle we stand with him in making sure that the mining is done for the benefit of the local people, and not for the armed conflict that brings horrendous damage.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-486 regarding conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

It is important to point out that, for years now, the NDP has been advocating for an extractive sector that is not only transparent, but also socially and environmentally responsible, both here and abroad.

I wish to commend my colleague from Ottawa Centre for all his hard work on this issue. He has been leading this fight for several years on behalf of those who have been suffering because of this appalling situation. Therefore, on behalf of those people and the NDP, I would simply like to thank him for working so tirelessly on this issue for so many years.

The conflicts plaguing the Great Lakes Region are beyond horrific; they are both a human and a humanitarian tragedy. These conflicts have displaced over 2 million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone. We are not even talking about the countries bordering the Great Lakes Region. Some 5.4 million people have been killed. It is very serious. Millions of women and children have become victims of sexual violence as a result of these conflicts. According to reports, 48 rapes are committed every hour.

When I first came to Parliament, I moved a motion at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights to examine the use of rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. That report should be finished soon. According to the evidence I heard, the situation is catastrophic.

This human tragedy is not new; it has been going on since the 1990s. The conflicts began in 1998. The UN has adopted a number of resolutions, including resolution 1493, adopted in 2003, which allowed it to increase the military strength of the peacekeeping mission that was created in the late 1990s to protect the civilian population of the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is also resolution 1596, adopted in 2005, which expanded the arms embargo to include all of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The conflict is so serious that the African Union and the UN have had to adopt resolutions. Therefore, the least Canada can do is get involved, along with our allies, to put an end to this tragedy.

When I say that this is a human tragedy, I am not talking about just the deaths and rapes, but also about the instability and food insecurity. The war is completely destroying the land and the crops.

The Interim Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, released on May 22, 2002, by a panel of experts commissioned by the UN Security Council, stresses the terrible human impact on the population of these practices, which have humanitarian consequences.

There are terrible conditions marked by rape, violence and death, but there is also food insecurity. Thus, it is both a human and a humanitarian tragedy. It is time for Canada to take action. It is often said that Canada wants to take action on matters of international co-operation, but this is a humanitarian tragedy.

These are armed conflicts, but most of the victims are women and children. It is a humanitarian tragedy. We should do everything we can to prevent these conflicts from creating any more victims.

The illegal mining and sale of minerals are the main source of instability, both political and humanitarian, and also the main source of funding for these conflicts. The exploitation of resources in this region is so problematic that it is important for people to open their eyes. So, too, should the government, civil society and the corporate world. It is very important to realize that we cannot do business in such a vulnerable and unstable region without adopting very strict guidelines to ensure that there are no consequences for the people.

My colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned that we are talking about $140 million to $225 million in illegal revenue. That is a lot. It accounts for 95% of the revenue of the armed rebel groups that unfortunately continue to commit atrocities.

Half of the mines in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo are controlled by armed groups. All of the big mines are, except one. That is important to know. Since the people in the Great Lakes Region of Africa rely on mining operations, we need to ensure that they can earn a living in spite of the conflict. These mines need to be operated by the people, for the people, and not to fund conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with civil society or the Congolese people.

There is certainly no chance for fair trade in a region like this one unless some extremely strict guidelines are adopted. That is what companies are trying to do right now. As my colleague already mentioned, BlackBerry, Microsoft, Apple and Nokia have already adopted measures to avoid using conflict minerals. However, it is important for Canada, as a country that participates in these peacekeeping missions, to send a clear message that we understand the problem, we care about it and we will do everything we can do help the people of the Great Lakes Region.

Canadians want to be able to have confidence in their products, and they also want to have confidence in companies. This is about people having the freedom to benefit from their own resources. They have been suffering for years. Canadians need to be able to have confidence in their products and know that their cellphones have not funded the death of thousands of people. It is only natural. Canadians and companies understand that. It is time for the government to reach out.

By the way, I would like to mention that my colleague from Ottawa Centre introduced Bill C-486 and, following his example, I introduced Bill C-584, which would create an ombudsman for the corporate social responsibility of extractive corporations. The NDP truly wishes to ensure that companies that extract mineral resources in developing countries are both socially and environmentally responsible.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to rise to speak to the issue of conflict minerals and the role Canada is playing on the international stage to address this problem.

First, I want to thank the hon. member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre for drawing attention to this important issue.

As outlined in the preamble to his bill, the Government of Canada has been active for many years in advancing initiatives designed to address that nexus between natural resources and conflict. One of his colleagues asked a few minutes ago about the role that Canada has played. One of the places we have played an important role is at the OECD with its due diligence guidance document, which has been put in place and is now gaining international acceptance.

I am pleased to say that this government agrees wholeheartedly with the hon. member that further engagement by Canada is warranted to find effective and efficient ways to address the issue of conflict minerals. However, I have to say that we do not agree that Bill C-486 would bring us closer to this goal.

He talks about establishing clear roles for transparency and accountability in his speech. We do not believe that would be the result of this bill.

Before I outline some of our concerns with the present bill, I would like to talk a bit more about how minerals have been linked to conflict and what is being done about this already.

I am sure that many members are familiar with the Kimberley process on conflict diamonds, developed in response to the use of diamonds to fund violence and conflict in such countries as Liberia and Angola in the late 1990s. Canada was a founding member of the Kimberley process. As a leading diamond producer and exporter, we continue to play an active role in the initiative.

While it is not perfect, the Kimberley process has helped to deprive criminals and armed groups of easy access to capital. However, the illicit use of minerals to fund violence, which is what is meant by the term “conflict minerals”, did not end with the establishment of the Kimberley process. While it is not perfect, it has had an impact in its area.

A new generation of conflict minerals, however, has emerged since, including gold and the so-called 3Ts: tin, tungsten, and tantalum. These minerals are used in a variety of industrial sectors, including the aerospace, automotive and, perhaps most notably, the electronics industries. Indeed, these minerals are present in all of those gadgets that we love so much.

Unfortunately, in some contexts, the illicit trade in these minerals is contributing to violence and conflict. The problem is particularly acute in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, or DRC. The lack of state control in that part of the country benefits various armed groups that illegally control mining sites by taxing miners and trafficking in illegally sourced minerals.

Fortunately, the international community is taking action, and Canada is playing a leading role. The OECD, in co-operation with international partners, has developed a due diligence framework, which I mentioned, to foster responsible mineral supply chains. The purpose of that framework, known as the OECD due diligence guidance, is to help companies that are operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas to identify and mitigate against risks related to their sourcing decisions and practices and to avoid contributing to human rights abuses and conflicts.

The Canadian government actively participated in the negotiation of the guidance, which includes mineral-specific supplements on gold and the 3Ts. We continue to be engaged in its promotion and implementation, and we currently chair the multi-stakeholder steering group that serves as the management committee for this forum.

What is more, several Canadian companies have been at the forefront of efforts to combat conflict minerals and have incorporated the guidance into their management systems. Others are implementing industry-led initiatives pertaining to conflict minerals that are consistent with and build upon these guidelines. For example, the members of the World Gold Council, which includes several Canadian companies, adhere to the conflict-free gold standard. The standard establishes a common approach by which gold producers can assess and provide assurance that their gold has been extracted in a responsible manner.

Several Canadian gold refiners have also been certified under the conflict-free smelter program, which was set up by the electronics industry. I should note here that smelters and refiners have been identified as the critical junction in the mineral supply chain, as traceability becomes extremely difficult after that point.

I would like to emphasize that all of these activities and initiatives are international in scope, because the mineral supply chain is global in nature. In other words, conflict minerals are an international problem, requiring international solutions to bring all the relevant actors—government, companies, and civil society—to the table.

Unfortunately, we do not believe that Bill C-486 aligns with this approach.

The genesis of the bill is clear. In its intent, it mirrors section 1502 of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act by requiring companies to undertake due diligence activities and to report annually on these activities.

However, in contrast to the U.S. legislation, which, as I mentioned earlier, is focused on manufacturing companies, Bill C-486 is broad. It is not focused. It implicates every stage of the complex mineral supply chain.

Moreover, in contrast with the OECD guidance, which recommends targeted audits of due diligence practices at those key points that I have mentioned, Bill C-486 would require each and every report produced to be audited by an independent third party. The House can see the incredible bureaucracy that would build around this requirement.

What is the anticipated result of the implementation of this bill? It would certainly make a whole lot of companies pay for a whole lot of reports. We would also have some very happy auditors. However, do we think that anything on the ground would change as a result? Would Bill C-486 stop conflict minerals from entering international markets or put an end to the protracted and complex conflict in the DRC, which happens to be the primary focus of the member's campaign against conflict minerals? We do not believe so. The bureaucratic weight and complexity that is required by this bill would make it impossible to realize his goals.

What about the unintended consequences of focusing exclusively on the Great Lakes region of Africa? It has been a huge problem and concern with U.S. legislation that numerous countries have simply chosen to source these minerals from elsewhere, not because there is necessarily conflict where they head their operations but because the countries did not have the capacity to set up the structures that were required to do the reporting. Depriving developing economies of much needed investment and local communities of much needed empowerment would not solve the conflict minerals problem. Rather, it may exacerbate it.

There is no doubt that the ongoing conflict in the DRC has had a devastating impact on the lives of civilians, especially women and children. The prevalence of serious human rights violations in the eastern region of the DRC in particular, including continued acts of sexual violence and alleged crimes against humanity, are of huge concern to our government.

Our efforts in developing peace support operations in the DRC have included funding projects on enhancing the effectiveness of security institutions, strengthening the capacity of Congolese authorities to curtail the illicit exploitation of natural resources, and mediating and preventing conflict.

In October of 2012, our Prime Minister announced a Canadian commitment of $18.5 million over five years to provide legal, medical, and emotional support to victims of sexual violence in the DRC and to assist law enforcement agencies in bringing perpetrators of these crimes to justice.

We have also called for concerted efforts to implement concrete solutions to the conflict and advocated for the engagement of regional actors in particular to protect civilians, including women and children, and to pave the way for peace and stability in that region.

With all due respect to the concerns of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, a complex situation like the one in the DRC cannot be solved with more red tape for these countries.

I should point out that Dodd-Frank touches specifically on manufacturing. This bill is much broader and would force companies to report at every sector, meaning the extraction sector, the transportation sector, the refining sector, the processing sector, the manufacturing sector, the retail sector, and even recycling. Those products would all require reports to be filed and then audited by third parties. We believe that is an onerous burden that does not achieve the result the member opposite would like to see.

Making progress in the fight against conflict minerals need not come at the expense of responsible investment in affected areas. For example, as I mentioned earlier, smelters and refiners have been identified as a critical juncture in the mineral supply chain. More work can be done to encourage these actors to participate in certification initiatives.

As the member mentioned earlier, this voluntary approach seems to be working. Companies such as Apple and Intel were mentioned by him as companies that have taken this seriously and are applying it.

There is no doubt that further international efforts are required to tackle the problem of conflict minerals, but pursuing a mandatory initiative such as the member has presented is not an approach this government can endorse.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be standing here today to launch debate on the conflict minerals act, Bill C-486.

The journey to here began five years ago.

Five years ago, I visited the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country equally beautiful and sad. For more than 15 years, Congolese government forces, rebel groups and private militias have been fighting to control the land and the abundant natural resources that have been the cause of this country's misfortune.

I spoke with Congolese government officials to see what was being done to enable a future of peace and sustainable development. The most striking response was not an answer but my question returned back to me. I was asked what I was doing. It was a fair question, because the truth is that the tragedy of the Congo is not merely a Congolese or an African problem. It is our problem, and the reason is in our phones and in our jewellery.

Many people are simply shocked to learn of the scale of the crimes in the Congo and the connection between consumers and the conflict. For the record, here are some of the facts.

The conflict that has been raging in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998 is the deadliest conflict since World War II. In 2011, the number of rapes was estimated at 48, not per year, per month or per day, but per hour. Rape is used as a weapon of war. In 2012, 2 million people were displaced. That is approximately the equivalent of the combined population of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Conflict minerals generate $180 million per year for armed groups, literally keeping some militias in business.

Up to 40% of those working in the mines are children. These children, who are exploited and abused, are then prime targets for recruitment by armed groups.

The lack of public awareness about this issue might seem like a cause for despair, but for me it is a cause for hope, because when people do learn about the connection between minerals and conflict, they are connected directly themselves. Once they are personally connected to this issue, they cannot help but care.

Since my time in the Congo, I have made it a personal priority to use my role as a legislator to help connect Canadians to this issue and curtail the presence of conflict minerals in Canada.

Last March, I introduced the bill on conflict minerals in the House of Commons.

The drafting process was comprehensive, with many months of positive and fruitful consultations with industry and civil society representatives in Canada and abroad.

The bill was introduced at a time of international action on conflict minerals, and the pace has only picked up since last year.

In May 2011, the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, published guidance and made a recommendation on exercising due diligence in this regard. Then, in August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a new regulation requiring businesses to exercise due diligence in using tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold.

The European Union is introducing its own regulations following consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. At last year's G8 summit in Scotland, Canada joined other countries in making important commitments to extractive sector transparency.

In the G8 communiqué, the government specifically pledged to support conflict-free mineral sourcing. I want to read a section of that pledge tonight from section 40 of the communiqué. It states:

As part of our commitment to extractives transparency, we continue to support responsible, conflict-free sourcing of minerals from conflict-affected regions, including gold, diamonds and other precious stones. We will promote positive economic development and responsible sourcing in the artisanal mining sector, particularly from conflict and high-risk areas. We reaffirm our continued support for the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, and the International Conference of the Great Lakes Regional Certification Mechanism as part of global multilateral, multi-stakeholder efforts to combat the trade in conflict minerals through certification, responsible business conduct and respect for human rights.

This bill implements the OECD guidelines mentioned in this communiqué. It is simply a matter of keeping our promise.

Practically every major technology firm, including BlackBerry, Microsoft, Apple and Nokia, is now trying to avoid using conflict minerals in its products.

We have recently seen path-breaking, game-changing commitments to source conflict-free minerals. In January, Intel announced that its microprocessors would be conflict-free, and in February, Apple committed to sourcing the minerals in its products responsibly. Apple has already followed through on this commitment for tantalum and is also doing so for tin, tungsten, and gold. These industry leaders are showing that a better supply chain is possible, and so is a better world.

These companies also realize that in today's market, accountable companies have a competitive advantage. This was the message I received in consultations with Canadian industry representatives. Companies are ready to get on board with regulations so long as the regulations are clear and emphasize the competitive advantage of social responsibility. The private sector will accept clear rules for transparency and accountability. Government needs to be responsible as well. My bill would implement the OECD guidelines in Canada.

The bill requires Canadian companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence to ensure that no armed groups engaged in illegal activities benefit from the extraction, processing or use of those minerals.

Companies would have to publish their findings on their websites and in documents filed with the Canadian government. The government would then share the report with the producing countries. This would support local efforts to manage and reform the mining industry, supporting action from the ground up. The bill recognizes that stopping the conflict mineral trade requires collaboration between governments in both developed and developing countries, as well as with civil society and industry. Working together is the only way that lasting results can be achieved.

Collaboration requires leadership. I would like to see that initiative coming from Canada. It is a role that Canada can and should play. Canadian mining companies are market leaders. It is time Canada became a corporate social responsibility leader as well. Canada and Canadian companies should be diligent, accountable, and transparent in their operations overseas, but this is as much about consumer rights as corporate responsibility.

My bill will allow Canadians to know whether the minerals in the technology products they purchase may have funded or fueled war. Consumers will be in a position to make informed choices.

I believe that consumers, if given the necessary information, will hold companies accountable for their sourcing choices. To complement this legislative effort, I also launched the just minerals campaign. It is a grassroots initiative to support action on conflict minerals. We have partnered with a wide variety of groups, from students to environmental campaigns, to Congolese associations, to fair trade advocates. Across the country, online and offline, the campaign is under way and gathering steam. More than 3,000 Canadians have already signed a petition supporting the bill.

This is not about right- or left-leaning politics. It is about what is right and wrong. Together, we have the ability to make the world a better place. It is up to us to take action.

Other countries have recognized this. In the U.S., the Dodd-Frank Act that brought in similar requirements got bipartisan support.

I also believe that change is possible because we have done this before.

The blood diamonds campaign is a fantastic example of how the world, and Canada, can make real improvements in the sourcing of consumer goods. The illegal trade in diamonds was providing substantial funding to warlords and rebels in Africa throughout the 1990s. Separate and joint meetings of diamond producing countries, international organizations, global civil society, and extractive companies led to the Kimberley Process for certifying rough diamond exports.

Today, Kimberley Process members account for nearly all of the global production of rough diamonds. Illegal exports are largely prevented, and legal trade is fostered by the increased consumer confidence provided by certification.

This legal and responsible trade contributes to sustainable economic and social development. We now have the opportunity to similarly transform the trade in the minerals at the root of the conflict in central Africa.

Just as it was the case with blood diamonds, conflict minerals have been attracting ever greater levels of attention from extractive corporations, local governments, and international NGOs.

Corporate interest in social and environmental responsibility is growing.

Local leadership in central Africa is growing. Although my bill would be the first to implement the OECD due diligence guidelines in an OECD country, they have already been enshrined in law in the DRC and Rwanda.

Some exciting projects are now under way to bag and tag mineral exports in the same way that diamonds are now traced. Partnership Africa Canada, for example, a civil society leader in implementing the Kimberley Process, is doing just that right now. Internationally, last year's G8 communiqué reiterated support for responsible conflict-free mineral sourcing and cited the OECD guidelines.

The time is right for significant change.

Minerals are found everywhere in the world, but they need not be blood-stained. Together, we must prevent the war in the Congo from entering our homes.

I sincerely hope we can work together on this bill, demonstrating the co-operation Canadians want and the world needs. Together, let us take conflict out of Canadian homes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Next is Bill C-486.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, to increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official; eliminate the facilitation payments exception to that offence; create a new offence relating to books and records and the bribing of a foreign public official or the hiding of that bribery; and establish nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act.

For a long time now, members of the NDP have supported clear rules requiring Canadians and Canadian companies abroad to show transparency and accountability. This bill complements the legislative initiatives put forward by members of our party to promote responsible, sustainable, transparent business practices.

In a report published in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation. Since then, the government has started trying to address this national embarrassment. However, since 1999, there have only been three convictions, two of them in the past two years.

By eliminating the facilitation payments exception, the bill will bring Canada’s practices into line with 36 of the 39 other OECD countries. However, while the remainder of the bill comes into effect on royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments will come into effect at an unknown later date, as cabinet wishes. In the United States, the rule on accounting records is already enforced in civil matters by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Canada has no equivalent regulatory authority, but there is a similar rule in criminal law.

The bill is of particular importance in the mining industry, where the NDP has been and is still an ardent defender of accountability. I can cite, for instance, Bill C-323 introduced by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which seeks to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of international obligations in Canadian courts, as well as Bill C-486 introduced by the member for Ottawa Centre, which requires companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence.

Canadians want our companies to be responsible and respectable representatives of Canada, and Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards for international business. The enforcement of loophole-free regulations will create a level playing field for all companies, while protecting the environment, labour and human rights, something we could all be proud of.

The news headlines concerning SNC-Lavalin are enough to convince us that this is necessary. A number of people in my extended family and some of my childhood friends in Algeria have written to me to find out whether corruption of foreign public officials is the norm in Canada. We are aware that a number of allegations of corruption are floating around the activities of SNC-Lavalin, not just in Libya, but also in Algeria. The company has even been blacklisted in Algeria, including by Sonelgaz, Algeria’s electricity utility.

Clearly, this incident was an embarrassment for Canadians. This is why Canada has a duty to adopt responsible management practices. This bill helps ensure that operations conducted by Canadian businesses abroad meet high standards, of which we can all be proud.

Under the current version of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, however, Canada exercises only territorial jurisdiction, which allows Canada to prosecute the foreign bribery offence when it is committed in whole or in part in Canada. There must be a “real and substantial link” between the offence and Canada. The fact that Canada does not exercise nationality jurisdiction in order to prosecute a Canadian for bribing a foreign public official without needing to provide evidence of a link to Canada has been the subject of negative commentary by Transparency International and by the OECD in its Phase 3 Evaluation Report. Both bodies have recommended that Canada amend its laws to exercise nationality jurisdiction over the foreign bribery offence to promote prosecution of cases under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

The incorporation of this recommendation into the bill means that offences committed abroad are deemed to have been committed in Canada. As a result, proceedings for an offence can be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the appearance of the accused at trial apply to the proceedings. With certain exceptions, the new provisions also provide safeguards for people who have already been tried and dealt with outside Canada for an act or omission that is deemed to have been committed inside Canada under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. This prevents people from being tried twice for the same offence, once by a court exercising jurisdiction on the basis of territory and once by a court exercising jurisdiction on the basis of nationality. Similar safeguards are already set out in the Criminal Code.

That being said, once again, as the hon. member for Outremont is fond of saying, the government needs to put its money where its mouth is both in this and in many other matters. In Canada, our inability to enforce anti-corruption laws is a source of embarrassment to the country. We are pleased that the government is finally looking into these problems, but it is deplorable that it has taken so much time and that Canada had to be condemned and discredited before the government took any action.

I would like to quote Janet Keeping from Transparency International. She said:

In our view, it is a very good thing that the Canadian government is responding to criticisms of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act that have mounted over the years.... I did want to have an opportunity to say that good law on the books is really important and essential, and Transparency International Canada is behind the adoption of Bill S-14. But just as in any other country of the world, legislation is only as good as it is enforced, especially in the criminal law area.... [Keep] in mind that we must have the RCMP and the prosecution services adequately resourced to enforce the legislation.

We must therefore ensure that our excellent police officers have the resources they need to do their job. If the RCMP does not have enough staff and resources, the legislation alone will not be enough and will not meet its objectives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

I would like to explain to those watching at home what this bill is about. It proposes four major amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

First, it increases the maximum prison sentence for bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. Next, it eliminates the exception for facilitation payments, where a foreign public official is paid to expedite the execution of his or her responsibilities. It also creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe a foreign public official or hide that bribery. Finally, the last major amendment establishes nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

The bill is very important for fighting corruption despite what the Conservative MPs might think. In this debate, the Conservatives are siding with the companies that unfortunately are engaging in corruption. I am very proud to be Canadian, but when companies think they are above the law and want to engage in corruption in Canada or abroad, the NDP is here to go after them and make them pay for their crimes.

Our position on this bill is very clear. We will support it at third reading. We were a bit disappointed to see that in committee, our proposals to improve the bill did not get the attention we would have liked. There is always room for improvement, even if the Conservatives across the way do not think so and believe that everything they do is perfect. The NDP has long been in favour of clear rules requiring Canadians and Canadian companies working abroad to be transparent and accountable. The bill builds on the legislative initiatives put forward by NDP members with the goal of promoting responsible, sustainable, transparent management practices.

Canada's deficiencies in enforcing anti-corruption laws are embarrassing. However, it comes as no surprise since our government likes to stick with corrupt and unethical people. It is no wonder that under the Conservatives', under this Prime Minister, our country has leaned toward corruption.

As members of the New Democratic Party of Canada, we are glad that the government is finally doing something about this problem, but it is disgraceful that it took so long and that Canada had to be criticized and discredited for the government to do anything about this. Later I will get into the types of criticisms our international allies were making.

Canadians want the companies that are representing Canada to do so in a responsible and respectable manner, and Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards when it comes to international trade. Enforcing rules without loopholes will level the playing field for all companies and protect the environment, labour and human rights, something we could all be proud of.

I would like to provide some background and talk about the criticism of our international allies. In a report released in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation. Since then, the government has been working on resolving the problem. However, since 1999, there have been only three convictions, two of the them in the past two years.

The bill is of particular importance for the mining industry, where the NDP has been and continues to be a strong advocate for accountability. Take, for example, Bill C-323 sponsored by the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would permit persons who are not Canadian citizens to initiate legal action based on violations of international law in Canadian courts, and also Bill C-486, sponsored by the NDP member for Ottawa Centre, which requires companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence.

It is clear that the NDP stands up for people abused abroad and for justice. We expect Canadian companies to have good standards. We are always disappointed when we learn that Canadian companies are involved in corruption.

The political elite that benefits from corruption, particularly in countries and industries where corruption is rife, is made up primarily of men. Men will try to get away with whatever they can. Unfortunately, that is why we should never expect people and companies, even Canadians, to always do the right thing. Protocols must be put in place to ensure that everyone, individuals and companies alike, does their part by obeying Canadian and international laws.

At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection. That is why the NDP is very proud to be listening to women across the country. This is also why we are always actively looking to engage women during elections and consultations. We believe in the principle of equality, unlike certain other parties that prefer women to be a minority in their party.

I would like to talk about some numbers and facts that people at home might find interesting. Earlier, I mentioned that there have been three bribery convictions, and I would like to talk about that some more.

Since the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act was enacted in 1999, there have been three convictions. Hydroclean Group was fined $25,000 in January 2005 for bribing an American immigration official at the Calgary airport. Niko Resources Ltd. was fined $9.5 million in June 2011 because its subsidiary in Bangladesh paid the moving and housing costs of Bangladesh's then-minister of energy and natural resources. Finally, the third conviction involved Griffith Energy International Inc., which was fined $10.3 million in January 2013 for agreeing to pay $2 million to the wife of Chad’s ambassador to Canada and to allow her and two other individuals to buy shares at a reduced cost in exchange for support for an oil and gas project in Chad.

Naturally, I hope that the Conservatives will condemn these acts and continue to flush out other companies or individuals involved in bribery. It tarnishes our international reputation. The Conservative government has done enough to tarnish it over the past seven years. This needs to stop.

Transparency International's 2011 bribe payers index ranks the oil and gas industry fourth and the mining industry fifth in the list of sectors most likely to engage in bribery. In addition, the mining and oil and gas industries are ranked second and third in the list of sectors most likely to give major bribes to high-level public officials and politicians. Bill S-14 is particularly relevant to those sectors.

To conclude, I would say that, unlike the Conservatives, the NDP is listening to the people. When the business sector tells us that Canadian companies want clear, consistent international business standards, we listen. Enforcing regulations that are free of loopholes will level the playing field for all companies.

In addition, the NDP is listening to environmental groups and task forces that want to ensure that local communities are not abused in the course of development.

Finally, we are listening to international stakeholders to ensure that Canadian companies have sound, responsible management practices.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of commenting on the source of this legislation being the Senate and the enormous legitimacy deficit that exists in the Senate. I think that is historical, but it is particularly acute these days. In particular, the Senate really is in no position to be issuing bills on the issue of corruption, mired as it is in scandals of exactly that nature.

That said, irrespective of the source and as unfortunate as the source of this legislation is, we remain prepared to support the bill. One of the central reasons for doing so is found in the legislative history of members of this party in the House. We have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas.

The bill complements legislative efforts by NDP MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable and transparent management practices. I speak specifically of Bill C-323, put forward by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations, and Bill C-486, from the member for Ottawa Centre, which would require public due diligence by companies using minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa. These bills reflect the history of our party. They reflect a respect for the democratic aspirations of people in other countries and a respect for their aspirations for better labour standards and a healthier and safer environment.

We understand that effective environmental and labour standards in developing countries often depend on advocacy and activism by local populations, and it is very difficult for local people to hold their governments to account when the government has secret sources of revenue that remove the financial incentive to be accountable in the first place.

We support this legislation as well because the lack of anti-bribery enforcement in Canada has been a national embarrassment to us. I will skip to my conclusion on this point of the national embarrassment over the lack of legislation.

It is worth pointing out that in spite of our support for this bill, it is in effect totally underwhelming. One is left asking, is that all there is?

When the parliamentary secretary points to the openness of our country to international trade and puts forward this legislation as the solution to dealing with corruption issues in such an open and global environment, when Canadians take such pride in and value so highly our reputation on the international scene, the question of why the government always seems to aim so low arises. Why can the government not aspire to a leadership role, one that Canadians could justly take pride in? If it is worth putting forward such legislation, and we certainly believe it is, why not set new and higher standards internationally to ensure that Canadians overseas conduct their affairs to the highest levels of transparency and ethics?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, and as we are debating this at second reading, it still has to go to committee.

I have listened with interest to the debate in the House today. It appears that all parties will be supporting this bill. We are debating it in principle but, nevertheless, it is important for us to go through the bill to examine it, as we should all legislation, and then it will go to committee.

I want to begin by saying that these last few weeks in the House have been particularly difficult because the government has used time allocation, a form of closure, I think 47 times, if I am keeping the tab correctly. It is really quite incredible that so much legislation has been rushed through.

We serve our constituents in this place. We do our work in the constituency, but our role in this House is due diligence in examining legislation and going through it. Even if we are going to support it, we have to go through it. That is part of holding the government to account in our parliamentary democracy, so it is very disturbing that we see the pattern over and over again. It has become routine. Other colleagues in the House have commented earlier that bills are now pro forma. We are expected to have a couple of hours of debate and take a cursory look, and then there is a time allocation for going through committee, report stage, and third reading. It is all established by timelines.

As members well know, that is not the way to do parliamentary business.

I wanted to begin my remarks with that because, as someone who has been around here a few years, I have watched the erosion of parliamentary and democratic practice in this House.

I can almost hear the voice of Bill Blaikie in my head, the former member for Winnipeg—Transcona. He was one of those folks in this place who had the long-term memory to know what had changed over the years. When change happens incrementally, just a little snippet at a time, it is difficult to get that overview. I think it would be useful one day to have that overview and to actually look at how much certain practices have changed in the House, say, from 10 years ago or 20 years ago. I think we would all be quite shocked, actually, no matter what matter party we belong to.

In any event, we are debating this particular bill today.

I want to begin by saying, as others have remarked today, that the bill is long overdue. Canada has, really, an embarrassing record on corruption overseas, in terms of lack of legislation.

As many have pointed out today, Transparency International, a very credible organization that monitors corruption and bribery in terms of what happens in different places in the world, in its 2011 report, ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with regard to international bribery. It pointed out that we had little or no enforcement, based upon the very minimal legislation we had.

There is no question that this is absolutely long overdue. It begs this question. Why does it take so long?

We look at the legislative agenda and look at all of the little boutique bills that come through on the Criminal Code, when they do not need to happen. Why has it taken so many years for something as major as this, which would deal with crime and corruption? Why has it taken so many years for anything to come forward? Where is the balance here? Where are the priorities? We are sort of pulling apart the Criminal Code clause by clause and adding in more mandatory minimum sentences. We have had so many Conservative backbencher bills. Yet, with something as major as this, in terms of Canada's role in the international community, we are hauled on the carpet by an organization that monitors international bribery and corruption, which has said, “You guys have got a pretty bad record; in fact you're basically the worst of all of the highly industrialized countries”. This is an embarrassment.

Further, there have only been three convictions in the last number of years, in fact, since 1999, and two of those were in the last two years. This is a pretty appalling record.

Suffice it to say I am glad, at least, that we are debating this bill today. At least the bill would take some steps.

Just to focus for a moment on what this bill would do, for those who are watching the debate, there would be four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. One of them would be to increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from five to fourteen years. That is a fairly significant change.

The second change in the bill would eliminate an exception that had been in operation for what is called facilitation payments, where foreign officials are paid to expedite the execution of their responsibilities. I will come back to this, because there are some concerns about it. While we agree that this exception should be eliminated, we have to examine the impact of that, for example, on NGOs that are operating in extremely difficult circumstances in political environments that are very risky and where they have to provide payments to get essential emergency humanitarian goods through—for example, going through police checkpoints. One does have to find that balance.

Third, the bill would create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe or conceal bribery of a foreign official. This is a very important change in terms of ensuring that transparency goes right the way down the line.

Finally, the bill would establish a nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act. What this means is that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences that are committed overseas. Again, that is a very important measure.

I want to say very clearly that New Democrats have long supported clear rules that require transparency and accountability by both Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. In fact, the NDP has had a number of bills in this regard. One of my colleagues, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, had Bill C-323, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations. The member for Ottawa Centre had Bill C-486, which would require public due diligence by companies using minerals in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

These are very important issues for Canadians, because we know that the extraction industry in Canada and the way it operates overseas is a major business concern. The way those companies do business is something of great concern to Canadians in terms of ethical practices. We have seen many movements here in Canada, including NGOs, the labour movement and individual citizens who have made sure they became active on this issue.

I want to point out something about a bill we voted on not that long ago, Bill C-300, which was a Liberal member's bill. When I raised transparency in the debate, the Liberal member for Charlottetown who replied to me pointed to Bill C-300 as another attempt to bring about better transparency and corporate accountability in foreign practices.

What is really interesting, and I am sure many members here will remember, is that it was defeated in part because 13 Liberal members voted against it. I remember the bill when it came up. There was intense advocacy for the bill from major NGOs across the country. They did an incredible job. The bill itself was very reasonable. It laid out basic standards for practice. However, there was, of course, a lobby against the bill. It was really quite shocking that 13 Liberal members voting against the bill resulted in the bill being defeated by a mere 6 votes.

We actually did come close to having that bill go through the House of Commons. I know that many of the organizations and individuals that had supported the bill were quite shocked that it had been defeated and were hugely disappointed about the amount of energy, time and effort that had gone into it.

It was a wonderful example of how Canadians look beyond their own border, look globally to see what Canada is doing. They had paid great attention to the need for Canadian corporations, companies and businesses to be accountable, to engage in ethical practices and to ensure there is not bribery and exploitative practices taking place in terms of labour rights or the environment.

These are things Canadians are actually very concerned about. I always feel very inspired when I see these organizations and people, whether they are putting out petitions or sending us emails. People really care about what we do in other parts of the world. We care about whether or not people are being exploited.

Just a little while ago, my colleague from Ottawa Centre talked about the situation in Bangladesh. I saw the story too, last night on CBC, and it is gut-wrenching and it makes us want to jump up and ask what we have to do to make sure these kinds of terrible, appalling conditions no longer exist.

We are talking about thousands of people who lose their lives because they work in terrible conditions where safety is disregarded, where people are not paid decent wages. If we layer on top of that all of the bribery and corruption that goes on, this is a multi-billion dollar business in terms of corruption and unethical practices.

I do not think the bill before us would address all of that, so the other bills we have before the House, particularly from the NDP members that I mentioned, are critical to ensuring there is a comprehensive approach to the way we are dealing with this situation.

We do have some concerns about the bill, which I would like to put on the record. assuming that the bill does get referred to committee. Because the bill would amend the definition of a business to now include not-for-profit organizations, we believe that this should be studied very closely at committee, and obviously witnesses need to be brought in to look at the impact of this particular change on charitable and aid organizations. As I mentioned earlier, the reality is that those organizations do sometimes, out of sheer necessity, have to make payments to expedite or achieve delivery of very essential items and humanitarian goods. This is something that is out there in the real world.

The bill is really tackling corruption and bribery, from the point of view that money is being made, money is being put in people's pockets and officials at embassies and so on are being bribed. That is what we are trying to get at, so I think we have to be very careful that we do not, by consequence, lay down a rule that could actually have a negative impact on organizations that are legitimately and in good faith trying to do very important work in some of these global areas where there is political, military and civil conflict going on. To make sure that kind of aid is delivered in a proper way is very important. We are hoping this issue would be examined more closely at committee.

The second item we think needs further examination is that the committee should also study the consequences of establishing an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, because once 14 years is reached, it is actually the threshold at which conditional or absolute discharges of conditional sentences become impossible. It is obviously a much more serious penalty, and the committee, when it receives the bill, should examine that very carefully to make sure there is a balance in terms of our judicial system and conditional sentencing or the question of absolute discharges.

It is easy to make a blanket case, and again we have seen that so often with the Conservative government. It tends to make harsh, blanket rules that do not allow for discretion within our court system. Our court system has a history and a tradition of allowing judicial discretion, so judges can actually examine individual cases and the circumstances that warrant a harsher or a more lenient approach. That is what balance in the judicial system is about.

Therefore, one has to be very careful that in bringing forward new legislation we do not tip that balance and create a system that becomes so rigid that it becomes counterproductive. As the penalty is so harsh, people could end up pleading not guilty more frequently, or prosecutors may even be more reluctant to bring forward charges. There could be unintended consequences of having penalties that are so harsh. This is an issue that we think should be looked at in the bill. We support, in principle, the penalty being increased and the sentencing threshold being increased. However, we have to look more carefully at whether 14 years is the right cut-off.

Finally, in terms of changes that we think need to be looked at, there is the question of the rule on the facilitation payments that I spoke about earlier. We need to figure out how it impacts NGOs and non-profits. That issue would not be part of royal assent but rather would be under the consideration of cabinet, which is in the current text. That one aspect of the bill, if this bill were passed as is, would not go ahead with the rest of the bill. Therefore, that has to be examined. We need to know the reason that is being put aside. The discussion on the facilitation payments as they would impact NGOs might help inform that debate, but it is something we need to look at.

I also want to talk briefly about more current situations. We heard today from the member for Ottawa Centre, who updated the House on a communiqué he had received from the G8 that is currently taking place. It was quite interesting. He pointed out that in this communiqué the issues of corruption and transparency were quite prominent. His point was that we need to know that our own government is committed, not only to the words in these communiqués, but that it is actually going to follow up. I thought the member used a very good example when he spoke about international treaties that we sign for which there is no follow-up.

The example he used was Bill S-10 that was rushed through this House a few days ago, on cluster munitions. I was one of the people who spoke to that bill. The member pointed out very clearly in the debate on that bill that the NDP believes Bill S-10 would actually undermine the very international treaty that it is meant to be following up. The point is that when these communiqués come out and these commitments are made in places like the G8, we need to know they are actually going to be followed up. We need to know that those commitments mean something.

Again, we get back to this particular bill, Bill S-14, that has taken so long to come forward. Why has it taken so long? Why is there not a greater priority and emphasis on these kinds of bills? In the G8 communiqué, among the issues that were flagged, was the need to have greater transparency and a public registry.

The member for Ottawa Centre told us that one of the proposals is the need for a regime whereby companies would not be able to set up a shell company. Even if there is good legislation, if enforcement is to be taken on issues of bribery and corruption, it is very difficult. There could be a lack of political will, as I have just spoken about, or it could be that they are trying to figure out who the operatives are in a particular company. There is the idea of a public registry and the need for better transparency, as well as the notion that we should not allow elaborate legal complexities for the setting up of shell companies that in effect allow individuals and operatives to hide behind other entities. That makes it much more difficult to figure out who is doing what and where enforcement should be applied.

That is a very significant issue, and it is not covered in the bill, so it does show us that the bill does not go far enough. I think that was the member's point this morning.

Nevertheless, we are supporting the bill at second reading. We will pay great attention to it in committee. We will seek to improve the bill so that it lives up to its spirit and intent, which is ensuring that we tackle bribery and corruption by public officials in other countries.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak, yet again, to Bill S-14. We on this side of the House have mentioned before that we support the bill. We believe that we could go further, as I mentioned in my comments and questions to the parliamentary secretary.

As I have done with all of these bills, I have to start off with our concern and my concern about the way the bill came to us. We have a bill on foreign corruption that has come to us from the other place. When a bill has an “S” in front of the bill number, it is an indication that it comes from the Senate. It has been said numerous times since we have been debating the bill that the government should have seen fit to start this bill here in the House. After all, the elected representatives, I think, are the best people to actually look at corruption, notwithstanding what is happening in the other place, speaking of corruption. Every day there is another story of corruption in the other place. I have to start by underlining that point.

The government seems to not even blush anymore when bills are sent over from the other place. At least on this bill, it should show some contrition that there is a bill, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, that would crack down on foreign corruption, yet it comes from the other place, an unelected body, that is mired in corruption right now.

It is rather stark to see this happening with the current government, which claimed that it was going to be different. Now it has become just like the other guys. The government brings in closure and uses the Senate, abuses the Senate, to do its toil. That is what the government has done with Bill S-14. No one even blushes anymore. It is just business as usual with the current government. It uses the Senate to do its bidding, even on something as important as foreign corruption.

The bill itself, as has been mentioned, would simply bring us up to the minimum standard of our allies. The government was embarrassed by our critique, on this side of the House, in terms of how the standards of our companies abroad have fallen in terms of enforcement on corruption and corporate social responsibility. We just saw a news report last night about what happened in Bangladesh. We should not forget that. The NDP called for hearings at the foreign affairs committee. We would like to see more done on that.

It is about Canada getting back into the game and actually leading. The bill does not go far enough.

I will just give a quick résumé. The bill would make four major changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

It would increase the maximum sentence, as was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.

It would eliminate the exception for so-called facilitation payments, which is basically paying someone to grease the wheels to get a contract moving. Interestingly, we saw allegations of that happening in Montreal. Maybe we should be applying those rules more forcefully here. Maybe the government should be taking a look at who its candidates are when it recruits them and who it hires as staff when ministers hire ex-candidates. Hopefully, it will do a better job on that.

The bill would also create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records. We just received a communiqué from the G8, which came out half an hour ago. In fact, if the government is going to live up to what it has signed on to, it would actually have to amend the bill further, because there is an incentive in this communiqué for the government to do more in this area and to be more transparent in terms of books and records.

The fourth part of the bill would establish national jurisdiction such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences under the act that are committed overseas. They cannot go overseas and do something they could not do here.

I think it is important to put it into context. As I mentioned, we just received the communiqué from the G8 conference. It touches on many of the aspects we are dealing with in Bill S-14. It is a 10-point communiqué. I am not going to read all 10 points, because they are not all directly related to the bill we are debating.

The first point the G8 leaders signed on to is that “[t]ax authorities across the world should automatically share information to fight the scourge of tax evasion”.

When we talk about the corruption of foreign officials, a lot has to do with the way money moves around. I am delighted to see that this is in the communiqué. We will see if the government takes this seriously.

Second is that countries “should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes, and multinationals should report to tax authorities what they pay where”. This has been mentioned already by the parliamentary secretary. It would mean more transparency of companies' operations.

Third is that “[c]ompanies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily”. If we do not have this in place, the S-14 provisions would be very difficult to enforce, in some cases, because if we do not know who owns companies, we do not know who is influencing the companies. We do not have a full profile. In other words, if we were trying to establish that there was a payment to a company official, and we did not know who the company belonged to, it would be very difficult to prosecute.

We have heard from the G8 meetings that Canada was fighting this. We should be fighting back and getting the government to comply. It turns on the issue of beneficial ownership. That means that a company is hidden behind a shell. What the G8 is looking at, and what Mr. Cameron is pushing for and what number three in the communiqué is about, is that there be full disclosure. Companies can no longer have this parlour trick of hiding behind beneficial ownership. That means having a public registry of all companies showing exactly who owns them. We do not have that right now. Prime Minister Cameron said, “Personally, I would hope the whole world will move towards public registers of beneficial ownership”.

Aid agencies say that private registries would be second best. In other words, there would be a registry, but it would not be public; it would be in government. We are hearing that only the U.K. and the U.S. have committed to having public registries.

I hope the government will take this seriously, because if we are to deal with foreign corruption, we have to have transparency. If we are serious about this communiqué we have signed on to, we have to have a public registry of all companies, who owns them and where they sit. Otherwise, we will not be able to live up to the spirit of transparency.

Fourth is that “[d]eveloping countries should have the information and capacity to collect the taxes owed them—and other countries have a duty to help them”. This is critical when it comes to the issue of being able to influence foreign officials. What we often hear, on the ground, in emerging or developing economies is that officials are able to take advantage of their power to approve projects, et cetera, mainly because there is not a requisite tax system with the proper enforcement and oversight, so they can get away with it. This is what leads to corruption, because there is no proper oversight.

This is extremely important, because obviously, it would help benefit their citizens. It is also a way to deal with the potential for corruption. If there is full disclosure and sunlight, if you will, on who owes taxes and whether they have been paid, it is a disincentive for officials to use their power for corruption.

The fifth point is very important for us in the NDP: “Extractive companies should report payments to all governments—and governments should publish income from such companies”.

We have heard a positive message from the government that it will get behind this. We need to see legislation. From what we have seen and heard from the government, there is no requirement that these reports are to be made public. It is important that we fully embrace transparency and not go just halfway.

By the way, mining companies have said that they would sign on to this. I am hoping that all the extractives will get behind it.

Number six is very near and dear to my heart. It states: “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. As members know, this is the whole issue of conflict minerals. In places like the eastern part of the Congo, where there are human rights abuses and massive corruption, it is a conflict zone. Minerals that go into all of our devices, such as BlackBerrys and cell phones, come from a conflict zone. In essence, we are all, unknowingly for many people, carrying a piece of a conflict in our electronics, because we do not have the proper sourcing of minerals.

What the communiqué says is that “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. This is a challenge to the government. Are the Conservatives going to get on board? Bill C-486, which I put forward, would allow us to comply with what we have seen in the United States with Dodd-Frank. Legislation is in place to ensure that all minerals are from legitimate sources and are not aiding and abetting conflict. The Europeans are moving in this direction. The OECD, which we talked about in terms of this bill, has provided guidelines on ensuring that there is proper and appropriate oversight when it comes to sourcing minerals.

The sixth point is very important, and it is something I have worked on with a lot of people, including people in this place, to get Canada on board and at least get us up to the standard that has been established by others.

Number seven is very important: “Land transactions should be transparent, respecting the property rights of local communities”. When it comes to the corruption of foreign officials, one of the biggest trends we have seen in the last while is the acquisition of land by foreign countries, particularly in developing countries. There is a massive land grab going on right now, particularly in Africa. I will name some countries. China is big into this right now. It is banking land, taking over land. We need to ensure that local communities are respected.

Let us be honest. We are not perfect here in Canada. When we talk about social licence for companies to do their work in extractives, oil and gas, we need to respect local communities. This is an extremely important and urgent issue in developing countries, because we are seeing massive land grabs. It is about food security and about certain countries banking land and keeping an eye on their needs for minerals, oil, gas, et cetera, and in some cases, even food.

Number eight states that governments should roll back some measures on trade that they think would be helpful for trade.

Number nine is about ensuring that things are streamlined, particularly at borders between countries. We certainly know that issue with respect to our friends south of the border. Mr. Speaker, representing your constituency, you do not have to be told that this is extremely important.

Number 10, the last part of the communiqué from the G8, states: “Governments should publish information on laws, budgets, spending, national statistics, elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. That is actually for us. I am going to read that one again. It is cogent, because if we are going to talk about fighting corruption abroad, we need to be transparent at home. The G8 has signed on to this.

“Governments should publish information on laws, budgets”—think about the parliamentary budget officer here—“spending, national statistics”—this is very interesting, considering what we have done to Stats Canada—“elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. Number 10 needs urgently to be brought into force here.

I have listed these G8 points that just came out in the communiqué, because as I said in my comments when I questioned the parliamentary secretary, this bill does not go far enough. If we are going to seriously deal with corruption abroad, and we are going to actually be leaders, then it is not good enough just to get up to a minimum standard. That is not the Canadian way. I feel that we are living in the past with the current government.

The way the current government seems to operate, and the parliamentary secretary said it well himself, is that the Conservatives brought forward Bill S-14 because the OECD had cited us as being laggards. It was not until that happened that the government decided to bring forward this legislation. That is not the Canadian way. We should be leading. We should be looking at our practices to see where we are in terms of other jurisdictions.

Everyone knew that we were laggards. Transparency International has been saying so for quite a while.

We can look at this 10-point communiqué of the G8. Are we going to at least meet the standard of our allies? I would like us to see us go further.

For instance, I am concerned when it comes to the issue that Prime Minister Cameron cited about companies being transparent about who owns them so that we can deal with tax evasion. We are hearing that Canada is not going to do that. We are not going to publicly publish who owns a company.

As I mentioned, we need to deal with corruption seriously. We need to have full daylight, and if the government is only going to go halfway on this initiative, we will again fall back. We will be back in this House debating a bill to bring the standard up yet again. The government should embrace what both the U.K. and the U.S. are planning to do and have public registries listing who owns which companies. It should stop the shell game, particularly this practice of “beneficial ownership”.

The point is to make sure that we are transparent when it comes to the extractive industry. The government talked about signing on to the initiative for ensuring that all payments made between foreign governments and Canadian companies are transparent, but to whom? Is the information going to be kept within government, or would it be public? Will we have to ATI to obtain it, or would government do what other governments have done and make it transparent?

As I mentioned before, we must ensure that we get up to the standard of other countries on the issue of conflict minerals so that we no longer are looking the other way when it comes to the sourcing of the supply chain for many of the things that we rely on in our technologies.

If we are serious about it, we would embrace these initiatives of being fully transparent on who owns what companies, being fully transparent and pushing transparency when sourcing minerals in the supply chain for our electronics, and being fully transparent about payments between companies and governments abroad. Then we would be at the same standard as our allies. If we do not meet that standard, then we will be left with what we are doing here, which is trying to catch up.

I will be a bit partisan: what we have seen from the Conservative government is that we have become laggards. We sign on to international treaties, but then we do not follow up with implementation that lives up to the treaty.

For example, we have been called out by Norway and the Red Cross on the fact that the cluster munitions treaty that we signed on to will be undermined by Bill S-10, the proposed implementation legislation, which we have debated. It would undermine this international treaty.

We must think about this for a second. The International Committee of the Red Cross never comes out and criticizes government, but they just did yesterday. It said that Bill S-10, the implementation bill for the cluster munitions treaty that we have signed on to, would actually undermine the treaty. It is shocking.

I am very concerned that when we sign on to this communiqué for the G8 that we actually follow up, live up to the spirit of what we have signed on to and not undermine it.

Another example when it comes to international treaties is the arms trade treaty we agreed to. Then we find the gun lobby taking it over from the government. It is astonishing.

Instead of embracing the future, these guys are living in the past. They are affecting our reputation. Instead of getting on board with progress, they are holding us back just because of their ideology.

Bill S-14 will be supported by the NDP simply because it is the least the Conservative government can do. However, what we want to see is full transparency. When we see the follow-up to the communiqué on the G8, we will be holding the current government to account to at least come up to the standard of our allies.

Personally, and I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, we would like to see Canada lead and not be a laggard. It is something I think most Canadians want to see as well.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that this bill was introduced, but it is disappointing that it came from the Senate.

Last year, other bills on the same topic were rejected. Now, a door has opened. This bill addresses corruption of foreign public officials. The NDP is in favour of clear rules requiring that Canadians and Canadian businesses abroad be accountable and responsible.

We will support this bill so that it can be sent to committee. However, there needs to be some ambition here. This bill is lacking many components that would implement basic standards to ensure that companies doing business overseas respect human rights and are congenial. Those standards would allow Canada to become a model country in doing business overseas.

During a Senate committee meeting on February 28, 2013, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the following:

...our government's priority is encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity...It is reflected in the need to position Canada as a reliable supplier of resources which emerging markets need to grow...

We need to position our country as a reliable resource. We need to be a model country, but there is still work to be done in that regard. I would like to talk about what is happening with certain Canadian countries abroad. I will just give a few examples.

We sometimes think that things are wonderful everywhere. We talk about corruption elsewhere without looking in our own back yard. For example, there are Canadian public servants who receive bribes. Turn on the television and you might be shocked to see what is happening here in Canada.

There have been some examples on television, on the CBC. For example, the RCMP investigated a Canadian mining company's activities in Mexico. The story did not end well. The people in the concerned area in Mexico did not want the Canadian mining company, Blackfire, to set up shop in Chiapas, and that resulted in criminal activity.

In March 2010, the coalition MiningWatch Canada informed the RCMP and provided proof that money had been paid to the mayor of Chicomuselo. However, nothing really came of it because the RCMP also needs the means to investigate. Bills are great, but it is hard if there is no money to implement them.

Finally, the Mexican spokesperson in this story was killed. No one knows who killed him, but he was a harsh critic of a Canadian company. The company was accused of killing him, but no one could prove it. It is odd that this man, who fought to defend his land and ensure that the mining company conducted its business properly, got himself killed. That gives us food for thought. Just go to Radio-Canada for the source.

As far as Guatemala is concerned, last year we welcomed a group of people who came to talk to us about the way Canadian companies operate in these countries. They were talking about the involvement of security staff from Canadian companies in recent acts of violence that could result in civil suits.

I am talking about Tahoe Resources, a Vancouver-based company. This company sets up in a region without consulting the people who live there, those who will have to live with the impact of its activities on the environment and the water they consume.

These Canadian companies are giving us a bad name because the people are not going to say it was the Canadian company's fault; they are going to blame Canadians. We have to be careful. Yes, it is a matter of corruption, but the problem is even broader than that. We have to be more ambitious and draft a bill to crack down on offending companies.

Tahoe Resources' project heightened the conflicts in the region. Civilian security officers came down on the community and hurt people, some seriously. We do not want that. We want good relations.

As members said earlier, our government's priority is to promote jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, but not by destroying our neighbouring countries. I have another example: the police search of SNC-Lavalin.

Nonetheless, I will close on a note of hope. Earlier, one of my colleagues was talking about Pascua-Lama in Chile. This is another Canadian company. The local people demonstrated for months, but the company kept operating. The same people went to court and won. The government had no choice. It had to put an end to the activities of the Canadian company. The company was unable to set up there because it had no consideration for the local people.

This brings me to another point. In Spanish we say that we must have un acuerdo social, une licencia sociale. We must get along socially. It is similar to a driver's licence, but it is social license. It means that these companies, except for the corruption issue, are very honest. That is what we hear. They must consult people and explain to them how their mining activities may affect their lives. Before doing anything, they must secure social license. Otherwise, this leads to conflicts in the country, and they do not want that.

We signed free trade agreements with these countries and we do not want to create problems there. We want wealth for both sides.

In Chile, a court ruling forced one of the largest gold companies in Latin America, the Pascua-Lama mine, to stop all its activities. The Chilean justice felt that the project did not meet environmental standards. It is a good thing the country had some environmental standards. In the end, the company will not leave. It is now negotiating to resume its activities next year. That is great. We should not expect this to happen overnight.

This is a good bill and the NDP will support it, but we must go further. We must be more ambitious. Canada has an opportunity to be a role model. For a long time, the United States was always mentioned as a role model. If Canada creates jobs, if it establishes mines elsewhere, if it develops a policy with a minimum of social agreements that respect people's way of life—and not just the environment—it may become a role model, and other countries will open their doors to us. We will be proud of what we will be doing abroad.

The bill is particularly important for the mining industry, of which the NDP is a strong supporter. In the past, Bills C-323 and C-486 were not passed. The time has come to retrieve them and to read them. Then, perhaps members opposite will realize that we were not so wrong and that the NDP was right on target, because it was able to look a little further, instead of thinking only about the money going into the companies' pockets. Moreover, these companies often do not even pay taxes in the countries where they settle.

I invite all hon. members to be more ambitious and to dream of a country that can behave like a good big brother and be a role model. This is a start, but it is not the end. We must go further.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

In looking at this bill, and given the record of the government, I find myself yearning to have a companion bill introduced in the House that would be entitled, “an act to amend the corruption of domestic public officials act”. There is a whole host of things we could be dealing with.

In terms of domestic corruption, we could be trying to deal with $90,000 payments to senators made by officials in the Prime Minister's Office allegedly to cover up illegal activity. We could be investigating Canadian senators fraudulently claiming housing and living expenses. We could be looking into people like Arthur Porter, another Conservative and a former appointment made by the Prime Minister to the CSIS oversight board, who apparently helped himself to millions of taxpayer dollars in Montreal and fled to South America. We could be looking into Conservative candidates like Peter Penashue, who spent over the election limits and effectively bought his seat by cheating. We could be looking into robocalls where the Conservative database was used to commit election fraud. Then we watched the Conservative Party try to obscure things and fight against any attempt to bring transparency into that procedure.

There is domestic corruption of public officials galore with the Conservative government. I look forward to the government introducing a bill that would attack corruption and finally clean up politics in this House for Canadians, but unfortunately, that is not the bill before us. We are dealing with foreign public officials.

The NDP, being a party that stands for ethics and transparency in Canadian politics, is proud to support this bill for referral to committee.

This bill makes four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. First, it increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. Second, it eliminates an exception for so-called facilitation payments—there is a euphemism if I have ever seen one—where a foreign official is paid to expedite the execution of their responsibilities. The government calls it a facilitation payment, but I call it a bribe. Third, the bill creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe or conceal bribery of a foreign official. Fourth, it establishes a nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

Again, New Democrats have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas, which usually have been opposed by the Conservatives, unfortunately. This bill complements legislative efforts by New Democrat MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices.

In Canada, our inability to enforce anti-corruption laws is a source of embarrassment to the country. We are pleased that the government is finally looking into these problems, but it is deplorable that it has taken so much time and that Canada had to be condemned and discredited before the government took any action.

Canadians want Canadian companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada. We want Canadian companies to have clear and consistent standards for international business. Enforced loophole-free regulations would create a level playing field for all companies while ensuring environmental, labour and human rights protection of which we all can be proud.

In a 2011 report, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all G7 countries with regarding to international bribery, with “little or no enforcement” of the scant legislation that exists. Since then the government has been responding to this national embarrassment. However, there have only been three convictions since 1999, two of which were in the last two years. I would like the government to get tough on corruption. When there have been only three convictions since 1999, that is hardly being tough.

By repealing the facilitations exception, this bill would bring Canada into line with the practices in 36 of 39 other OECD countries. However, while the rest of the bill would come into effect at royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments would take effect at an unknown future date at the will of cabinet.

The books and records rule is already being enforced in the United States at the civil level by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but Canada has no equivalent regulator. While criminal law achieves the same effect, we should be increasing our efforts in this regard.

This bill is particularly relevant to the extractive industry, where the NDP has been and remains the strongest advocate for accountability in the House. Examples include my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster's Bill C-323 as it then was, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations; and my colleague from Ottawa Centre's Bill C-486, requiring public due diligence by companies using minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

I point out that the mining bill was opposed by the Conservative government and 13 Liberals failed to show up for the vote, which led to the narrow defeat of that bill by six votes. Again, Canadians can only count on the New Democrats to bring corporate social responsibility of Canadian mining companies into international normative standards in the House.

The political elites that profit from corruption, particularly in those countries and sectors where corruption is most problematic, consist mainly of men. At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection.

While we support the bill for referral to committee, we do have some concerns. It would amend the definition of a “business” to include not-for-profit organizations. The New Democrats believe this clause should be carefully studied at committee, in relation to its impact on charitable and aid organizations, which may, in the world we live in, have to make occasional payments in order to expedite or achieve delivery of essential assistance. We must take great care around that.

The committee should also study the consequences of establishing an indictable offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, as this is the threshold at which conditional or absolute discharges or conditional sentences become impossible.

Finally, the committee should study whether the rule on facilitation payment should take effect at the whim of cabinet, as is in the current text of the bill, rather than when ordered by Parliament.

Here are some key facts and figures to consider.

There have been three convictions, as I have mentioned, under Canada's foreign bribery law since it took effect in 1999: Hydro Kleen Group was fined $25,000 in 2005 for bribing a U.S. immigration officer at the Calgary airport; Niko Resources was fined $9.5 million in June 2011 because its subsidiary in Bangladesh paid for a vehicle and travel expenses for the former Blangladeshi state minister for energy and mineral resources; and, Griffiths Energy International was fined $10 million in January of this year, after it agreed to pay $2 million to the wife of Chad's ambassador to Canada and allowed her and two others to buy shares at discounted prices in exchange for supporting an oil and gas project in Chad.

We all are watching the newspapers as we see the difficulties that SNC-Lavalin has got itself into in terms of allegedly paying bribes to foreign officials to secure contracts abroad, in the millions of dollars.

The Transparency International Bribe Payers Index in 2011 ranked the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. This should be of great concern to Canadians because Canada is a world centre for mining and oil and gas industries and companies. These companies, among all sectors as stakeholders, should want to establish very clean, high-level regulations and rules regarding acceptable corporate conduct. Moreover, the mining and oil and gas industries are the second and third most likely to engage in grand bribery targeting of high-ranking officials and politicians. This makes a bill like Bill S-14 especially important in these sectors.

The fact that the government does not enforce the anti-corruption laws is a national shame. We are pleased that it is finally paying attention to these problems. It is nevertheless deplorable that it has taken so much time, and that Canada had to be condemned and discredited before the government took any action.

For business, for the environment and labour and for Canada's international reputation, we urge that this bill go through Parliament and I urge the Conservatives to make the amendments necessary to get the support of all parties in the House.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I feel a bit sick as I rise in the House to debate a bill that has come from the Senate.

I will echo my colleague’s remarks by saying that the government has no reason to be proud of itself right now. It did not even act; it was the Senate that did so. If the Senate had not decided to introduce this bill, would the government have adopted measures such as these? I very much doubt it.

The bill comes from an unelected and undemocratic chamber, and, as we know, that chamber has been in the headlines in recent weeks as a result of corruption-related scandals. In my view, it is ironic to talk about corruption when the bill comes from the Senate. Some senators are currently under investigation by the RCMP, but that is another matter.

The bill stems from the report published by Transparency International, which ranked the Canadian mining and oil and gas industries second and third among sectors in which acts of corruption are most likely to be committed. This is rather important for a country such as Canada, which has between 75% and 80% of all global mining exploration and extraction companies. If that industry ranks second or third for acts of corruption, and Canada has approximately 80% of all those companies, that means the bill is crucial for Canada.

Canada has more extraction companies than any other country in the world. It often makes the headlines as a result of acts of corruption, human rights violations and breaches of environmental standards. Consequently, I think it is essential for us to take action. I am pleased to rise in the House to say that the NDP will support the bill so that it is referred to committee.

It is important to note that, in its report, Transparency International ranked Canada last among the G7 countries in combating corruption. It is important to say that. The government needs to realize that it is time to take action. Since 1999, there have been only three convictions under acts passed to combat corruption. It is true that the legislation was in force, but it was barely complied with and barely enforced. This bill is therefore extremely important. It is time for the government to open its eyes and do something to combat corruption.

The Conservatives themselves have fallen victim to scandals, and it is time to act. If they want to show their good faith, let them act today.

The NDP has always supported corporate social responsibility. For example, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster introduced Bill C-323, which would permit persons who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of Canada's international obligations. My colleague from Ottawa Centre also introduced Bill C-486, which requires companies using minerals originating in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, a highly unstable region that has suffered many conflicts, to exercise due diligence and comply with OECD standards respecting conflict minerals.

The bill will support all the New Democratic Party's initiatives to ensure that Canada's private and public sector representatives comply with Canadian legislation. The criteria that Canada is required to meet must also be met by Canada's international representatives.

Consider, for example, the recent events in Bangladesh, where the death toll is unfortunately rising every day and now stands at more than 1,000. That event has shed light on the problems of businesses operating internationally, whether they come from Canada or any other country. Deficiencies in the enforcement of anti-corruption legislation in Canada are extremely numerous. Non-governmental organizations single us out in reports and criticize our international activities, and I hope that all members of Parliament are as embarrassed about that as I am.

As I know from speaking to many of them, Canadians want our businesses to represent Canada in a respectable, transparent and responsible manner and to have clear, coherent international business standards. It is important for Parliament to let those companies do business but also to provide them with a clear, coherent framework so they know what to expect when they do business internationally.

Enforcing loophole-free regulations will therefore level the playing field for all companies, while protecting the environment, employment and human rights, something that we can be proud of. For example, the bill will bring Canada's rules and criteria in line with those of 36 of the 39 OECD member countries. It was time that happened. Our standards and practices had not been consistent with those of the majority of OECD member countries since 1999. This bill will help harmonize regulations.

However, the payment rules will come into force only when cabinet wishes. This part of the bill should come in for particular scrutiny when examined in committee. Cabinet should not be responsible for deciding when an act comes into force. If this bill is passed by Parliament, it should come into force immediately.

Environmental and labour standards, for example, are not always effective in developing countries. They often vary with the freedom of expression and demands of the local populations. It is therefore difficult for populations to call for government accountability when revenues are low. If we as Canadians want to invest in other countries, we must set an example. Accountability is important.

Canada's international leadership is vastly undermined by all the Canadian companies involved in corruption scandals. I could name several in South America, Asia and Papua New Guinea. It is time to take action and restore Canada's international image.

The addition of a national jurisdiction based on the nationality of businesses is also very important. This standard is recognized in international law. Businesses that have their headquarters and operations in a country are considered as having the nationality of that country. This therefore obviates the need for investigators to establish connections or find evidence of the offence committed in Canada. An offence may have been committed entirely outside the country, hence the importance of creating this nationality jurisdiction, which will enable investigators to bring people who commit crimes to justice.

It is therefore very important for Canada to ensure that Canadian businesses abide by international standards and respect human rights and that they not be corrupt.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It is always a pleasure to be in a full house. Everyone has flocked to the House of Commons to hear my speech tonight.

This bill is a start. Obviously, New Democrats recommend that the bill go to committee so it can be analyzed, witnesses can be brought in, some of the points ironed out, and hopefully make the bill stronger.

There are four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act contained in the bill. It increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. It eliminates the exception for so-called facilitation payments where a foreign official is paid to expedite the execution of his or her responsibilities. It creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to conceal bribery of a foreign official. It establishes a national jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

One of the issues the committee might want to look at is how this would affect various groups and NGOs overseas that are trying to function in a country in which corruption is everywhere. We have seen films in which people are trying to advance through checkpoints and through no fault of their own, they have to pay bribes at illegal roadblocks or whatever, in order to deliver the aid. This bill would certainly tighten up the reaction to that corruption. I am wondering how we would address that situation. Obviously, a strong message would have to be sent to the government of that particular country. I am sure the committee will be looking at that.

There are a couple of points I want to emphasize. One is that we have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. This bill complements legislative efforts by NDP MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices. We acknowledge that the lack of enforcement in Canada with respect to bribery can be considered, to an extent, a national embarrassment. We are pleased that the government is finally responding to this problem. It took a long time, but at least we are on the right track.

Most Canadians want our companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada. Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards for international business. In other words, why would we allow an official of a Canadian multinational to act differently in another country than we would allow here? That is what this bill is trying to enforce. We need to enforce loophole-free regulations that will create a level playing field for all companies while ensuring environmental, labour, and human rights protection of which we can all be proud in this country.

We have certain values and standards in this country when we deal with each other. We need to ensure that when we are doing business in other countries, we apply the same values and standards. That is one of the points this bill is driving at.

In a report released in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. I say this is disgraceful. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation.

Since then, the government has started trying to address this national embarrassment. However, since 1999, there have only been three convictions, two of them in the past two years. When I read that, I was surprised. It seems that we should be in first place with regard to corruption and our fight against corruption.

By eliminating the facilitation payments exception, the bill will bring Canada’s practices in line with 36 of the 39 other OECD countries. That is a good idea.

However, while the rest of the bill comes into effect on royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments will come into effect at an unknown later date, as cabinet wishes.

I am wondering about this point and I hope we will discuss the bill’s mechanism in more detail in committee.

In the United States, the rule on accounting records is already used in civil matters by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Canada has no equivalent regulatory authority, but there is a similar rule in criminal law.

I would also like to point out that the bill is of particular importance for the mining industry, where the NDP has been and is still an ardent defender of accountability. I can cite, for instance, Bill C-323 from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which seeks to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of international obligations in Canadian courts.

Furthermore, I can cite Bill C-486 from the member for Ottawa Centre, I think, which requires companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence.

The political elite that benefits from corruption, particularly in countries and industries where corruption is rife, is made up primarily of men, which is interesting. At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection.

We support this bill and we believe that it must be sent to committee to facilitate discussion, as I just mentioned.

The bill will amend the definition of the term “business” to include the non-profit organizations I mentioned earlier. At committee stage, members will have to study the impact of this provision on charitable organizations and humanitarian relief agencies, which can sometimes be required to make a payment to accelerate the provision of essential aid or to actually obtain aid, something that I also mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The committee should also determine the impact of making these activities indictable offences that are subject to imprisonment of up to 14 years, because it is a threshold over which conditional discharges, absolute discharges and conditional sentences become impossible. Therefore, the committee really must determine whether 14 years of imprisonment is the right direction to take.

I am going to stop here, and I look forward to all the questions.

Conflict Minerals Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill entitled, an act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

The conflict minerals that end up in many products, such as our cell phones and game consoles, are responsible for funding and fuelling a war that has killed more than five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The war in the Congo is the deadliest conflict since World War II. Rape is widely used as a strategy and a weapon of war.

The bill ensures that minerals used in Canadian products will not benefit armed groups engaged in atrocities. We developed the bill in consultation with industry and civil society. I urge all members to support the bill in Parliament. Let us make Canada a leader in ending rape and war in the Congo.

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