Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[Ken Sunquist]

I'll ask my colleagues to chip in on this one too, Mr. Chair, if you're agreeable.

I think that in general the idea is not to hurt the people of Sudan, so that's your question about foodstuffs and that type of activity.

You can paint with too broad a brush. For instance, if you talk about crown corporations, the interesting one you should know about is that the helicopters operating there currently are done through the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I happen to be a member of the board of directors of that corporation, but that's how we were using crown agencies. If you paint it too broadly, without understanding what the impact might be.... In the case of the helicopters, it's clear that we needed them to be able to do what we wanted to do.

I think what you're expressing is the problems of not doing it as part of a multilateral UN type of thing and trying to do things unilaterally. I gave you the list of countries that are active. Our values, our ethics, tell us to do one thing, but it's very clear that a lot of people are still in the game. It doesn't mean that we should be there; it just means others will be doing it, and that's when we have to be in different forums expressing our values.

It doesn't answer your question entirely. I know there are issues around communications, and it's not necessarily just a humanitarian effort. If you have a radio.... A former posting of mine was in the old days of Yugoslavia; allowing television into Albania for the first time, or television into North Korea when I was posted in Korea, had a dramatic effect on the people there. The unintended consequence of saying you can't have some communications is that the people never see that there's a better life--that there are other things too.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Is it possible to examine this under that type of light, that you would try to separate some of the industry and businesses that are desirable but still would technically fall under a divestment initiative--which you would not want it to do because it would be actually harmful--and also, the other type of industry that you actually do want to divest from it because that is encouraging and carrying on and providing funding or encouragement for the conflict there? Is it possible to report to the committee on what other countries have participated in different factions under this and whether they are considering that type of balance in their divestment efforts or just plain ignoring it altogether?

[Ken Sunquist]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, with your permission, we will get back to you on that one, because it does take a little bit of analysis. I was just talking to Mr. Proudfoot from the Sudan Task Force. I think you deserve a more fulsome answer than what we have right now.

We'll take a look at other countries where they're doing disinvestment and how they're differentiating. I mentioned this in the U.S. example. La Mancha was taken off their list because it's doing a good job in there. I don't know how you are going to feel about those kinds of issues. You might take a different view, but that was with respect to the U.S. NGOs.

On the foodstuffs, some of the communications, let us get back to you, and we'll do that as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sunquist.

We'll get Mr. Lebel on the way back.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that probe and the drilling down a bit. We're going to hear from other witnesses who might help us with that and I'm sure they'll share information.

Thank you to our guests today.

One of the issues we've dealt with at this committee has been.... One of the tools in the tool kit for government is SEMA, as you know, and presumably with your experience from the former Yugoslavia you know the history. I guess one of the tools that could be used here--and granted you've already identified that there's not a lot of Canadian investment there--would be SEMA.

My concern—and I will be talking again on Burma, but not today—is how we define how SEMA is implemented, because it is a policy tool that I'd say is fairly new, if you want to look back to 1992 when it came into place. But what we need is to understand the scope of investment. I don't see it today, but perhaps you could provide the committee with a list of exactly what Canadian companies are investing and to what degree.

I'd also be interested in indirect investment, because one of the concerns I had around Burma--and we discussed it at committee--was that the lens we were looking through was one of future investment. I would argue--and this is just my argument--that we should have been going back to existing investment in Burma. If we decide to use this as a direction for the government, a policy tool, we would do the same, looking at not just who's directly investing in Sudan, but indirect investments, so that we are able to touch all of the dollars that might be invested, just as information.

The other thing I want to mention, to see if you had any experience or knowledge of it, is that I was talking to some people today about this issue, and they identified, notwithstanding that there's not a lot of Canadian investment in Sudan presently for reasons aforementioned--there's a lot of investment by Chinese and Indian companies--that there's also a lot of interest in our oil in Canada. The proposition was contract prohibitions and employing CSR, corporate social responsibility, with those companies--for instance, Chinese oil companies that are very interested in our tar sands--and saying, before you invest in oil in the tar sands, let's take a look.... I know our government's interested in this. They announced that they were going to talk about a lens on foreign investment, because they were worried about national security, particularly around investment in the tar sands, and that we can employ the same tack and use that as a tool.

I'll just finish with this comment. The reason I'm concerned about investment in Sudan and Darfur is because of what it does to people. People are being moved off their property. They are not being compensated. The oil companies and the people who are investing there--and these are reports that I've heard and read--are sometimes using the places where drilling is going on for military purposes, and there's dual use going on in terms of the equipment.

I would like to put a question, I guess, to our government. Is there a way to put contract conditions on investment in our oil fields as much as looking at what is going on in Canadian investment and indirect investment, as well, in Sudan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Sunquist.

[Ken Sunquist]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Dewar asks a difficult question to answer in any short version. But let me divide it into two.

The first one is SEMA, and I think most of you have been through it in terms of Burma. We've used it in terms of Belarus; we've used it in other countries in the past.

The preference, in effect...and I'm not sure I can say the legal preference, but usually it's supposed to be done in concert with others in terms of a multilateral, so it's a UN or a larger grouping. In fact, Burma was one of the first times we did that without that...call it cover or whatever you want to call it; we did it differently.

So the way you can use SEMA is dependent upon, I guess, the way the government wishes to use SEMA. The preference has always been to do it in concert with others, because without doing it in concert.... It becomes a tool without much teeth if other people can get around it in other ways, as Madame Barbot said in her question. So we have an issue of SEMA. We prefer to use it in concert with others so that we can make it....

Your second question is actually more intriguing, in a way. It's one that I don't think any thought has been given to. The whole idea of investment into Canada has been on the basis that companies would perform in Canada to Canadian values, Canadian interests, and that they would be good Canadian corporate citizens, as well. I don't believe we've used it as a line in the sand as to what that company does in the United States or in the UK or in China or Japan. I guess you would get into the reputation of the company, which could be used. It's just one that has not been used as a public policy vehicle.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, if I may, Mr. Chair, one of the things I fundamentally believe is that Sudan's oil wealth has the potential to be a major driver, if you will, for peace and equitable development, simply because we know that the petro-dollars that are generated in Sudan aren't exactly--and I say this with all due respect to our guests here--going to providing peace and stability in the country.

I would put the moral imperative in front of this by saying, if we know of Chinese oil companies, as an example, that are investing there and if their best practices don't conform to our notion of CSR, and they come here to invest, making similar profits, I think it's a fair question to ask. I know our government is looking at this policy in terms of putting some sort of lens on who is investing, be it in the oil patch or elsewhere. That's why I put it forward, because we have examples of some positive developments in Sudan through China because there has been pressure put on, there has been constructive engagement. And I'm not an isolationist on this. I believe there has to be engagement, but we have to have the tools in front of us.

I would submit that what I'm hearing from you is that SEMA is defined more by cabinet than by you, but if there are other tools, we should certainly take a look at them.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just leave it there. There's no time to respond to that.

We'll move to Mr. Lebel.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to follow up on the Mr. Dewar's questions.

Mr. Sunquist made a very interesting statement a while ago. Sometimes, organizations tell us that Canadian companies doing business in other countries do not really contribute to their social development. You told us that Canadian companies, when they go to Sudan, receive some training on corporate social responsibility.

How does the government make sure that Canadian corporations doing business in Sudan or in other countries respect the social development of those countries?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Sunquist.

[Ken Sunquist]

Thank you.

The question is really around voluntary compliance. But it's also, I would argue, the case that Canadian companies, when they operate anywhere in the world, export Canadian values and Canadian systems. The number of Canadian companies that are ever involved in these issues is very small.

One thing that was most interesting, while we have not talked about it in our statement, is that if you look at Talisman in Sudan a decade ago, I would argue with you that today Talisman is probably a leader in Canada in CSR, and it's because of Sudan. This gets to your comment earlier about some pressure and some differences.

Companies in Canada.... We actually try to promote good CSR values as a niche for Canadians. That's how we want to be seen in the world. We would like people to know that if they deal with Canadian companies, there won't be corruption. In fact, that helps them find contracts, because government people can feel safe that they won't be held up to public scrutiny on these things, because they know that Canadian companies aren't involved in it.

When we find Canadian companies that are going down a path with which we're uncomfortable, our heads of mission, our ambassadors, our high commissioners, our senior trade people speak often and frequently to them about host government regulations. Because sometimes the host government regulations are much easier and laxer than Canadian ones, we're saying that Canadian companies should be bound by the two. And you don't get to choose the lesser of the two; you get to choose the greater of the two.

It's a constant.... I used Talisman, and I can use La Mancha, and I didn't reply to Mr. Martin's last comment about GNPOC. We've met with all the companies that have had anything to do, in the past or currently, with Sudan to talk to them about their actions and what they're doing. We bring this to their attention every day, with somebody talking to somebody.

I like the tenor of your comment, in the sense that it's not a regulatory approach, but it's one that demands that they really think of themselves as Canadians and about our values.

The other thing is the OECD regulations. We have a National Contact Point here that listens and talks to NGOs and talks to companies. So we have a formal mechanism, we have the informal mechanisms, we have the Foreign Affairs kinds of things. We believe we're certainly moving in the right direction and have the right....

I would also say that voluntary standards—we use voluntary international standards of the UN, the World Bank—are not just something somebody thought up in the basement of their house. These are valid standards for extractive industries—for corruption, for whatever. And you'll notice that many Canadian companies are global leaders now. They publish compliance regulations; they publish separate annual reports.

I'm not sure I can answer this better than to say that this is where we are.

I'll just take one second to say that the other thing we need to look at in contracts is whether there are any trade obligations under WTO or GATT negotiations, and I just don't know. That's why I can't.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to take up your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sunquist.

We'll go to Mr. Patry and Mr. Wilfert.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Sunquist.

I have two short questions for you. It seems that there is no end in sight to the conflict in Darfur, even in the medium-term. Nobody knows when it will stop. Furthermore, the situation in Darfur has somewhat destabilized the neighboring country, Chad. It seems quite likely that this destabilization was aimed at not allowing the mission of the United Nations to increase the number of its troops in Sudan. Even if there is an embargo on Sudan, they will be able to get whatever weapons they want from some country, especially through Russia and China. My question is quite simple : could we not resolve the situation once and for all through the United Nations if the Security Council decided to take a firm stand, especially with the participation of China?

Secondly, you have talked a lot about corporate responsibility. When I was chairing this committee, two years ago — time flies — we did a study on corporate social responsibility and we produced a report. After that, the corporations, that is to say the extractive industries, as you mentioned, produced some guidelines in February. They support that. Later on, EDC supported those principles for Equator and, in March, the roundtables established by the federal government produced a report. Nothing else has happened since March. Eleven months later, we are still waiting for the government's response.

Is it not time for the government to give us a response, not in the form of pious wishes but in the form of a full-fledged policy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Wilfert, did you have a question? Then we'll let them answer all of them.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to see the Sudanese ambassador here, whom I have met, and the chair of the foreign affairs committee of Sudan, whom I've met on several occasions. I certainly believe it's important to engage, even if we don't agree at times.

Mr. Sunquist, regarding resolution 769, UNAMID, I want to know two things: one, it needs Sudanese cooperation to really be effective; secondly, it's financial for fixed-wing helicopters, etc. My understanding is that the Canadian government has not made any financial contributions. If not, why not? And if we believe in the responsibility to protect doctrine, which we authored and signed, why haven't we done it?

[Ken Sunquist]

Thank you.

I'll take the first part of the question, which is on the UN Security Council. In my opening statement, I said that the government's position is clear, that they would follow and would welcome UN Security Council discussions, debate, and decisions on this one.

The second question related to the round tables on extractive industries and a number of recommendations—27 recommendations in total—some of which have already been implemented, but all of which will be addressed in response to the House and tabled in the House.

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

After the election.

[Ken Sunquist]

I won't comment on that one, but I will ask my colleague to talk about Mr. Wilfert's question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Angell.

[David Angell]

Thank you, Mr. chair.

According to our analysis, the United Nations and the Security Council play a very important role. Even though their efforts have not been successful so far, they have been significant.

For example, members of the committee have referred to the importance of creating some tools. We have seen the United Nations and the Security Council create some new tools that had never been seen before in order to resolve the Darfur situation, such as the peacekeeping mission and the combined mission. As a matter of fact, there had never been such a level of a cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union.

The same type of cooperation is present in some of the peace processes. Mr. Roed-Larsen, the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is working in close cooperation with Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, representing the president of the African Union Commission. Both work closely with the movement in order to establish the circumstances that would relaunch the negotiations. The Security Council has implemented some measures called the targeted sanctions, applied to the funding of weapons and to the travels of some individuals.

Furthermore, other United Nations people, such as Sir John Holmes, Mr. Guéhenno, on the peacekeeping side, and the Secretary-General himself are still very involved in this situation. Of course, the members of the Security Council, including permanent members such as France, the United Kingdom and China, play very important roles on the Sudan situation in a national context.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to financial contributions for air assets, the Canadian government made an extraordinary contribution during the AMIS phase, but with the creation of UNAMID, the responsibility for the provision of those assets has now been taken on by the United Nations on the basis of assessed contributions. So we have been told formally by the United Nations that the contribution we were making is no longer required.

There is Canadian support for the transport of some of the African peacekeeping forces, for example. There is support still through our helicopters not yet withdrawn, but as UNAMID deploys, that responsibility will be transferred. We've been told formally by the United Nations that the helicopters will no longer be required.

With regard to the responsibility to protect, our Prime Minister has said in a formal statement that R2P does indeed apply to Sudan. What's called for in this case is the effective deployment of a peace support operation, and this is why we have put so much store in getting UNAMID on the ground, and this is why we made such an extraordinary contribution to try to ensure the success of the AU force, AMIS beforehand, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Angell.

Mr. Obhrai is next.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To my colleagues on the other side, if you want to know what the government is doing, ask me, and I'll tell you what the government is doing.

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

Take a note of this.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

To my friend from the NDP who seems to know more about government policy than I do, as he keeps quoting it, one question I need to ask here is not directed here but to the comment the NDP made in reference to companies being invested into Canada and holding these companies accountable for their activities outside and making the distinction. I think that is absolutely not something that I can tell you this government or the investment committee would see. It's not feasible. It's not viable. Most importantly, of course, this is something that the NDP always thinks, because they know they're never going to form a government anyway.

The best example--and maybe the NDP should learn from this--is TeleSpan. It was a Canadian company. They had a lot of pressure within Canada to act responsibly, and they did. So that is the kind of pressure that they want to put. The NDP think they should get the countries where the companies are to put pressure on their companies to act responsibly, but to try to throw that through the channel of Canadians.... This thing is only an NDP dictatorship thing that works like that.

I want it to lay it out very clearly so that it's very well understood where we're going. Right? Thank you.