Foreign Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2009

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Would this be a trial? The complaint would be perceived.... To give you a comparison, look at a human rights issue such as human rights tribunals. A complaint is issued, and the commission says there's a basis upon which to have a hearing. That hearing would have a process in which the complaint would be laid out very specifically, that on such and such a day, such and such an event took place.

On the other issue, what is the jurisdiction of a Canadian minister to make a finding of legal consequence on an activity that is taking place in another country, about which there may already have been extensive legal proceedings? For example, take the case you raised of a company in Honduras. That company was already found guilty in a Honduran court of law, so they will say they paid the price for that. So would the consequence for that company be, as a result of the conviction under the another jurisdiction, that they wouldn't be able to receive assistance or investments from the Canadian Pension Plan?

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

This is the fallout from the government not responding in a comprehensive fashion to this report in 2007. We've fashioned a response within the limitations of a private member's bill. I don't think there's a person around the table who wouldn't prefer to be reviewing a government bill here. So the procedures and regulations clearly do not have the characteristics of a human rights tribunal. That's far beyond the scope of a private member's bill.

On the second issue of whether it has extraterritorial application, in theory it doesn't even have to influence the behaviour of the company. If the companies referenced here don't access government services or government financing, they can carry on their businesses as they see fit.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

There's hardly a public company around that doesn't receive investments from the Canada Pension Plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have to leave it at that comment. We're at ten minutes here.

Madam Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome Mr. McKay. This is a wonderful forum for you, and I would like to discuss aspects of your bill, Bill C-300, with you. I have a few questions.

In your presentation, you referred to broad consultations, to round tables held between 2006 and 2008. That was done under your government at the time, the Liberal government.

I would imagine you consulted with the participants from these round tables before drafting your bill, you must have interacted with them to draw up a framework for your bill.

I would also like you to discuss the government's response to the round table report. Could you shed light on what your bill has to offer in addition to the government's response to the round table report?

You now have an opportunity to focus on what it is that gives Bill C-300 more bite, given the expectations expressed in the report and recommendations from the round tables.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I apologize, I will have to answer in English. My French is not up to par and I have a Scarborough accent. My anglophone colleagues understand my French, but my francophone colleagues do not.

First of all, this committee's report was in 2005, the Liberal government ended in 2006, and the round table report was in 2007 under the Conservative government.

As to consultations with others, there are pretty serious limitations on what a private member can do. I didn't conduct round tables of my own, or cross-country hearings; I basically relied on the findings that were made in 2007 and 2008. I can give you a list of people who have been in my office during the last couple of months, and I've become very popular for some reason or another. There have been a lot of representations, and I'm absolutely awestruck by the number of people who want this bill to pass. The Development and Peace organization has sent 500,000 postcards to members of Parliament and the Prime Minister, which tends to make people think something's not quite right here.

Bill C-300 is not so much a response to the round tables as an independent bill in and of itself, but it does give consequences to findings. Our problem in this country is that we talk a good game, but when it comes to putting even modest sanctions behind findings, we are somewhat more reluctant.

Mr. Rae rightly points out that there are sanctions in this bill and they're not merely reputational ones. It's not unreasonable to say to companies found to be in breach of CSR guidelines that they can carry on business as they see fit, but just don't ask for the taxpayers' credit cards while they're doing so--EDC, CPP, and promotional activities.

The core problem here is that companies act however companies act. But it's not only reputational damage to the companies; it's also reputational damage to our nation, and that's not always factored into the equation.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

This week, we are discussing the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It would seem that many civil society members, in Colombia and in Canada, oppose this agreement.

If Bill C-300 were enacted, would it reassure people?

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

That's an interesting question. The beauty about being a Liberal is that you can skate on both sides of the ice. Sometimes you just get a puck in the head, but that's another issue.

The issue here is that there are legitimate issues arising out of the activities of both the government and the paramilitaries in Colombia. Now, if Bill C-300 were in place, you would have more than you currently have, in terms of there being an assurance that at least the Canadian companies operating in Colombia in the extractive industry adhere to CSR and environmental standards and would face consequences if they didn't. So there would at least be some help there for those who have serious or important concerns about human rights activities going on in Colombia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Thank you, Madame Deschamps.

We'll move to Mr. Abbott, and Ms. Brown on the split.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

I have a fair number of questions here, so if we could do these fairly quickly, it would be helpful.

My first question would be, aside from the anti-mining groups and the collection of NGOs, with whom did you consult when you were designing your bill?

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

With whom did I consult?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes.

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

Do you want me to get a list?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm just curious. For example, which companies did you consult before drafting the bill?

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

I did not consult with any companies.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Well, why? I don't understand that.

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

It's because the round table is already a complete answer to that question. They were all consulted, or are contained, in there.

Let me just get the report out for you.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

While you're doing that, maybe you could also inform us which companies have expressed support for your bill.

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

Not a lot that I can see.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

No, I wouldn't think so. I thought your presentation was rather edgy.

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

Thank you.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I guess my question is that considering that Canadian mining companies make up 60% of the world's mineral exploration and mining companies and are a major player in the world by definition, and if there is a sufficient problem and it's as bad as it appears to be, according to you, why wouldn't those companies simply move jurisdiction if this bill were to go through?

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

I don't think it's according to me; I think it's actually according to your government. If you didn't have a CSR problem, you wouldn't have had your March 26 press release, you wouldn't have set out an order in council, you wouldn't have set out its mandate, and you wouldn't have set out a fairly elaborate scheme to address the issue.

So I think the debate is no longer a live debate. Your government has already concluded that.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

And you've also arrived at a conclusion that the Prime Minister could be whimsical--I believe that was the word you used--or could apply whimsy to how these rules were going to be applied. Are we to presume that only Conservative Prime Ministers may get into a state of whimsy, or could all Prime Ministers get into a state of whimsy?

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

No, I agree with you. It could be a whimsical Liberal Prime Minister just as well.