Evidence of meeting #32 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Weston.
Ms. Brown, maybe you can get your question in, and then Mr. Peeling can respond to both of them.
October 8th, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Peeling, were you consulted on this bill? If so, what guidance did you provide? If not, why not? As an association of mining industries in Canada, a very important part of our economy and the global economy, I would think you would have been consulted.
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I'll answer the second question first. No, we were not consulted. I don't think you can use the fact that we participated in the round table as a proxy for that consultation. From our perspective, this is not in keeping with the round table outcomes. I don't know why not. I'm not in a position to answer that.
As to other things that are going on globally and why, I'll start by almost echoing some of the previous questioner's comments. Mr. McKay and I have spoken directly. The outcomes we want—improved performance, improved conditions in developing countries—are exactly the same. We have different conceptions of how to get there and how quickly we can move.
The reality is that the international terrain is changing. The IFC guidelines are once again in an amendment process, which is itself a multi-stakeholder engagement process at an international level. Canadian companies will probably have their views submitted through the International Council on Mining and Metals. The international mining community is engaged in bringing in and improving those IFC standards. Yes, they will be working with the Ruggie outcomes to fill some of those human rights gaps that are recognized by all parties, as they were in the round table process. These standards are not now being addressed as directly as they should be, but this is changing quickly.
The legal side continues to evolve. Accountabilities will be increasing. But what's the best answer for industry at the end of the day? The best answer for industry is always to put in place good practices, which we hope will incorporate at least some of our work on TSM. As for the IFC standards, you just cannot get any money to fund a project without being subject to either the IFC standards or the Equator Principles, and they are exactly the same thing. You either have to have a project that's less than $10 million or you have to be able to fund it entirely yourself, which at the moment only the Chinese seem to be able to do.
I think those accountabilities are there. We'd like to see greater work done at the multilateral level on helping countries build their capacities. I worked for the Government of Canada for many years. I know we have lots of agreements on transport of hazardous waste and informed consent on hazardous materials. We placed a burden of cooperation on developing countries. But did we actually supply them with the support to deliver on their end of the process? The answer was no. So building capacity is hugely important.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would appreciate more specific comments on what the government is doing now, Mr. Peeling. In other words, this is not a government that's oblivious of human rights concerns. It's not that the Canadian people are uncaring. We created serious impediments for mining companies, with some of the things we've done in the name of human rights. We're doing that to try to open up the competitive capacity of the mining companies. If you can't do business and you don't pay your taxes in Canada, then we can't maintain our social safety net.
What's your comment on that?
10:35 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
We think the government response is directionally correct—it's what we need. The Government of Canada now supports the extractive industries transparency initiative, which was a round table recommendation. The government also supports the voluntary principles on security and human rights, which was another round table recommendation. The government has placed a person within CIDA to work directly on these issues and to help mining companies. There is support for the development of a centre of excellence. You have to understand that there are a very large number of small companies out there, exploration companies, and they need help. A centre of excellence will help them solve the problem of meeting these commitments and staying competitive. Capacity building, even with industry, is important, and the government is engaged in it.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Just to update the committee, there will be a vote. It will be held at 11:05 a.m., so I'm going to give Mr. Dewar time. We have to do committee business. There are a few moments we have to have there.
Mr. Dewar.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Peeling, for coming before the committee. We have spoken before on this issue.
I want to get right to your point. The problem you seem to have most with the bill is that somehow this is going to be putting us back, and maybe you don't say this, but certainly I interpreted that you sense this is regressive. Is that fair to say?
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
That's fair to say.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
One of the points you suggest is that there's this kind of black and white, in or out, and I'm just wondering if you can point to where in the bill that is your biggest concern. What point in the bill leads you to believe that this would be regressive?
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
It's black and white in the sense that you're either in compliance or out of compliance, and you're using as your standard for compliance the IFC guidelines for the most part, which, as I said, have been written to be quite general and allow for a good margin of interpretation, because they have to be applied in a hundred different countries, with different jurisdictional requirements, by the World Bank or anybody who has World Bank support or the IFC support or MIGA, as I mentioned. On the environmental side, they have to be applicable to any type of ecosystem globally, so they are at a level of generality that, when you come to very specific instances of are you in compliance or are you out of compliance, make it very difficult to know, within the context of this bill the way it's written, how you would come to a judgment and then how you would decide whether that compliance issue is trivial or substantial.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I understand that. I'm just asking you to point directly to the bill. It's a pop quiz, so if you can give that to the committee later--
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
Yes, I will. We can come up with some specific answers.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
There are a couple of reasons why I ask that. One is that this country has a proud tradition of John Humphrey creating the idea of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have I think been very progressive, and I thank you for the work you've done to reach out to others, to work with people who have been concerned about this issue from civil society. But I have to say that when we look at environmental compliance and when we look at human rights compliance--and this government talks a lot about the rule of law; laws aren't suggestions. For me, where I come from, I'm from Missouri: show me. Show me that there are clear rules. You've even outlined that the industry has been following a new process. My friends at EDC over here will tell me all the good things they're doing, which I think is great, and that's fair for you to say we're doing everything we can and should and for EDC to say we're doing everything we can and should.
We have a different position here, and you probably can appreciate that. We are the ones who oversee laws being made. When I look at this bill, subclause 4(4) says the complaints come to the minister and the minister “may” receive them. In fact, I'd like to say the minister “shall”, so that both sides can put it into the positive. They have a compliance advisor. I think both of us would agree it should be an ombudsman.
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
Just where placed?
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
The round table wanted it at arm's-length.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Absolutely. I'm with you on that. I don't want another one of those appointments happening that we might not agree with.
I want it at arm's length, and I want a public appointments commission to do that, which one day they'll get around to. But I think it's absolutely critical that we be very clear on the bill itself, and the bill itself right now, and that's why I wanted to ask you directly, because we agree on a lot. We have talked about things under CSR and we agree a lot, but on this bill, when I hear you say it's black or white, I'm not seeing that in the bill, because the bill says under clause 4 that the minister “may” receive complaints and deal with them, and I think we've got a fairly good brief, which we heard just before you, about extraterritorial concerns, about litigation.
I'm just saying that I don't see the bill the way you do under clause 4, because “the minister is receiving” doesn't mean they're saying laying hands on anyone.
10:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
I'll just go back to subclause 4(4), if you want specifics. Eight months to deliver in subclause 4(6)--but what are the powers of examination and cross-examination of witnesses outside of Canada?
10:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
Well, you know, I think you will find quite a range of legal views on that, separate from Mr. Janda's. I would hope that you're going to hear from other legal entities.
I'm not a lawyer--
10:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
--so I'm not going to argue that point. Certainly it's an issue that our members are concerned about. It's also why in the round table report there was a platform to come together and work out the details.
And even, what's the definition of frivolous and vexatious? I can go to the Oxford English Dictionary and I will have my guidance on frivolous and vexatious. But what are the legal implications, and how long is it going to take? Anybody, literally anywhere, can make a complaint. There doesn't need to be direct effect. They don't have to be affected by the party or by the event, etc.
So how much--
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
What I am trying to get at is that it's not where the minister is sitting there, on a throne, saying yes or no. I don't see that in the bill.
We do have this other process. We both agree that we wish it were different in terms of the ombudsman, but there is a counsellor there.
I don't think, and I'm not sure how to put this, in terms of what we have already--