Evidence of meeting #33 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 c-300.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Yes.
My point is that there has to be something specific to deal with the issue as described by our friends from Harvard, but to respond, at the same time, properly to the concerns raised by Mr. McGuinty.
With that in mind, I would like to return to a consideration of Bill C-300 specifically. This is from Bill C-300, under the powers and functions of the ministers:
In carrying out their responsibilities and powers under this Act, the Ministers shall receive complaints regarding Canadian companies engaged in mining, oil or gas activities from any Canadian citizen or permanent resident or any resident or citizen of a developing country in which such activities have occurred or are occurring.
The question that raises, to my mind, is why couldn't there be complaints from residents of foreign states not residing in the jurisdiction where the act or omission occurred or from individuals who have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the issue? Moreover, why couldn't competitors bring forward complaints against Canadian companies in a frivolous or vexatious way? I'd like an answer to that question, if you could.
I would point out that this is the problem with Bill C-300. The problem I just enunciated is probably times 20, times 30, times 40 throughout this entire bill, which basically makes the bill the wrong flu vaccine.
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I would like a response from anyone who cares to give one.
President, OTD Exploration Services Inc.
We all seem to want to answer, at least on this side.
Lecturer on Law, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School
Perhaps I can start.
Conservative
Lecturer on Law, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School
I think the best outcome in this situation would be if the PNG government, the police authorities, and the judiciary there were pursuing the remedies there. I think that would be the existing flu vaccine if we had it, but that hasn't been effective, so this is a step in the right direction. It attempts to set up a system, and the details that would allow for review by the ministers here would be promulgated at a later date.
As Mr. Rae has already indicated, there should be a situation to allow a minister to say that a suit is frivolous, and if a competitor brings a frivolous suit, it would bring a frivolous complaint that would shine very poorly on that competitor. I think safeguards would be in place that would address some of the important concerns you've raised. You don't want frivolous complaints coming forward, but there would be ways that would actually protect the reputation of those who were receiving the frivolous complaints.
President, OTD Exploration Services Inc.
I think it's important to note that “frivolous” and “vexatious” come up a couple of times in various parts of that very short law.
What Bill C-300 lacks, and what I don't know if it can attain, is a way of developing precision about what it does and about what the minister can do. It really does lead to a very....
Somehow a case would have to have a significant merit for the minister to really make a decision. At the end of the day, if it's a complaint brought by a local community member or an NGO or another company--or another government, for that matter--there's no sanction for any of those people. The fact that they've been written up in the Gazette is not a sanction for any of these people. The only group being sanctioned at the end of the day is someone who might inevitably be found guilty of a charge of a human rights violation.
It's a question of the volume of complaints versus the validity of those charges. In my experience in working in small communities and in various countries, the timeframes for these discussions and the timeframes for the debate and the accommodations between a company and a host community are very long; the minister is going to come in with a very short timeframe to give an answer to the public, the complainant, and to make something very concise out of what is a very contorted position.
I don't know how Bill C-300 in its current form accommodates that.
Senior Advisor, Economic and Social Rights, Rights & Democracy
I think the question here is why the voluntary standards are not sufficient. I would like to remind all the members that human rights are not discretionary policies and they're not aspirational goals: human rights are actually international law. There needs to be an accountability mechanism that's applied equally to all actors, and that mechanism should not be voluntary, just as it is not voluntary whether you obey the rules of the road.
I think this is an important thing to remember, and this is the contribution that Bill C-300 seeks to make.
Conservative
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm not going to honour the time that we need for business. I'll just make a comment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
May I just make one reference too? Today there is no meeting following at 11 o'clock, so we do have a little time if we want to go over.
I noted that we're getting close to the hour and I don't want to cut you on your time.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
No, and I appreciate the time of our guests.
I'll start with Mr. McGuinty. I want to follow down the path Mr. Rae started.
Your concern seems to be procedural fairness and having a process that isn't just going to clog up with frivolous complaints that will affect your business. Am I right? What you're saying is that it's not all neat and tidy. You're saying that when you get into a proposal, it takes some time, and if all of a sudden there were complaints to consider, not only could that affect your reputation just by the nature of a complaint--I would think you'd be concerned about that--but there would also be the time consumed, which would affect your investment. Is that fair?
President, OTD Exploration Services Inc.
Those are pretty basic business assumptions, but my biggest concern would be my ability after going through this process. Let's just use an exploration company's process. There is no sanction for a company not seeking financial gain in Bill C-300, so I go through this process. I'm guilty or I'm not guilty. I'm still in the community. If I'm guilty, I have a problem. There is a public outing of something I've done as an actor that is inconsistent with international law and human rights. I have an issue that I have to deal with. I'm still there. If I haven't done anything wrong, that issue still sits there in that community, and it's been exacerbated by a much larger external confrontation of that community.
My biggest concern with this process is how Canadian companies go through it and come out the other side, being able to validly and appropriately do their business on the ground in those countries.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
That's where it has to be put into context, at least from where I'm sitting. The legislation is here for obvious reasons, and to be fair to industry, they're involved in the round table process. Active participants have supported, generally speaking, the recommendations--
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
No, it's very clear, and that's why I want to get at the focus of the bill. I'm not getting from my reading of the bill the opportunity for industry to be involved. You have used rhetoric flourish, and certainly people around here do that from time to time. A 300-pound gorilla--
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I try to stay away from some of that, because this legislation is important.
A 300-pound gorilla, though, is tantamount to saying that this is so egregious that somehow your business will be wiped off the map. Are you really saying that? Are you really saying that if this were brought in you wouldn't be able to do business?
President, OTD Exploration Services Inc.
Let me repeat, it is not my business I'm concerned about--