Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

First of all, Madam Evans, let me say that I wish you well in your work. We certainly don't see it as incompatible with whatever emerges from our discussions with respect to Bill C-300. I think your work is a vital part of the structure we need to create to get to a resolution of some of these significant issues.

You did point out in your testimony that in the two areas—one of them my colleague Mr. Patry has referred to, the consent of the parties, and the second one is the question of sanctions—if there were some modest changes to the bill that brought it into line with the language of the round table with respect to the process regarding sanctions, you would agree that it would be a fuller implementation of the round table recommendations than what the government has currently put in place.

[Marketa Evans]

Again, what I would need to understand is the relationship between sanction and results on the ground. From my viewpoint, we just don't have enough information.

We heard about two cases today, for instance. If I understood correctly, immediately I wonder why a company would block the access of a minister of environment to a UNESCO heritage site. Without a full understanding of why these situations are happening, I think it's very difficult to know what kinds of tools would best be used to address those problems.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

But ultimately, if a company were found to be in serious non-compliance with standards, and secondly, they ignored, let's say, a compliance plan or whatever words we want to use, you understand that what I would consider to be the modest consequences of that in the bill--that is to say, EDC would have to take that into account in respect to their financial activities, and we'll have to figure out the wording, and that the Canada Pension Plan would also have to take it into account--does give companies a fair bit of time. You have a whole investigation process. You have the whole question of serious non-compliance. You then say, well, you haven't complied with the plan. I mean, we're looking at a few rogue actors here, right? Hopefully we're not looking at the mainstream of the industry.

[Marketa Evans]

I would expect we're not. But again, I don't think we have a good enough sense of what we are talking about. I think it is fairly important to figure out the nature of the problem. Certainly I could see a situation where if you have all those other processes in place for remediation or whatever and the problem is not one of wilful negligence, then there would be a lot of opportunity to change the outcome even before you got to the review process. I think that is one of the objectives of the CSR centre of excellence, for instance.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Barrick will make its own defence—it has the resources to do so—and other companies will, no doubt. But as we begin to pursue this issue more and more...for example, the statements made by Monsieur Tougas today with respect to the activities of the companies in question are very serious--

[Marketa Evans]

They are. They are very serious.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

--and they have serious ramifications for Canadian foreign policy. So I don't see how we can....

I'm glad to see my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for CIDA, stating today that the Conservative Party supports at least the intentions of Bill C-300, because I think we do have to go down a track, as a country, in saying we understand corporate social responsibility as being a very critical aspect of our activities in the world.

[Marketa Evans]

I absolutely concur, and I think, in fact, it can drive a leadership position for Canada. I certainly think that if these kinds of allegations are damaging Canada's reputation overseas, it's well beyond time to state that case. Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Evans.

We'll move to Madame Deschamps.

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

Thank you for testifying today.

I think that, in appointing you, the government has given itself a good showcase. Perhaps it wants to atone for certain things, or to consider the serious consequences emerging from the report of the roundtables. It contained a number of recommendations. Socially, and as a government, it had to make at least a small gesture.

Just before you, we heard two forceful pieces of testimony. You were here. You heard the lady from Argentina and Mr. Tougas report to us on events in the Congo. What is apparent from that testimony is the major lobbying being conducted by the mining companies in those countries on the states in place, among other things. They are very powerful and they are exercising very strong pressure, which considerably undermines the efforts of people on the ground. These people are fighting a titan. We can say as well that the Government of Canada is also under pressure from the mining companies.

You, who are a recently appointed counsellor, are dealing with two cases, those we heard about this morning. What are you doing about that? Where do you begin? You heard these two people who came and denounced abuses and environmental disasters. They are witnesses, and they have files; this is well documented. What will you do afterwards, once you've met those people?

Aren't you just a messenger to the Minister of International Trade?

[Marketa Evans]

No, I don't believe I'm just a messenger to the Minister of International Trade.

What do I do? I want to start by saying that there is no review process in place right now. I think it's actually really important to construct that in a way that's going to take into account the views of a lot of stakeholders, not just my view about how we should proceed in this case. I want to be really clear about that. If this office is going to be credible, I think it is going to have to draw on the expertise of a lot of people in constructing the question of how we would address this.

My lens on this is absolutely that mining companies are very powerful actors in developing countries. I think that is one of the main reasons NGOs are increasingly engaging with the sector. It can be a very powerful actor for doing very positive things in developing countries. The flip side of doing damage to people in the field is that it can also have a very positive impact. It can raise environmental standards and labour standards. It can do a lot in terms of social and community development outcomes that maybe the government can't do and that even NGOs can't necessarily do, because NGOs may not have the same level of access to government as the companies would.

I still have to come back to the question of why. And I don't understand the answer to that. I think that is actually a very important question. Why are we hearing these stories? Why is it that companies are engaged in this kind of terrible behaviour? We need to understand that in order to build the proper tool kit to deal with it.

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

But Ms. Evans, your mandate is on a voluntary basis. If you note any factors that make you think the matter should be pushed further, everything is being done on a voluntary basis. You even said in your presentation that major incentives would be offered to people who took part in the process.

What do you mean by that? How can people be urged to take part in a process voluntarily when we know in advance that no penalties will follow from that process?

[Marketa Evans]

I think it's probably important to say that I do believe there are sanctions currently existing. So even in the absence of any government sanction, I do think there are significant sanctions that exist, both in these countries...and if we don't believe those sanctions are up to standard or if we don't believe they're enforced, our first point of entry should be working on the capacity and the empowerment in those countries to ensure that those regulatory standards and that enforcement is raised.

I do believe that both companies and NGOs will have big incentives to participate in a review. I think most organizations are very sensitive to reputational fallout. I think they will be much more likely to want to participate in a process that's going to allow them to contribute to the report and to the outcome. Having the counsellor talk to companies about how they can improve performance.... I mean, I'm coming from an assumption--and of course it may be an incorrect one--that most companies do not wish to be complicit in genocide and human rights abuses and rape and all the other very serious allegations that we've heard. That is my going-in assumption. So that's why I'm interested in uncovering the why, because if it is in fact true that this is happening, we need to understand why it is happening. I don't believe it serves corporate interests. I'm not suggesting that they want to abide because they're really good people and have other people's interests at heart; rather, it's because it serves corporate interests to not be subject to the reputational fallout.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Evans.

We'll move to Mr. Obhrai, please.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming here today, Ms. Evans, and congratulations on your appointment to this position.

Let me start by saying first that the round table conference done by the government and the stakeholders was a very extensive consultation process involving the NGOs, the mining community, and everybody else. Through that extensive round table conference, we came out with a lot of recommendations, including your appointment and the setting up of the institute for excellence. This puts Canada into the forefront of corporate social responsibility in reference to other countries.

What surprises me most in this whole thing is that we are not letting that process go through; we're not letting them see what has happened. If there were concerns and everything on issues that came out after this round table conference and its recommendations, and on what you have been talking about, and two years down the road from now nothing much had happened and the stories we just heard here were to keep repeating themselves, then yes, I can see something different coming out of here. This is an evolutionary process.

The problem with this bill is that it has jumped all of that. It has made assumptions right at the beginning in saying that this, this, or this thing is going to happen, not taking into account the tremendous amount of consultation in that process. As a matter of fact, this bill that has been brought here has had absolutely a very poor consultation process, and now, when all the stakeholders are coming out, we can hear the author of this bill trying to find ways and things to amend it, but he should have been part.... I don't know whether he was also part and parcel of that round table conference, where he would have heard about what the other stakeholders were doing. What we are having here is his selected people coming in here to tell us and not doing this....

The main point here, as you have pointed out, is that this is a beginning process, that this is a process that will build up. This is a process that will put Canada on top.

The Talisman issue in Sudan was a clear case of how the evolution moved forward, but the vacuum was filled by other countries that had a very low social standard of corporate social responsibility. Today in Africa, China is all over the place. As you rightly pointed out, countries want to develop their extractives, their resources, for the betterment of the people.

So my first question to you here is this. In your opinion, is there any other country that you know of in any part of the world that has a counsellor or a similar position and a centre of excellence that is supported by all stakeholders? Or are we number one in the world in breaking ground on this one?

Second, don't you think it would logical with your power as you build up...? In your testimony, you stated many times that you need more facts and everything to comment. Wouldn't it make logical common sense for us to let you do your work, to go ahead with everything here, before we come out with something that is very negative for the industry?

[Marketa Evans]

Well, I can't disagree with the latter part of your statement. I certainly do believe there is a fulsome process here that we can undertake.

In terms of the first part of your question as to who else there is, I haven't done a sufficient benchmarking exercise in order to be able to say that. For instance, I'd be looking specifically to Australia and other mining countries, but it's my understanding that it's the only CSR counsellor position, although of course there are other national contact points for OECD guidelines.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Going back to all these issues, we have heard about Congo and we have heard about all these things in Africa, but we don't seem to talk about the other players. Yesterday, the minister for mines in Afghanistan said that China was going to come there and do extractives and that he was looking forward to it because that would give a tremendous boost to his budget. Nobody's talking about corporate social responsibility there. Therefore, it becomes a dangerous point for Canada to put Canadian mining industries at a disadvantage.

My colleague here just mentioned what's happening in Argentina and how much money Argentina's coffers are getting and how much it is developing the industry.

I guess I just want to put a statement forward, and then I'll give this to my colleague Mr. Lunney. Would it not be logical to say that a process has been put into place, an excellent process?

And when the opposition starts muttering, that means I'm on the right path, I can tell you that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

That's how I judge it.

I just want to say that the process--because I was also at the round table conference and everything--has been excellent in putting Canada in the forefront. Canadian companies are doing an excellent job of building resources in the countries that I visited--in Zambia, Tanzania, and everywhere else--to see how much work is being done over there.

Therefore, I would say--and I will leave it at that--that your appointment is great, you will do a great job, and we look forward to having you working on our behalf.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm sure, Ms. Evans, you'll agree with that last part of the comment. But there may be other comments there as well that you'd like to speak to.

Ms. Evans, please.

[Marketa Evans]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear a question there. My apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lunney, very quickly.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate your being here.

I wanted to bring out that at the beginning you mentioned research that you had done at the University of Toronto on CSR. You mentioned the Talisman situation, and I appreciate that you very succinctly talked about the complications of Canadian divestment. It doesn't always work out well for the local country as well.

On the so-called conflict diamonds and the Kimberley Process that came out of that, it has really helped to solve a very, very nasty situation. In the past, you mentioned the Devonshire process that you were instrumental in helping to get established here. Could you tell us a little about the Devonshire process and what that means.?

[Marketa Evans]

I'd like to speak first about the Kimberley process, because I did look at that quite extensively. I drew some lessons from that about how you get better results on the ground. This is just a personal evaluation. I believe that better results on the ground were achieved through cooperation of all the actors, and I believe the Kimberley process showed that there were overlapping interests between NGOs and companies. The NGOs could have very well taken a very different path towards De Beers. De Beers was not much loved in the world at that time—perhaps it still isn't; I don't know. They actively pursued engagement with the company because they knew they could not solve the problem on their own.

I think that's actually quite an important lesson to be drawn. Nobody had to change their DNA, as it were. People just needed to figure out ways of working together. None of the NGOs involved in the Kimberley process stopped campaigning for process improvement, practice improvement, holding Kimberley to account, or holding De Beers to account.

The Devonshire Initiative is a platform that was created a couple of years ago, and it really is designed to build trust and relationships for partnering on the ground. I emphasize it's to improve outcomes on the ground in developing countries. It's a platform that engages the Canadian mining industry with Canadian development NGOs.