Evidence of meeting #42 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 financing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Could you expand on the restrictive aspects of this bill and your concerns?
10:25 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
My immediate reaction on reading it was what would I do as a lawyer in order to have a level playing field on a global basis.
If you have a Canadian head office with, say, a mine in Canada, a mine in the United States, and a mine in a developing country--
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
I would. I would have to, in those circumstances—
10:25 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
—because I would be denied EDC financing and would be subject to a different regime, because I'm Canadian, than all of the other people in the world.
Surely our goal is to work on a very collaborative and constructive basis with developing countries and other nations in the world, so that we have international standards that are raising human rights and protecting against human rights abuses. That's the constructive way to go about this, not just to say that we're going to do it to Canadian firms alone.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Mr. Chrétien, I'll give one very quick minute; we're at four and a half minutes.
10:25 a.m.
Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
It's a great question. I'll tell you simply this.
As Jim has just said, I'm also very proud to work for this law firm, Fasken Martineau. I think, by the way, that it's the best law firm in the country—excuse me for this—but when approached by my colleagues to come here today, I really wanted to look at the question very carefully.
I can tell you that I would not be here if I didn't believe in what I said today, especially about the difficulties of making this bill work. I would simply not be here; I'm not a lobbyist and am not registered as a lobbyist. I came here because I strongly believe that this could not work.
Merci.
November 26th, 2009 / 10:25 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Jantzi Research recommends that Goldcorp be ineligible for socially responsible investing. They talk about a site visit to a mine in Guatemala at which various representatives of the local and international community were present—the Guatemalan and Canadian governments, etc. It didn't seem to be all that difficult to set up, and at the conclusion of it, they made the decision that Goldcorp would no longer be eligible for socially responsible investments.
Concerning Barrick, the Norwegian government, when it did its review, said that the investment in Barrick amounted to “an unacceptable risk of the Fund contributing to serious environmental damage”:
The Council added that “the company's assertions that its operations do not cause long-term and irreversible environmental damage carry little credibility. This is reinforced by the lack of openness and transparency in the company's environmental reporting.”
—not exactly a good report. They don't seem to have any difficulties conducting investigations wherever they need to conduct investigations.
We've had testimony from a former minister of the environment that her offices were firebombed, she was personally threatened, access was prevented to a national park, etc. We've had testimony from Harvard University, which has pointed out that “Numerous accounts of rape show a similar pattern.” This is in Papua New Guinea. “The guards, usually in a group of five or more, find a woman while they are patrolling on or near mine property. They take turns threatening, beating, and raping her.” And so on. Barrick Gold has a memorandum of understanding with the police force to basically pay for the police force. They pay for the uniforms; they pay for the salaries. To no one's great surprise, therefore, there's been no real investigation into these allegations.
All of these are allegations, and all of you are very upset about what's going on in the newspapers these days. But you seem to prefer the status quo. You'd rather duke it out in the newspapers, hire a phalanx of lawyers and consultants, and let the damage be where it is.
When the CSR counsellor was here—who seems a fine, qualified person and has many of the things that you want—and was asked whether she could investigate anything that was in the newspaper, the answer was quite clearly no, because none of you would ever consent; none of you would ever, under any circumstances, advise your clients to consent to an investigation.
So what you want, really, is status quo. You can say that you want the CSR counsellor, but you don't really want her. You don't want the good things that brings, because there is no possibility that this counsellor will ever investigate anything that appeared in the newspapers or any allegation that has appeared before this committee.
I put it to you that Bill C-300 is a very modest step that, when seen in conjunction with the CSR counsellor, actually gives her a possibility that she could investigate the things that make you upset.
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Goldcorp Inc.
There may be some confusion about what the status quo is. It's important to reiterate that companies take any allegations, any concerns, very seriously, and when these allegations come to our attention, we act upon them. I'm speaking for myself for Goldcorp. Our process is very different from what's been described. We're very much a collaborative, dialogue-based organization. When I started at Goldcorp, one of the things I did was phone Jantzi. Their response was, “We removed you from the list because we had no information”—there was no one dialoguing with them. We've been talking to them almost weekly for the past several months.
It's very important to talk about these issues. When we hear about complaints, concerns, or questions, we need to talk to the people who are participating. For example, next week we have three international NGOs coming to Canada to discuss a concern they have about a tailings dam, and we're going to be meeting with them and talking about it.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With the greatest respect, Madam, you say you comply because you say you comply. That's hardly an answer.
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Goldcorp Inc.
No. We're held to their standards, sir.
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Goldcorp Inc.
Jantzi is a perfect example of the existing standards that are out there that make us accountable.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Goldcorp Inc.
They have found us wanting, and we're working with them.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, Mr. McKay, I'm sorry. You're way over time.
The second round is five minutes with—
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Goldcorp Inc.
One last point I must make is that to be discussing issues with Jantzi or discussing issues with an international NGO is very different from having our own federal government investigating us. This raises allegations to a whole different level that is unnecessary.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you.
I'm interested in Mr. McKay's reference to the Norwegian pension board. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to talk about the CPP Investment Board and the status quo of what they do.
I'm going to read from their submission to us:
WHAT ACTIONS DID WE TAKE?
We continued engaging with Canadian and international oil & gas and mining companies operating in high-risk countries, including Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guatemala to encourage improved transparency and risk management strategies.
We discussed environmental and social risks with several Canadian and international oil & gas and mining companies as part of regular meetings with senior management.
We are a supporting investor of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The EITI is a multi-stakeholder initiative of governments, companies, investors and non-governmental organizations that supports improved governance in resource-rich countries through verification and publication of company tax and royalty payments and government revenues from oil & gas and mining companies.
I like the status quo. That is the status quo in Canada, and it's the kind of regime these people are currently working under.
My question is particularly for Mr. Peterson.
If you were in the Liberal government today—God forbid the thought—and were the international trade minister, what would you say in that capacity about this bill, with your prior experience in that capacity? What are the limitations? What are the problems from your perspective as the hypothetical current Liberal international trade minister?
10:35 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
We have found this in everything we do globally. We are a part of the global economy par excellence, more than almost any other economy in the world. So we have to be globally competitive. Are we going to be the only country in the world that goes after its own mining companies and singles them out for their behaviour abroad? Are there other alternatives that are better in terms of enhancing CSR? That's what we all want to do, but not by killing the goose that's laying the egg.
I fear that Canadian headquartered mining companies, because they will be at a competitive disadvantage compared with the rest of the world, will simply move out of Canada. We saw this happen back in the early 1970s when the Carter report was acted upon by the Liberal government at that time. Companies such as Hunter Douglas moved their headquarters out of Canada to the Netherlands because we were going to be taxing all global income at the higher of Canadian or foreign rates.
We were able to get that law changed by working with the government and companies that wanted to have their global headquarters based in Canada. It's the very same with the mining sector. We're the leader in the world. Can't we still be the leader, not only in the world in terms of the economics of it and of continuing to grow it, but also in terms of CSR?
There are better ways to do CSR without shafting the Canadian companies.