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.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
What would you say if you were in the Liberal caucus, at the microphone, to the people in the Liberal caucus?
And no, I'm not crossing the floor.
10:35 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
I would say that all of us should be concerned about CSR. It's human rights, it's the environment, it's the future. What is the very best way to achieve that? Is it this bill? I think this bill is very well intentioned, okay? It's inspiring a great debate here, on the Hill and elsewhere. So this is good.
I just feel that it does not provide an impartial tribunal and procedural fairness for those who are accused. It imposes a huge expenditure on our department to investigate properly, and we're cutting back on departments at the same time. It is one that will cause us to decline in terms of our presence in the global mining scene rather than continually enhance, as the Boston group says we should, in order to produce those new jobs for the new economy in Canada.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Just on that, do you think this bill can be amended or tweaked a bit?
10:35 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Unfortunately not, because if you're going to have an impartial tribunal, it's going to require expenses.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
Madame Lalonde, did you have a question?
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You are saying we are world leaders. It is true. It is a fact, but this “we” includes all kinds of companies. I have worked specifically on this. There are indeed companies which want to be socially responsible. It is more demanding of them when they are not monitored by watchful people. So, some are willing to be responsible, but others are not, and you know it perfectly well. And when they are not, they will not change because of some discreet advice. You could tell me, and rightly so, that you protect Canada's reputation, that it is important for you, but you cannot control everybody.
Because so many companies are involved, do you not think we should have rules, and controls and also sanctions when needed?
10:40 a.m.
Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Could I address that?
First of all, I take issue when you say that we all know there are companies out there that don't want to comply. I do not think that's the case. I think every company that's out there is looking to do the best they possibly can. There are difficult situations that they're dealing with. There are many programs that are in place now. I know the Mining Association of Canada is here; their Towards Sustainable Mining, for example, is a program. Also, I am a director of the PDAC. They have Exploration for Excellence. That's something that is very highly promoted. When I attend international conferences, anywhere, or legal conferences, the topic of conversation amongst mining lawyers from every jurisdiction is always about how can mining companies perform better social responsibilities. It's the topic.
What concerns me with this bill, and again with the rhetoric that has been raised in the last number of days in the press, and even the questions from Mr. McKay, is that everyone seems to say “Why are you concerned about this bill, because we'll really just take out a few of the bad apples?” The criticism and the attacks are being made against the very companies that have huge corporate social responsibility programs, and they take it very seriously, such as Goldcorp or Barrick. They're front and centre in the press. Say what you want, that you're just going after smaller companies that you know do not want to comply. This bill is an opportunity for people who go against players that take this very seriously and to cause great reputational damage, and for those companies to move their operations elsewhere.
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Why is it that people in Honduras and everywhere are complaining? Do you think their complaints are unfounded?
10:40 a.m.
Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
I'm sure they're not unfounded complaints, but again, are the complaints against Canadian mining companies, directly related to what they're doing? Are they indirectly towards what other people are doing? These are allegations, and I think there needs to be a fair process to have these allegations heard. Having a complaint and then an investigation made by a minister—that is not a fair process. That is damaging.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
I think we're pretty well out of time. We're going to go to committee business.
Mr. Dewar, did you want to move to committee business?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before my friend from the NDP goes away, he talked about the Norwegian fund. I'm happy to see you're invested in Barrick--what he just said here.
Let me just say this quite clearly. The Norwegian fund is based upon oil revenues. The majority of the Norwegian pension fund comes from the extractive industry--oil revenues go in, not for investment. Go check your facts and then you will find that out.
However, I want to come back to one of the major points here and ask this. That is--
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
When I was engaged as parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, the government did an exhaustive round table conference on corporate social responsibility. We came up with some of the best solutions. Every stakeholder was involved in that--NGOs, mining companies, everybody else. Two major points have come out. Of course, the counsellor was voluntary. However, the centre for excellence has also come out to ensure that Canadian companies and everybody else go through the centre of excellence to promote CSR.
What I don't understand from the Liberal side here is why they will not let that process carry forward and see what will happen. Maybe if that process hasn't evolved after two years into what some of the concerns are, then I could understand them bringing this. To bring it at this stage, now, when a process has already been put into place, and to move ahead, after everybody's agreed that that is the best thing for Canada, is something that beats me.
Mr. Peterson, you were the minister. I can tell you, if you were the government today, you would have never brought this bill here again. If there were a Liberal government today--it's only a minority government, but if there were a majority Liberal government today, which we hope we don't have--I can tell you that this bill would never have seen the light of day. This is only playing politics because there is a minority situation.
Let's just say--I hope all of you agree--that there is a process. The government has just put in a centre of excellence and everything as a cooperative effort to work towards improving Canada's reputation in the mining industry.
We all know what China is doing. China is all over Africa. Who's asking China to have corporate social responsibility? Nobody, as you all pointed out. It's us. But China is everywhere else.
My point, if anybody wants to comment, is to let the process that is there now carry on and then we'll see from there the evolution.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you. I don't know if that was a question. I see Mr. Chrétien's light is on, so...?
All right, thank you.
Ms. Brown, you have about a minute.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you. I'll have to speak quickly.
I just want to go back to the investigative process that this bill is trying to put in place. I'm referring to one of the submissions we were given today, and it talks about how the minister will make the determination. I go down here to this footnote that says:
...criminal investigation in the territory of another state cannot be a matter within the authority of Parliament or the provincial legislatures because they have no jurisdiction to authorize enforcement abroad.
Then it carries on talking about international law. My question is, would a country have to allow the investigation? Would they have to do that? Would there be reasons why they wouldn't allow it, in that there may be other development money that's coming into the country that they would lose, or there may be other impacts on other social constructions that are happening within a country?
10:45 a.m.
Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
I know there have been other submissions. I think Robert Wisner from McMillan presented a legal treatise on these issues, but basically it's extraterritorial. I think the government could only proceed to send people into another country with the consent of that other jurisdiction, and clearly, if they say no, you're not welcome here, we have no reason to be there. We can't.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
So even if our minister then said, I'm going to do an investigation under this legislation, getting permission from that other country may thwart the whole process, and the company may be left in limbo, really, because it has no other avenue in which to resolve the allegations. Is that true?
