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.
10:45 a.m.
Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
That's the risk you face. It's a flawed investigation, yet the complaint is still there. It stands out there, yet the information gathering is flawed.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
So the company would not be able to access funding from many sources, which then puts the whole project at risk.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you.
I just want to go back to what we have in place right now with the counsellor. The evidence that was brought forward to this committee is that right now she actually isn't prepared to take in anything. She's in the midst of putting together her regime and regulations.
In fact, I asked her if EDC was obviously supporting a company, so it is well known, and there is a concern about a company, would EDC be compelled to cooperate with her? She didn't know because they're still developing the process.
In fact, she couldn't tell us when the process would actually get going. I just lay that on the table because there's an impression that this is up and running and that we have a process. In fact, right now we have none. Yet we still have concerns, which we've all talked about.
Where many people have seen this bill going—and the limitations of a private member's bill are known by all of us, and certainly by you, Mr. Peterson, as a former member of Parliament. If this bill was brought in, I think it's reasonable to say that an enlightened thing to do would be to do what the round table and witnesses from industry asked for, and that would be to have an objective third-party--an ombudsperson/ombudsman--appointed. I'm looking for a bridge to that common ground.
My question is, Mr. Peterson, would you not see that putting an ombudsman in place, as was recommended in the round table discussions by both civil society and by business, was a smart thing to do, that it could actually deal with some of the concerns you have regarding Bill C-300?
10:50 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Without putting words in Mr. McKay's mouth, referring to the limitation when you talk about a private member's bill, I'm sure that he would have wanted a tribunal that had all of the attributes of fairness and transparency and due process.
If you're asking us to say ombudsman, yes or no, it would depend on the fairness procedures—
10:50 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
And the resources necessary to protect the rights of our companies, as well as people around the world.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Both parties, absolutely, and that's what the idea of an ombudsman is.
With those qualifiers, you would see that as an enlightened way to go? I'm not trying to nail you down with specifics, really.
10:50 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
No, but it would depend on the specifics.
10:50 a.m.
An hon. member
That's what you would have done as minister.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
That's where I'm going.
I think many people see that Bill C-300 isn't the end of CSR; it's not that we stop here and it's all done. It's actually in context, and the context is that there are other things being done. Everyone's talked about the things they're doing within their own companies, but to evolve the process as a government, many of us want to see governments—and I say plural because hopefully this will be adopted by others—to actually have a process that takes out the litigation.
I referenced in committee before to look at what's happened to big tobacco. No one wants to see that happen with mining. No one--not me, not you. So to protect from litigation, I think it's smart to come up with a process that was referenced in the round table.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar.
Mr. Patry, you have 10 seconds. I do have one question myself, so go ahead very quickly.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I just wanted to answer back to Mr. Obhrai, but I'll answer to Mr. Abbott.
It has been pointed out that the committee agrees with the 27 recommendations of the round table, and one was for the ombudsman. Even Parliament voted in favour of the ombudsman. Bring back the ombudsman and that's going to be it. I discussed it with Mr. McKay and he said we need an independent ombudsman. That's going to be the fairness for both sides.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Patry.
I want to thank our committee.
I want to take another minute on one question, if the chair can take the prerogative. Sometimes on this committee, especially with this legislation, it's as if you're living in the middle of a John Grisham novel. I don't know if you've read any of his, but it's difficult to take the right approach on some of these.
Mr. Peterson, I do want to come back to a question, not as a minister, but politically. If you were to put on that hat of the senior cabinet minister one more time, not just from the government-to-industry relationship you want to keep going, but also politically.... There's an election coming, and you're now the minister. Mr. McKay or Madame Lalonde has already said that with our current regime, there won't be any investigative work by our CSR officer on a report in the newspaper.
In other words, if there's a report in the newspaper, there should be this movement now to—I think it was Mr. McKay who suggested that in testimony today. Politically, when the majority of Canadians seem to find the work of the industry very suspect, wouldn't it be political dynamite to make it look as if you were walking away or not doing your due diligence as minister?
10:55 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
I would think it would be very damning if a company refused to be investigated in light of a serious allegation.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
What about in light of a frivolous...? If you dismissed it as frivolous, the politics of that....
10:55 a.m.
Counsel, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
The politics of any ministerial decision will be there in the House in question period for as long as people want to play politics with it. That's one of the problems of having the minister investigate, because the whole investigation itself would be subject to political scrutiny.
I've always believed that Canadians want us to be leaders in the world in terms of human rights and other issues like CSR, but we also benefit incredibly from our mining companies. Can't we have our cake and eat it too? I believe we can. I believe other alternatives have been presented, and it's the limitation on private members in terms of expenditures on their bills that probably precludes us from having something more constructive and one that will allow us to continue to grow our mining industry while we grow human rights and environmental issues around the world.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much. We'll give you the final word today.
I want to thank all those who have appeared before our committee today for their testimony. We very much appreciate your attendance today.
The meeting is adjourned.