Foreign Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But that can change with the stroke of a pen. It's an appropriation. If the government wants to, it can.

[Carlo Dade]

But you also have issues in terms of the materials that will be used to create the standards: the IFC policy, the performance standards, and global human rights, but also “any other standard consistent with international human rights standards”. That's a little broad.

If I were in the private sector, I would be taken with that: how can I be held accountable for actions I'm doing now before a standard that will be determined at some point in the future and could constantly change? These are the types of things that are worrying in terms of a policy perspective.

Luckily, you have a chance to do it right. I think you have people's attention and I think you have a consensus to move on something. I would seize the moment and look at doing something—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just have one last question.

For the record, though, there is a period in the bill to bring the principles we're talking about into force and to make sure we have this right. I think that's important. It wasn't to impose the principles, but there was period in which we could work with industry and players to have these brought into force. It's not a matter of, boom, here it is. I think that's important.

[Carlo Dade]

Point taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to finish off. Mr. Goldring has one question and Dr. Patry has one question. We need to wrap this up, because we have to talk about future business. It won't take too long for future business, but we need to come to some consensus.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dade, in this paper, which I presume was by you, there's a comment where you observe that standards evolve.

We all want to improve and we look forward to standards eventually evolving. But there is a statement in here, which I presume is yours, about Bill C-300:

“...any other standard” is simply absurd. How would, or could, anyone deal with being held accountable now for a standard that...“will be determined later” and could constantly change?

Could you comment on that, please?

[Carlo Dade]

I think we just went over that, but it's a major concern. The reading of the bill by others—including outside of the committee and outside of Ottawa, in the mining industry, and not just in Canada but also at the IFC and elsewhere—had quite a few of my former colleagues at multilaterals and elsewhere scratching their heads. It raised flags across the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll have a final question from Dr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dade.

I just want to pinpoint first, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Goldring cited some paper that was not distributed to all members. I just want to pinpoint that. We don't have it because it was just provided in English. As a francophone, I would also like to have it.

[Carlo Dade]

That's a public op ed, a public piece that we had out. It's available on the website.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor]...for confirmation.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That's okay. I just wanted to say that.

I just wanted to tell you, Monsieur, that this goes back many years ago to when I was chair of the committee. At the time, we came out with what I thought was a very good report, and Mr. Martin came out with these round tables. As you said, the round tables were unanimous. The mining industry agreed with the round tables.

What has happened since is that we have changed governments, and the government has come out with the idea of having a counsellor. Do you really feel that a counsellor would do anything positive in the sense that because companies would need to get this money they would at least agree to work together? If they had simply created an effective ombudsman, with the power to intervene and investigate, we would not be in this situation today.

I have another question. You talk a lot about things being de facto. You see the companies as being bound de facto by the Equator Principles. But I thought the Equator Principles were a voluntary initiative.

[Carlo Dade]

They're voluntary until they're written into the covenants of the loans. They're voluntary in the sense that companies agree to use them, but when they do, they write them into the covenants of the loans. They will not lend for projects where companies do not have in place environmental, social, and human rights review policies. So the term “voluntary” has to be understood. The companies voluntarily agree to take them and agree to use them. When they do, they are bound by them in the projects and grants that they have.

The companies or people who are directly affected or directly impacted—not anyone who happens to walk in off the street—have recourse to procedures that are in place with the banks and with the companies to address this. That's part of the genius of the Equator Principles: the private sector taking this upon itself to implement it.

Again, there are some 40 banks and multilateral financial institutions and credit agencies--I forget how many--that are on board for this. It's an incredibly, incredibly effective tool that impacts everyone who is getting money from commercial capital markets, which impacts quite a few companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dade, once again, it was good to see you. Thank you for being here.

I'm going to dismiss you and keep all the members here so we can very quickly talk about how we're going to deal with some business.

Some schedules and agendas are being sent out. We need to talk about what it looks like over the next little while.

My suggestion is going to be, as you get the calendars, that we look at the possibility on the May 25, depending on the number of witnesses we have, of extending our meeting by an hour, and that we commit at least an hour to committee business. It looks as though we're going to have the Mexican President speaking in the House on May 27. We will not have a committee that day.

Then, my suggestion would be that we take some time on May 25, as a full committee, to discuss the agenda that's coming up in June. My thought is that if we end up with three or four witnesses, then I'm going to suggest to the clerk that we extend our meeting by an hour. So either we start at 10:30 and go to 1:30 or, if we have only three witnesses there, we could go from 11 until 12:30. Then from 12:30 to 1:30 we'd deal with committee business and come up with a schedule for the month of June.

I have some other suggestions on that. There's a possibility we could look at maybe doing something on the G8 on June 1 and maybe cancelling the meeting on June 3 meeting, because some people could be travelling, but that doesn't have to be the case. We could talk about that on May 25.

Madame Deschamps, you wanted to discuss the schedule, so I'd like to hear any thoughts you might have.

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

I would like some clarification. On the 25th, are you proposing a meeting of the steering committee or of the full committee? Are you proposing both?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm talking about a full committee to discuss committee business.

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

Okay.

Even with President Calderón's visit on the 27th, nothing is preventing this committee from meeting. If the President comes to the House at 10 a.m. and speaks for an hour, we could fit a steering committee meeting into the schedule. It is up to the committees but there is no obligation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

By all means, we could talk about that on May 25. We've set aside at least an hour to talk about committee business. We'll also have to find out what's going on for May 27 and whether or not all committees are being cancelled.

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

I want to remind everyone that the Rights and Democracy issue has completely disappeared from the calendar. I do not know what has happened, because we had agreed on another meeting about it, but nothing is scheduled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Most definitely it will.

As a matter of fact, I sent a letter to Rights and Democracy this week through the clerk, who drafted it up, requesting the information again and also reminding them that the information needed to come. We also had a phone call from them indicating that they would have something for us. They have a couple of reports they're going to send.

We're going to take those, but there is still other outstanding information. My suggestion is that we need to try to deal with that within the June timeframe.

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

On the 25th, one part of the session could be a meeting of the steering committee and the other part could be a meeting of the committee itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

On that, I think we need to understand that the time for Rights and Democracy that was moved out of those two slots in May should be the first order of business in June.

I would also just like to confirm that this committee had asked for not just the Deloitte and Touche report but also the contracts and the costs to date. I think those are available from Mr. Latulippe. That was my understanding when I talked to him when he was here. That information could be sent to us ahead of the report from Deloitte and Touche, which I believe is going to be ready at the end of May.

Finally, I ask that we not just talk about the times for the Rights and Democracy report. I know that analysts have been seized with this and have been pulling it together, but I would ask that members of the committee, if they have recommendations, bring those forward so that we can actually do focused committee work.

At the end of day, we're trying to get a report done, and I would hate to see it languish any longer. I understand the limitations we've been seized with as a committee, and that's without prejudice.

So I would ask that we get all the requisite information, that as soon as we get it we send it to committee members, and that committee members send in recommendations they have to the analysts, so that when we're actually sitting down to look at the report and recommendations, we have that information.