Foreign Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, all four of you, for joining the issue. I thought each of you made some pretty significant points, and I think this is an opportunity to get some dialogue between opposing views.

Let me start with the testimony of Mr. Hodge. I agree with you, as far as the ombudsman is concerned. It's a pity that report wasn't picked up and implemented by the government. But we have what we have, and Bill C-300 seems to be the only thing to be able to move things forward.

I want to address several points that Mr. Hodge made and ask Ms. Shanta Martin to comment on them. The first has to do with his point number four, which is that apparently Canada would alienate developing countries by imposing a regulatory regime. It would be imposing our will--I think that was the point he was making.

His fifth point had to do with the standards in Bill C-300 being unclear, although I'm not quite sure how they could be unclear when they're set out in the guidelines. There's that, and the related point, which is that if Canadian companies withdraw they'll do more harm than good to the indigenous population.

I'd be interested in your comments, Ms. Martin, in light of both your general findings and how you would apply those arguments to Papua New Guineau.

[Shanta Martin]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

With respect to point four, that Bill C-300 would alienate developing countries and would impose the will of Canada on other countries, I don't see anything in the bill that actually specifies that or would result in that.

Basically, as I understand it, what the bill is intended to do is to make clear to Canadian companies that there are standards that they ought to abide by in relation to what they undertake in their operations overseas and that if they don't abide by those standards, there may be repercussions within the Canadian context. That effectively is outlining what Canada expects of its companies. It doesn't say it expects that the Government of Papua New Guinea will do X, Y, and Z. It basically says that there are international standards, that international human rights law does exist, that it is expected of states to require their companies to respect human rights, and this is one way of doing it. So I'm very unclear as to how that would actually be the case.

If I can just get back to this idea that the standards are not clear, what strikes me as anomalous is that on the one hand companies, including companies that are members of the ICMM, say they respect human rights, yet on the other hand say that the human rights expectations are too unclear to give them guidance. I don't understand how it can be one and not the other.

I think we need to refer to what the special representative has said in relation to human rights standards, that it is clear that companies can impact the full breadth of human rights. The legislation, as I understand it, proposes that the guidance elaborated by the ministers would be based on international human rights conventions to which Canada is a party and on international customary law. As I've mentioned, the special representative basically says there are few, if any, internationally recognized rights that business cannot impact. As such, it is entirely appropriate that any guidelines developed by the ministers would draw from international human rights law, including the international bill of rights.

There is significant guidance provided at the international level in the form of declarations, comments, jurisprudence, and recommendations from the treaty bodies, as well as from other mechanisms. It would also obviously be relevant to apply international labour law.

In response to that—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Ms. Martin, excuse me for a second. Unfortunately I have only seven minutes, and I'm down to three, and there is one other point I want Ms. Lissakers to address.

The issue has to do with Ms. George's assertion that Canada's companies will have reputational damage, that in effect they'll be forced to leave the country and seek a more hospitable jurisdiction for their activities. I'd be interested in your observations, given that you work rather closely with American legislators and you have a fairly broad international perspective as to where you think these Canadian companies that apparently don't want the inquiries that Bill C-300 might generate might go.

[Karin Lissakers]

I don't know. Mineral companies usually go, and have to go to stay in business, where the minerals are. The issue is really on what basis will they operate in the resource-rich countries where the mineral deposits are located?

I would find it very surprising that someone would assert that Canadian companies will be put at a competitive disadvantage if they meet internationally recognized human rights and social and environmental standards. That suggests that in some cases they will choose to compete by not meeting those standards, by violating those standards. I have to say, if that's the basis on which some Canadian companies would want to compete, they shouldn't be using Canadian government money to support, fund, and guarantee their investment.

It seems to me that the point of this bill is to say that the Canadian government will not use public funds to support investments that do not meet internationally accepted human rights and social standards.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I have one final point: that is, the companies assert strongly that somehow Bill C-300 will be used to game them, that NGOs will assert claims, frivolous and otherwise, against the good reputations of these companies. Ms. Martin and Ms. Lissakers, has that been your experience with the national contact point with the OECD and various other entities that currently exist?

I suppose the final point, particularly with respect to the Amnesty International assertions, is that, effectively, your report is being dismissed as hearsay.

Could you, within the last 30 seconds, comment on those two questions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're over time, but I'd like a quick response from both of you.

[Shanta Martin]

Very importantly, the bill makes room for vexatious and unfounded claims to be dismissed. I understand that under administrative law in Canada there is a well-established body of law regarding the need for administrative decisions to be consistent with jurisprudential requirements regarding, for example, the role of law, access to justice, and so on. The claims that have no foundation whatsoever ought to actually be able to be dismissed fairly well within the context of Bill C-300.

It hasn't been my experience that the existence of documentation, witness testimony, or information from the ground that has been presented to companies generally has been dismissed as hearsay. In my experience, having done this type of work for several years, the only company that has ever dismissed out of hand the information that we have been able to put forward to them has been Barrick Gold Corporation.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Point of order.

Mr. Chairman, as we know, this meeting is a creature of the opposition parties, who said that they wanted to have a dialogue. This was not agreed to and was unknown until Friday on the part of the government members. The difficulty we have has just been shown to us by Mr. McKay, who I'm sure was behind the opposition move to get this into a so-called dialogue, where one of the proponents of the contrary point of view to what has just been expressed and set up very nicely by Mr. McKay, Ms. George, sitting at the end of the table, has been outside of this dialogue. There is no dialogue here. It is a case of setting up the chamber and other credible witnesses to an onslaught by Mr. McKay and the people who are opposed to her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I guess when you guys have your talking turn, you'll get a chance to ask the members your appropriate questions.

I'm going to move on to Madam Deschamps. The floor is yours. We'll continue the round.

At some point the government will get a chance to ask questions, just like we always do.

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

I am going to speak to you in French. I hope you can hear me clearly. Can you hear the simultaneous interpretation? Is it working?

Ms. George, I have some questions for you. You are going to participate in the debate today.

I feel personally involved in what you said. You know that, clearly, the public gets worried when they hear about the likelihood of a mine opening in one of our regions. You said in your speech that there were always unhappy groups when there is a plan to open a mine in a given region.

I think it is healthy for people to be able to express their concerns. In my region, there is a potential uranium deposit. Obviously, we are not going to let just anyone come in with big boots, take away the resources and leave everything stripped, causing environmental damage that will have an impact on people's lives, health and environment. I think it is entirely legitimate.

One thing is troubling. Exploration is under provincial jurisdiction and development is under federal jurisdiction. So there is a grey area.

I think there has to be at least a framework, an act, and I would like to hear your opinion on that. Perhaps Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries makes you afraid of certain things for certain reasons. But, as the other witnesses have told us, Canada must have rules, legislation to control those companies, both here and abroad.

[Shirley-Ann George]

Thank you for that question.

You bring up the issue of jurisdiction, and whose jurisdiction it is to be monitoring this, as well as what the role of Canada is.

Whether it be the federal or provincial government, or whether it be the Canadian and Mexican government, or the provincial and state and federal government in Mexico, for example, jurisdiction is always an issue we need to be respectful of. We would no more expect them to come into our country and start to do reviews than we should be going into theirs without meeting the proper norms, the international standards, for such investigations. So that is an important issue.

There is a role for Canada in this field, and a very important role. We should be acting on the international stage. There is the work that is being undertaken by Mr. Ruggie at the UN, the OECD work, the work on international standards that have been met that was cited by a number of the other speakers. Canada has a very important role to be at that table when those standards are developed and to be putting our important views into that context. Both from a corporate level and from a government level, we have not always been as diligent as we should be to be at that table, to be making sure the standards are high, and that we are moving everybody forward together.

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

Widespread consultations were conducted across Canada. Round table discussions produced results, a consensus, recommendations. What came out of the consultations was not useless. Representatives from mining companies and civil society, as well as experts and individuals, participated in the process. With this process, the government is pressured to implement regulations that fully address the whole issue of the companies' social responsibility.

Ms. Martin raised an important point. When host countries, those where the mining companies will operate, are not able to control those companies, there has to be legislation allowing the Canadian government to intervene. It must be able to investigate and impose penalties or measures on offending companies. It cannot do that at the moment.

We are talking about developing countries. We agree that these countries are in the process of being built, being developed, being born. In many cases, they do not have the means to take on that responsibility.

[Shirley-Ann George]

Yes, there was a Canadian consultation. We agree with the statements that have been said before, and what Mr. McKay has said, that the government response to the consultation took way too long, but they have responded and they have put in place a framework now that provides a way to move forward.

Where Canada can make a difference, as I stated, is with countries that have weak governance. There's a very important role for CIDA to play in helping to build their framework, because when the framework is right it's much less likely that companies will get into trouble. That's a very important role for Canada to be looking at and fixing the underlying problems, and CIDA has a role to play in helping to build the governance framework in these countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

That's all the time you have.

We're going to move over to Mr. Abbott for seven minutes.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

One of the challenges I see in discussing the bill is a process of dealing with allegations. With the utmost respect for Amnesty International, the allegations that have been made, particularly against Barrick and Porgera, are very serious. I wonder if you could give us a bit of background. How long did it take you to pull this report? What kind of calendar, what timeframe are we looking at where you were doing your due diligence?

[Shanta Martin]

Specifically, on the Amnesty International case report, which I believe you do have a copy of, we first raised our concerns in May of last year.

The first instance in which the police went in to burn down the houses right next to the Porgera underground operations occurred on April 27. Thereafter, we made a number of inquiries going forward, and obviously some of those were from a desk-based scoping study. Then we undertook an in-country investigation between August and October of last year and presented those fairly promptly to Barrick Gold as well as to the Papua New Guinea government. We requested further information and so forth, had a meeting with Barrick Gold and Porgera Joint Venture in December of last year, and as I said, we did hold off on the immediate publication of that report at the request of Barrick and Porgera Joint Venture, because they indicated they wished to provide us with further information and they indicated there would be a role for them to play in calling for an investigation. So we ultimately released the information in February of this year.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay.

I'm interested in the August-to-October timeframe. How many people were involved on behalf of Amnesty International? Were they nationals, or were they people who went to Papua New Guinea from outside of Papua New Guinea?

[Shanta Martin]

They were both. Amnesty International conducts its research both from the context of having researchers who are based in London, as well as working with local partner organizations.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

So you didn't actually have people go from London to PNG?

[Shanta Martin]

Yes, we did.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Oh, you did. How many?

[Shanta Martin]

I went from London and worked with partner organizations in Papua New Guinea. We also had members of our staff in London who were working on the case, but in terms of those who went from London to Papua New Guinea, it was myself.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How many people in London would be working on this?

[Shanta Martin]

I would say approximately seven or eight people are involved in the case in one degree or another.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay.

I'm curious about the resources in order to do that. How many dollars would you guess Amnesty International has invested in this particular report?