Thank you very much, Chair, and honourable members of the committee.
ICMM was created in 2001 as a change agent within the industry. Our charge as a secretariat is to work collaboratively with members to improve environmental and social performance, guided by the principles of sustainability. We are not a lobby organization.
We have 19 corporate members now and serve as an umbrella for some 30 mining associations around the world, through which we have potential reach to another 1,500 companies. Those companies are not bound by the core commitments that bind our 19 core members.
Of particular relevance to this discussion are programs that strengthen the socio-economic contribution of mining activities at local and national levels, our work on human rights and grievance mechanisms, and strengthening relationships with indigenous peoples. The ICMM and its members are also active partners with governments, including Canada's, and civil society in initiatives such as the voluntary principles on security and human rights and the extractive industries transparency initiative. I've given you other notes about ICMM on my submission.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to address you. I believe that this discussion in Canada around corporate social responsibility provides a special opportunity to bring positive change and a special opportunity for Canada to demonstrate leadership in the international arena. I agree that the performance of a small minority of mining companies has been unacceptable. This is not representative of the overwhelming majority of the industry.
At the same time, I am sorry that the response of the federal government to the consensus-achieving CSR round table process was so slow. One result has been a significant increase in the acrimony of relationships in and around the mining industry in Canada, to no one's gain.
I have two overarching messages. One, we strongly endorse the notion of accountability. There is a role for appropriate mechanisms for resolving complaints and delivering remedies. Some of these may well be in the form of rules and binding standards. Two, the design as proposed in Bill C-300, however, will not serve to bring positive change as sought by the stated goal of the legislation.
I wish to put before you three key trends that affect the environment in which we are operating.
First, over the past two decades the world has seen a marked improvement in the way in which social and environmental implications of mining projects are managed, along with an acceptance of the concept of an unwritten social licence to operate based on early and ongoing engagement with affected communities.
Second, a significant and continuing shift has taken place in the global economy towards emerging markets in China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. These are major players, and they are frankly skeptical of initiatives that they perceive as western constructs unless they are part of the design process. They are no different, quite frankly, from anyone else.
Third, over the past four years a major process has been under way to construct a framework within which business impacts on human rights can be managed and accountability can be assigned. This work is led by the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Professor John Ruggie, whose “protect, respect, and remedy” framework has achieved a high degree of consensus in what previously has been a contentious area. His work on operationalizing the framework is due to be completed within the next year.
I have five arguments to make about Bill C-300.
First, our experience is that to be effective, any complaints mechanism needs to be embedded in a carefully and collaboratively designed system of dispute resolution. We are strongly supportive of Ruggie’s “protect, respect, and remedy” framework.
We have also learned that redress to concerns raised by citizens, communities, and others is essential at three levels. The first level is the local community and company level. This is always the first line of action, and the most effective. The second is the national level, and here Peru's ombudsman office, which includes 50 local offices to ensure connection to the community level, is a good example.
Third is at the international level, and I also mention the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations and the OECD national contact points; the compliance advisor and ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation; and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.
Recognizing the need to have an integrated approach, Ruggie’s work is pulling all of this together. Bill C-300 seems to be proceeding without cognizance of and out of step with this work and the internationally supported insights it embodies.
Bill C-300 risks being duplicative, perhaps undermining the above initiatives. In practice, will a hierarchy prevail if complainants register a complaint with all of these? If so, which will take precedence? If not, how should the Government of Canada or complainants interpret contradictory rulings? Bill C-300 answers none of these questions.
On argument two, the great majority of disputes are best resolved through mechanisms that have local ownership and where the means of investigating conduct are close to the affected community or region. The aggrieved people are more likely to feel properly involved, and the people or institutions involved in resolving the situation are more likely to understand the context and cultural dynamic that may be at work.
This raises the issue of what happens with marginalized groups that may be out of favour with a host government. This is a real issue, but whether or not Canada wishes to assume sole responsibility--as implied in Bill C-300--for protecting these groups and individuals is an issue that should be addressed explicitly.
[Technical difficulties]