Thank you.
Argument three is that on its own, the remote ruling of Bill C-300 focuses on the negative and provides no incentive for ensuring that the interests of the parties involved are addressed—community, host country, indigenous people, or company.
Argument four is that Bill C-300 will alienate a number of developing countries at a time when the kind of leadership Canada has provided over the years is needed more than ever before. This is because its approach is based upon a model of the world where Canada will seek to regulate the behaviour of extractive companies over the heads of host country governments. This will be seen as undermining of national sovereignty and of a “west knows best” mindset. Frankly, we would do better to put funding into strengthening the enforcement capacities of some host countries in areas like environmental and social regulation, rather than substituting our own judgments for theirs.
Argument five is that while standards drive ICMM members’ performance, the standards to which companies would be held accountable under Bill C-300 are unclear and subject to development within 12 months of the bill coming into force. This leads to considerable uncertainty regarding the scope of what companies may ultimately be held accountable to. To complicate the issue, the IFC standards and guidelines and the OECD guidelines for multinational corporations are both currently under review. As a matter of principle, it is difficult to support legislation where it is not possible for companies to understand the standards and criteria to which they will be held accountable.
In closing, here are a few suggestions and thoughts about moving forward. Canadian parliamentary process must, of course, run its course. However, regardless of the outcome, Canada should use this as a catalyst for discussion with mining countries from the political north and south, and with partners in business and civil society, in terms of effective encouragement of corporate social responsibility. Corporate responsibility has a number of facets—ethical, legal, and economic. All these need addressing in a systematic approach that encourages positive change.
So my message is not one of inaction. Within Canada the CSR round tables generated an agenda for action and these should be taken forward. Meanwhile, Canada has an opportunity to be a prime mover in the international debates about accountability and providing redress for those whose rights are infringed. But we do not strengthen our voice by acting unilaterally. Rather, with initiatives such as John Ruggie’s final report to the UN Human Rights Council and the ongoing revisions to the OECD guidelines and the IFC performance standards, there is an active agenda for progress.
Over the past 20 months,I have been privileged to be able to travel broadly across the world, meeting and interacting with individuals from many countries and cultures. I'm always struck by the special reaction when I identify myself as a Canadian. Canada has a special role in the world arena. There is a remarkable respect out there and an expectation that we work with others, that we do not impose our will on others. I hope the results of this discussion will be consistent with that respect and these expectations.
Thanks again for the opportunity to address you.