I understand that my colleague Alex Neve, who’s the director of Amnesty International Canada, has already presented to the committee, so I don't want to go over old ground in terms of information he's already provided. What I would like to do is ground the discussion I would like to have with the committee around the international perspective in terms of, in particular, the position Canada finds itself in within this international context. Lastly, I'll just briefly comment on the benefits that would derive from the fact of inquiries being made by a Canadian government authority.
Turning to the first point, there's no doubt that Canada can and should introduce legislation that withholds public support to companies that fail to respect human rights abroad, and that doing so would be consistent with Canada's international legal duties. That includes the framework enunciated by the United Nations special representative to the Secretary General on business and human rights issues. According to the special representative, and I'm quoting here,
The root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in governance gaps created by globalization.... These governance gaps provide the permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds without adequate sanctioning and reparation.
It’s in many respects in response to that predicament that the special representative has outlined a framework—the protect, respect, and remedy framework--which articulates the state duty to protect against human rights abuses from third parties, including by business; the corporate responsibility to respect all human rights; and the need for greater access to effective remedies for the victims of any human rights abuses.
Under international law, there’s no doubt that states are the primary duty-bearers, and given that this discussion is with parliamentarians, I'd like to focus my comments specifically on the pillar enunciated by the special representative, being the state duty to protect.
As I've just said, states clearly have a duty to protect against human rights abuses by non-state actors, and that includes business. There are a number of means by which states can actually undertake this activity, and there are a number of documents that already exist that provide guidance to states to pursue this duty or to fulfill this duty. In many respects, to help states interpret how to fulfill that duty, the UN treaty-monitoring bodies have recommended that states take all necessary steps to protect against such abuse, including to prevent, investigate, and punish the abuse, and to provide access to redress.
Clearly, and certainly as articulated by the special representative, the state duty to protect has both a policy but also a legal dimension. While policies that encourage corporate responsibility for human rights do have a role, so too does legislation. In elaborating the state duty to protect, the special representative has noted--and here I'm quoting from the special representative's 2008 report to the Human Rights Council:
There is increasing encouragement at the international level, including from the treaty bodies, for home States to take regulatory action to prevent abuse by their companies overseas.
In the advance copy of his most recent report, which will be delivered to the Human Rights Council in the next week or so, the special representative further notes that all states have the duty to protect against corporate-related human rights abuses within their territory and/or jurisdiction. It is not limited alone to territory.
He explains that there is a critical distinction between jurisdiction exercised directly in relation to actors or activities overseas and domestic measures, such as Bill C-300, that have extraterritorial implications. The special representative also emphasizes that states should make greater efforts to ensure that companies based in or conducting transactions through their jurisdictions do not commit or contribute to human rights abuses abroad, and help remedy them when they do occur.
What does this mean in the context of Canada? Well, certainly Canada has positioned itself as an extremely influential player in the global mining sector, and it should ensure that this role is fulfilled consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations, including promoting respect for human rights by Canadian companies and holding them accountable if they do not.
If I might, I would very briefly quote from the Canadian government’s own corporate social responsibility strategy:
Canada is a particularly strong player in the global mining sector. Canadian financial markets in Toronto and Vancouver are the world’s largest source of equity capital for mining companies undertaking exploration and development. Mining and exploration companies based in Canada account for 43 percent of global exploration expenditures. In 2008, over 75 percent of the world’s exploration and mining companies were headquartered in Canada. These 1293 companies had an interest in some 7809 properties in Canada and in over 100 countries around the world.
There's no doubt that the extractive industries are well known for having extensive potential and actual impacts on human rights. These include the impacts on the rights to health and water and the rights of indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent. It's very frequent that the rights of women are disproportionately affected within these contexts. Given that situation and in light of the comments of the special representative, it is entirely appropriate that Canada should introduce legislation that would lead to repercussions for Canadian extractive industry companies that fail to respect human rights in their operations abroad.
Given the level of Canadian-listed or Canadian-based extractive industry companies, it may not surprise the committee to hear that the proportion of cases received by Amnesty International regarding alleged human rights abuses associated with projects involving Canadian companies is very high.
I have already provided the committee with a number of reports, urgent actions, and other publications wherein Amnesty International has raised concerns regarding such human rights abuses. In the order of the list I've provided to the committee, the cases relate to mining operations involving the following Canadian companies, usually through--
[Technical difficulty--Editor]