Evidence of meeting #19 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
I don't have that information with me. I'm not sure that I could actually provide you with any accurate figure on that.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
If I said a figure of 100,000 or 200,000 you would have a better guess than I would, wouldn't you?
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
I would say it's much lower than that.
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
Keeping in mind Amnesty International obviously works on a very meagre budget relatively, and certainly our wages are not so high, so....
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Who would the people in Papua New Guinea, typically be?
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
In what sense...?
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Well, I mean, they obviously have to make an income from somewhere in order to support themselves and their families. Where would they normally be deriving their income? Are they deriving their income from this kind of investigative work?
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
Well, in the context of the Papua New Guinea cases we've been looking into, we work with local partner organizations who are also non-governmental organizations that derive their own wages.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
It's just that when we're taking a look at this and the seriousness of the allegations, the fact is that this company or any other company is put back on their heels by the allegations that are made. Unlike in a court of law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty, it seems to me there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the world when Amnesty International or other organizations come forward with some of these claims, which I understand have been dealt with pretty summarily by, in this case, Barrick.
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
Well, certainly one of the things I mentioned just before was that, as I understand it, Bill C-300 is intended to do away with vexatious and false claims, that there is a requirement of due process in Canada, and that clearly this process that is suggested under Bill C-300 would be subject to those requirements of due process.
Now, if it appears to companies such as Barrick that there is an unfair aspect in terms of NGOs bringing information to the public domain, one way to deal with that is to ensure that there is an appropriate authority within Canada that is tasked with examining these issues, so that the company itself has the opportunity to present its information in a fulsome and clear way. Amnesty International's investigations have found there's often a lack of desire to fully share all of the information that would be necessary to get to the bottom of any concerns the company might have.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
But I think what you've done there is you've simply finished describing Canada's CSR counsellor, who is just coming up to speed. In other words--
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
As I understand it--
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I'm only suggesting that if Bill C-300 is needed two or three years from now, if the CSR counsellor function is not an appropriate function or is not working well, perhaps we would have to take a look at something like Bill C-300. But unless I'm mistaken, from what I heard you say, you have just described the CSR counsellor that the Canadian government has set up as a result of the round table that we had in this country.
Head of Business and Human Rights, International Secretariat, Amnesty International
I believe there are two distinct differences between the Canadian counsellor and what is proposed under Bill C-300. One is that the counsellor hasn't actually got, within the scope of what she is undertaking, a requirement to articulate what the guidelines are the company would be required to abide by. The second is that the investigative mechanism that the counsellor has is without any capacity to compel the production of documents or testimony from a company, whereas certainly in relation to what Bill C-300 proposes, due to the relationship and the significant dependence that a lot of Canadian companies have on public support, there would at the very least be a significant basis for a lot of companies to comply with requests from the minister in relation to the production of documents and other testimony.
So where the counsellor has only the capacity, on a voluntary basis, to engage if a company wants to be engaged in a dispute resolution process, the ministers under Bill C-300 would have a fact-finding capacity and would also have the capacity to ensure that there is some follow-up, if they find that the way in which a company has behaved falls short of the guidelines.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abbott.
Now we'll move back to Mr. Dewar for seven minutes.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests.
I would like to start with the Revenue Watch Institute.
Ms. Lissakers, you were essentially suggesting an amendment to the legislation, and I'm interested in that. I might be mistaken, but I don't think we have actually heard that particular point of view, which is a requirement for transparency in terms of moneys that are passed on to governments. Could you tell us a bit more about that, what jurisdictions, and essentially how that would work and how we could amend our bill here?
Director, Revenue Watch Institute
Thank you.
Under the extractive industries transparency initiative, for example, which has now been endorsed by the G-8, by the G-20, and has wide support, including from the Canadian government, which is contributing to the trust fund that helps countries with implementation of the EITI, there is a strong recognition of the value of the transparency of payments from companies to governments in resource-producing countries. This is a way to increase the accountability of the government's management of those moneys and to reduce the risk that payments are diverted for self-enrichment and other corrupt purposes. The logic for supporting this transparency is that if the revenues that are generated from the extractive resources are spent for the public benefit by the recipient state and government officials, the business environment will be better, the political environment will be better, and everybody gains--the consumers, the importers, the investors, and the citizens of the resource-rich countries.
I'm surprised.... As I say, the International Accounting Standards Board is working on an accounting standard. The U.S. Senate just considered setting transparency standards. The IFC already has a transparency requirement related to any of its extractive investments, co-investments with companies, and the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, has this transparency requirement, using the IFC and the EITI standard as a reference point. It seems to me, then, that it would be logical to include this provision in Bill C-300, since it moves in the same direction of meeting international best practice and enforcing it when Canadian public moneys are at risk.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you.
If you wouldn't mind, if you have a link to a website or if you have those standards available.... I'm sure our researchers could find them as well, but if it's simple to send us the links, that would be helpful.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
In the spirit of dialogue, Ms. George, I know you've been very clear about how you feel about the bill, but in light of what we've heard, would you see that requirement of disclosure being a concern for your members?
Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
The EITI is a relatively new international standard that many Canadian companies already adhere to.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
So notwithstanding your issue with the legislation, you wouldn't have a problem if it were a requirement to have that disclosure?
Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
I haven't asked my members if there would be a broad consensus, but the ones I have spoken to seem to be supportive.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Ms. Martin, we've heard from the government about the role of the commissioner. As you probably know, the commissioner's not up and going yet. Would you trust putting this information in front of the commissioner—now I'm referring to some of the cases you've been working on, be it Papua New Guinea or others—in light of the restrictions within the ambit of her office? What are your feelings about the way the commissioner has been structured, and would you have confidence in her being able to look into the concerns you've brought forward with any depth?