Foreign Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2010

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

We had an agenda that has been changed at the last minute, which hasn't given people adequate time to deal with this matter, respectfully. I think it's disrespectful to the committee to expect to change direction at the last minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. I'm not sure that any of these are points of order, but I'm going to ask the committee one more time.

If you want to talk for another 15 minutes, we'll all painfully sit and listen to what you have to say, or not--or do we want to call the meeting now?

Mr. Abbott.

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

I would like to speak specifically to Mr. McKay's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do you know what? We're going to have to put you on the list. I'm sorry about that.

I've got Mr. Goldring, Mr. Van Kesteren, Mr. Lunney, and Mr. Abbott. I've got the whole line here. If there's no consent to let this meeting adjourn early, we'll continue along with the pearls of wisdom from the other side.

Go ahead, Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much.

This is with regard to dealing with the discussions about the frivolous and vexatious motions or actions that can be brought forward. My point is that we've been dealing with them seemingly as though they're independent or individual frivolous or vexatious issues that are brought forward, whereas in my discussion with the witnesses prior to this, when I asked how many would have been brought forward, in his own particular case he said, “Well, how many days are there in a five-year period?” The indication from him is that literally hundreds and hundreds of initiations could be brought forward. With wording on the bill like this, it could even encourage more to be brought forward. They could literally hold up processes--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have Mr. McKay on a point of order.

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

I can see that Mr. Goldring is dying to engage in clause-by-clause, so I interpret his comments about the bill as support for the motion. Assuming that Mr. Goldring supports the motion before us, I see a majority here to support the motion.

[An hon. member]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do you know what? I'm going to have to agree with that. This is not a point of order.

We'll go back to Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Furthermore, there's another issue that arises from what I would say is the narrowness of approach to this. Have we had a discussion on how it relates to the charter? Is there a form of discriminatory action here? This is certainly a restriction against one segment of our corporate society, and it leaves the rest of corporate society alone. So do we have an additional problem here that it is too narrowly focused and impinges upon the charter of rights of corporations to be able to function and operate? It's an additional concern I have that I don't think has been addressed.

Another statement that was made that's a real concern is about the NGOs in some of these countries. They were described as “rogue NGOs” that have little or no accountability. So we're setting up a process here that is very restrictive and constrictive on our corporations. But at the same time there is little application of what to do about what is really causing a lot of the problem, which is that a lot of the NGOs in various countries are viewing this as a reason to hold up the mining process.

I suppose one could ask about the motivation behind these NGOs, but there is nothing here in the bill that would be able to control, limit, or legislate, and I'm not sure how that could be done anyway in another country. The suggestion here is not about how to look at the NGOs to see whether there's credibility or a simpler process in order to be able to eliminate some of the problems.

Simply bringing all of this back here to the minister's office and department to look into what could conceiveably be tens of thousands of initiations could wear down these companies, as has been suggested. It could make them want to decide, like Talisman did, whether they even want to be in the business with a Canadian company, or go into another country to deal with these--maybe another country that doesn't have these tight constrictions.

I think it goes back to the heart of the matter that in the economics and period of time today, it behoves us to be very careful that we're not working on legislation that would restrict one of our major industries internationally, and our reputation internationally as well.

So I have concerns about going through it, as the member opposite has said. We can go through a litany of other issues. The very difficult one that I don't think has been discussed very thoroughly is how do you compel organizations to comply with international human rights standards when our Canadian government doesn't comply with some of them itself? How can you compel companies to be compliant with all international laws? We could possibly put another international law forward too, which would be sharia law, for example. How do you compel companies to adhere to different laws and procedures that our Canadian government itself possibly would not be too quick to adhere to?

So the member opposite is right that many of us are fed up with this bill, but I think it is so important to our industry and our economy that we need to have these types of discussions on each and every part of it.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments. I'm very thankful to be able to make them, as I wanted to make some of those comments a little earlier too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Van Kesteren, Mr. Lunney, and Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll cede my time to Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I made my point about going to clause-by-clause already, but I think there is something of relevance that does need to be stated for the record.

One of the witnesses was not able to participate today. All committee members have seen a letter from Barrick Corporation regarding testimony here at the committee. I would like to read into the record a few of the remarks they made in defence of some of the allegations that were made.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, this isn't relevant to the motion in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, unfortunately—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I thank the member. We all got it. I read the letter.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Well, it should be on the record.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I read it, and it is. We have it. It was submitted to the committee, is that not correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's part of the documents.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's part of the documents, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Points of relevance can be made by anyone.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's a point of order on whether reading a letter from Barrick Gold has anything to do with the motion in front of us on whether or not you support going to clause-by-clause.

I'm asking the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I would say it doesn't have anything to do with it. But the member does have the time, and I'll ask him to make his remarks quickly.

By the way, it is in the record. That's also the case.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.

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

Why don't you read it in French?