Evidence of meeting #44 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliamentarians.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Paul Ruszkowski  President and CEO of the Parliamentary Centre, Parliamentary Centre
Jim Abbott  As an Individual

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Jim Abbott

We have every right in the world to encourage them. I think what we have to be very careful about is that we don't end up lecturing them, or going after them, if you understand what I'm saying.

To my mind, the whole purpose of democracy is to give a voice to the people of a nation, and to be accountable to the people of that nation. From that, all the rules, regulations, and the ability to create wealth from extractive industries or whatever else ends up flowing....

One of the best models I recommend that committee members might want to take a look at is the GOPAC hourglass. When you go to the GOPAC site, take a look at the hourglass—two triangles with their parts touching. You'll see how all the parts fit together. We can be encouraging that, but I feel, and it's why I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to present to the committee, that I understand what the committee is trying to achieve.

I suggest that a very significant portion of what the committee is trying to achieve will come about with the recognition of the requirement for there to be proper governance, and that we build the capacity of the parliamentarians in the various countries.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

I remember we talked about some of the nations you visited, but is there a real hunger among governments in the third world for some guidance from Canadian parliamentarians?

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Jim Abbott

Absolutely.

I wouldn't say there are hundreds of countries. I'm saying there are probably a dozen or 20 countries, but very important countries, that have the potential for responsible resource extraction and wealth from that extraction. Jean-Paul and I were involved in a lunch last Thursday in Ottawa, and a number of countries from Africa were represented. After the lunch, I had an opportunity to meet with the ambassador from one of those countries, who said 12 of his parliamentarians were coming to Quebec in October this year and he wanted us to make a presentation to them. There is a big thirst for this kind of training of people in parliaments, because the two things fit together: the training and the capacity-building within the civil service.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

I told you about the study we're doing. You've been following this to some degree.

How important do you feel this—the very concept that you talked to us about and the study that we did back in 2010—is in relationship to the current study we're doing?

4:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Jim Abbott

It's important in two respects. It is a continuation of the study, but I pointed out in the latter part of my verbal presentation that this is a very efficient program, which was recommended by the prior committee, of involving retired people. Now, having retired, I can tell you, yes, I love my wife and my grandchildren, and we're having a great time—that's why I'm in Edmonton—but I also have a real desire to give back to Canada and to other nations. There are, I dare say, hundreds of retired provincial and federal politicians who would be competent in being able to do this, and they would do it as volunteers. The cost of doing this, particularly if it was modelled after the CESO model, which has about 35 years of experience, is a wide-open opportunity to leverage very few dollars.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Thank you for the hard work that you've done as a parliamentarian. You have lots, many years, of experience. I want to thank you personally for the years of tutoring me as well when I was a new member of Parliament. We look forward to seeing you again.

4:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Jim Abbott

Good. Thank you, Dave.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We're going to move over to Mr. Eyking.

You have seven minutes, sir.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Jim and Jean-Paul. It's good to see you here this afternoon.

First, the OECD came out with a pretty bad report card on CIDA today or yesterday, talking about the cutbacks, the sense of not much direction and really eliminating a lot of work with NGOs. There's a movement afoot, of course, to let especially the mining companies do a lot of that work for the Canadian taxpayer—do aid work. With your report, that's very concerning.

I might be a shareholder, I guess, with one of these mining companies, because we all have mutual funds and it's on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and sometimes you don't even know. But assuming I was a shareholder, I would be very concerned that the board of directors would ensure that when they go into these countries, they would be doing the proper due diligence. Unless we have a lot of Mother Teresas on these boards, I don't know how that's going to happen, because at the end of the day they're looking for profits.

The other night on the CBC, The National, they had quite an article. I don't know if you've seen it. The reality is these mines are getting bigger and bigger and they're going into more remote parts of the world. They're disrupting a lot of environments and indigenous people.

That being said, where are we going here? Some suggest that the mining companies should have a process similar to the Kimberley process in diamond mining, and in your report here, Jean-Paul, you said “resource curse”, and you talked about the inefficient investment in human resources, lack of democracy and human rights, and also about how it is all leading to low growth and a worsening level of poverty.

So where does that all bring us, as Canadians? Yes, we want to be a prosperous nation. We want to help other countries extract their minerals in a proper way, but I have a feeling that there's a gap here, and I don't know if there have to be more things done to hold our mining companies accountable. That's my first question.

The second question would be, Jean-Paul, do you agree that we should have our mining companies going in and delivering our aid? Will the next thing be that when a mining company goes to Mongolia, they're going to have an assistant from CIDA go with them? What are your thoughts on where we're going here?

4:05 p.m.

President and CEO of the Parliamentary Centre, Parliamentary Centre

Jean-Paul Ruszkowski

Thank you very much for the question.

The first point I think is that one has to be very clear about the fact that mining companies operating in foreign countries are under the jurisdiction of the countries where they operate. So if there is no oversight in those countries, you have potential bad consequences, as we have mentioned in our report—in certain countries.

The reason why I am here is to advocate for help from Canadians, to help parliamentarians in those countries be able to exercise their oversight function, their representation function, and also their legislative function. For example, in Kenya we've developed a scorecard for the use of members of parliament. This scorecard is a tool to ask their constituents what they want, what their priorities are, and those scorecards are used then by the caucus. It helps formulate—

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Let's assume we're going into these countries where there are mining companies and they do not have a very good political or justice structure. Wouldn't you think that before the mining companies go in there we should be going in with some judicial people from our country, helping them with their elections? Maybe that would be a first step. Maybe we should not be cutting back on the funding we do for those areas.

That would be our first step as Canadians, to go into these countries and get their system in proper order, so that we don't rely on our companies, which are not really designed to do that.

4:10 p.m.

President and CEO of the Parliamentary Centre, Parliamentary Centre

Jean-Paul Ruszkowski

The latest figures I've seen are that basically we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in elections, but very often after the elections there's nothing.

My point is that we have to do election monitoring, election support, but then those who are elected should have tools. What's the point of electing people if we're going to leave them out to dry?

I think our responsibility is to say that if you want development, we will help you with the tools so you can improve your governance. It's as clear as that.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

As you were saying, after their election they have an environment minister. We would help that environment minister with doing assessments, protocol, and how to deal with mines coming to their country.

4:10 p.m.

President and CEO of the Parliamentary Centre, Parliamentary Centre

Jean-Paul Ruszkowski

Actually, bilateral aid to government is very generous. What I'm trying to say is that it's not as generous in supporting parliamentary work. We are the biggest beneficiaries of bilateral assistance from CIDA. It's $15 million over five years, when we can spend $250 million or $280 million in one year for elections only. That's really the crux; there has to be a balance between what we do initially and then the follow up.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Jim, do you have any comments?

4:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Jim Abbott

I have a quick comment. I think the last example Mark was using is a little bit off, at least from where I see it.

Canada should not necessarily be going to the environment minister of the country and saying this is what you should do or this is how you can do it. The likelihood is that if they don't have good governance, he probably doesn't have the tools with which to do it.

We're taking one step back from that. We're looking to empower the parliamentarians to represent the people of the country to the executive, of which the environment minister or the mines minister is a member. We're talking about empowering the parliamentarians so that the will of the people of the given country can be shown in the government, in the governing, and the mines minister or the energy minister would have the capacity to be able to do that.

My own perspective is that I don't think Canadians should be telling the indigenous mines minister what to do. I think we should be giving him the power and the tools to do what the people of his country want to do.

There's a difference between the two. I don't know if I'm doing a good job of explaining it.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

I wasn't trying to tell him, just advise him. I wasn't going to tell these people what to do.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much.

We're going to now start a second round. I think we'll have time for the full round.

We're going to start with Ms. Brown, for five minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I hate to have to use my time to do this, Mr. Chair, but I do have to correct the record. The OECD report was by and large positive for Canada. We had many compliments in that report. In fact, the Toronto Star even said it was largely positive.

We were complimented in the OECD report for eliminating tied aid. We were complimented for focusing our money down from 100 countries in 2003, I believe, and now we have money in 48 countries. What was said in that report is that Canada's aid money is far more effective today than it ever has been. I needed to clear the record on that.

The other thing I need to clear the record on is that mining companies are not delivering Canada's aid money. We have projects that we are doing in tandem with mining companies. I refer to the one that we looked at in Burkina Faso, where WUSC in particular, which is an NGO that is handling all of the funds, is working in cooperation with Barrick Gold. They have a project that is giving young people the opportunity for skills training and education, which they never would have had before. The mining company is working in tandem with WUSC, and WUSC has only complimented CIDA for the good work it is doing in getting that money into that country.

I'm sorry I had to use part of my time to do that, but I had to clear the record.

Gentlemen, when we started this whole investigation, we had Hernando de Soto here as an intervenor. He talked about the necessity of having governance structures in place, the importance of having a free and fair judicial system, most importantly. That is what's going to give any company, be it international or domestic, that is making an investment the confidence that should there be any sort of a dispute, such as a territorial dispute—maybe somebody thinks they're encroaching on his land—there is a free and fair judicial system. That is one of the most critical parts that has to be in place.

Do you not agree that these things have to be working in tandem? It's not about going in at the beginning and creating some parliamentary system, or bureaucracy, or judicial system, and then the private sector comes in. Do these things not have to work hand in hand? If you don't have the private sector there contributing tax dollars, how are you going to have any sort of a parliamentary system that's paid for out of tax dollars, growing and available to learn the very things that you are trying to contribute?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound terse. I'm terse because I had to correct the record at the beginning.

4:15 p.m.

President and CEO of the Parliamentary Centre, Parliamentary Centre

Jean-Paul Ruszkowski

Don't worry, Madam. I deal a lot with parliamentarians around the world, so it's no problem.

You are absolutely right, we cannot look at things in isolation. This is why you will hear me talk about governance as number one. I don't talk about parliamentary strengthening in a vacuum; I put it within the context of governance.

The judicial system also needs people to oversee it, and depending on what system you live in, sometimes the judges are finally appointed or approved with parliamentary consent. When we are in the field, we advocate that the different sources of power, or the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, are not necessarily to be in confrontation all the time, that there are reasons for and benefits in working together.

The private sector would probably love to see not only a strong judicial system but also predictability in the legislation that comes out. Investment in the mining or oil sectors is a 30- to 35-year proposal. So five years after you've made a huge investment, which is usually very high at the front end, you don't want to find yourself being expropriated. I don't want to mention countries, but recently a Spanish company was expropriated somewhere.

I think this is the kind of situation we are in favour of: improving the overall governance in emerging economies as the best guarantee for investment. For example, KPMG has recently done a study on the ability of countries to change. They took 60 countries—these are emerging economies—and of the 60 countries, the number one country is Chile. Why Chile? Because they have a strong judicial system, a strong parliamentary system, and a good executive. They've reduced corruption to a minimum.

These are good examples to follow, and I think as Jim was saying, it's not what to tell them, but maybe share what works in other countries so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Something that—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have. It's over time.

We're going to move to Mr. Saganash for five minutes.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question is for Mr. Abbott, but I want to comment on what was said earlier by my colleagues across the table. In my view, helping Canadian companies to create CSR projects is usually the normal cost of business. Using taxpayers' funds to subsidize very profitable companies and businesses is just not the way to do it.

I have two very quick questions—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, as I just said, we are not subsidizing mining companies—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's not a point of order.

Back to Mr. Saganash.