Evidence of meeting #40 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mcpherson.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
As I've been advised and as you are fully aware, you're not to debate this. You can challenge it.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would like to challenge it, because I believe that this is, ultimately, a bill about human rights. It is our obligation as legislators to provide protection for people who are suffering under Canadian companies' actions, and we have that obligation to fix this legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We have that obligation, but we are also required to follow procedures, Ms. McPherson.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I apologize. I'm wondering if it would be possible to hear from the analysts before we move to a vote on this.
4:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Ariane Gagné-Frégeau
The vote is on whether the decision shall be sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
It will be on division.
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to)
(On clause 14)
Ms. McPherson, I understand you have an amendment.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, I do.
The amendment that we will be putting forward for clause 14 is this:
That Bill S-211, in Clause 14, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 8 with the following:
“14(1) The Minister must designate the Ombudsperson and may designate any other person or class of person for the purposes of the administration and enforce-”
(b) by adding after line 11 on page 8 the following:
“(2) In this Part, Ombudsperson means the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise appointed under Order in Council P.C. 2019-1323 of September 6, 2019.”
Mr. Chair, you won't be surprised to hear me talking about using the ombudsperson in a more effective manner. I have been somebody who has spoken for a very long time about the failure of our ombudsperson to be able to do the job that we have tasked her to do.
We were promised an ombudsperson in 2018. When the ombudsperson was put in place, all abilities of the ombudsperson to hear testimony and to compel testimony and witnesses were stripped from that position. There's very little rationale for that.
I would say that this amendment makes the minister's designated person for the administration and enforcement of the bill the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. This position already exists and it needs strengthening. This bill should fall under that purview.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
There are days when I actually agree with Ms. McPherson, but today is not one of them.
I've already made the argument about sending this bill off to the other place, which Mr. Bergeron doesn't particularly appreciate. I am faintly surprised that Mr. Bergeron has now become a defender of the Senate.
It is a significant change in the way this bill is envisioned to have the ombudsperson, in effect, be the administrator of the bill. In spite of the fact that I'm a huge admirer and think she does a terrific job, we've actually heard no evidence that she would be able or willing to take on this process. It is a significant change in direction and, in other circumstances, might actually be a welcome change in direction. However, without some real, in-depth thought as to how to execute the administration of this bill should it pass, I would oppose NDP-4.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
First of all, since Mr. McKay seems unwilling to understand my point of view, I will explain it to him again.
I have not become a defender of the Senate, I am a staunch defender of the duties and powers of the House of Commons. However, I believe that the House of Commons isn't fulfilling its responsibilities and powers when it fails to do its job and properly consider proposed amendments that come before it, simply so that the bill can be sent to the Senate as quickly as possible. I respect this House of Commons, I respect its responsibilities and I respect its powers. That's why I believe it's our duty to consider these amendments, and to do so seriously, not give in to the temptation of wanting to proceed more quickly, simply to get the bill passed.
If the public hearing exercise that we went through was not just strictly cosmetic or theatrical, and we truly intended to take into account the views that were expressed to us, again, I feel we should commend Ms. McPherson for voicing some of the concerns shared with us at that time. Today, it's as if everyone wants to pretend that no one told us anything that would challenge this bill.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Chair, I do feel that this bill has its merits. However, we've had people come before us and say that if this bill were to pass as is, based on past experience, it's very likely that we would not delve any deeper. However, we must delve deeper. Ms. McPherson is proposing that we delve deeper.
I believe we all recognize that the ombudsperson, whose position was created to address a number of issues—or at least exercise some control over the activities of mining companies abroad—is not fully playing their role. They should be given greater powers. Therefore, rather than referring to any other person—it could end up being no one—Ms. McPherson proposes to assign this responsibility specifically to the ombudsperson. That would make this strictly symbolic role begin to look like something real.
For this reason, once again, I plan to support Ms. McPherson's amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree very much with my colleague, Mr. Bergeron. It appears to me that some of the argument for why we are not looking at this bill clause by clause and putting forward amendments is because it is an inconvenience. I have to say, this is our job, to try to take legislation that comes to our committee and make it better. I would have very much appreciated the opportunity to hear from the CORE. But of course, the opportunity to extend the time that we looked at this bill was not something that came forward.
I would have very much appreciated looking at this bill in the spring, but the Conservatives filibustered our committee for hours and hours on end. With all due respect, we have to do clause-by-clause because it's literally the only part of our job that this committee has been able to complete.
With regard to the ombudsperson, I will very much disagree with Mr. McKay on the job that the ombudsperson is doing. At this point we have an ombudsperson who has been stripped of all her ability to do a good job. She has not been doing what needs to be done to protect impacted communities around the world. She has done very little to protect people in Indonesia, Peru, Guatemala, all around the world where Canadian mining companies are causing untold grief, untold suffering and environmental degradation. This government has not stood up and said, “You're not allowed to do that. You're not allowed to do that work flying our flag.”
I would assume that the ombudsperson, who I would think really wants to do this work and has been hampered by the Liberal government, would be very keen to have another opportunity to do the work that she has been asked to do, by giving her more things that she actually can be working on.
Ultimately, what we need to do is fix the bill, make the bill so there are no loopholes for Canadian companies to get out of it. This is one of the ways we can do it. Instead of a symbolic gesture by the Liberal government, instead of all the right words and none of the action, this is the way we can take action.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I would comment just very briefly on a very narrow point.
During the debate that we had in May and June, we repeatedly sought to adjourn that debate so we could proceed to other matters. Our efforts to adjourn that debate were not supported. We could have actually studied this in May and June as well. We would have been happy to do that, which is one reason why at the time we moved to adjourn the debate that we were having.
Given that my colleague referred to this matter twice, I thought it was important to correct the record.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Are there any further interventions?
Shall NDP-4 carry?