Thank you, honourable chairperson and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me here today to share my thoughts and experience. I have been Canada's extractive sector corporate social responsibility counsellor since May 2015. A counsellor is a Governor in Council appointee, has a fixed-term contract, and reports directly to the Minister of International Trade. I'm positioned to provide unvarnished advice and make suggestions to the minister. The counsellor speaks his mind, and my public statements reflect my own assessment of situations and issues. I bring to the role a mixed experience spanning 35 years in academia, the private sector, multilateral institutions, and now the federal government of Canada.
The work of the counsellor is carried out through the agency of the office of the extractive sector corporate social responsibility counsellor, which is now based in Ottawa and staffed by the counsellor and two junior technical staff. The office functions with limited administrative and budgetary support.
Today, the office takes a proactive and preventative approach to promoting good practice and minimizing the risk of conflict around extractive projects. What does this mean in terms of the way we actually work? We speak at public gatherings but also meet with companies and other stakeholders individually to explain Canada's CSR policy and expectations. We contact companies directly when we hear of a situation at a project site that concerns us. We serve as a resource on CSR good practice, not just for companies but also for diplomats and trade commissioners on post, as well as for civil society, organizations, and academia. We are often contacted by companies, by diplomats, and even by country-based NGOs when they face difficult situations and seek our advice.
We have expanded the boundaries of outreach to those places where Canadian companies are operating outside of Canada. I have now visited six countries in Latin America and two in Africa with the intent of gaining a deeper and more nuanced understanding of country-specific contexts, of the issues and challenges surrounding resource development, and of the concerns and aspirations of local citizens and governments.
During the past year, I visited Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, and Argentina. In order to understand all perspectives, we meet with host country government officials, academia, and civil society organizations in country, project-affected community representatives, and Canadian companies.
Country trips also include project site visits. Last year, accompanied by Canadian diplomatic staff, we visited eight Canadian operations to see and hear with our own eyes and ears how different Canadian companies address social and environmental issues and impacts, how they build relationships with local communities and government authorities, and how local stakeholders and impacted peoples perceive and respond to their presence.
On our website is a list of stakeholders with whom we have met. The visits also serve as a limited but useful exercise in country and project-specific fact-finding. On our website, you can also find the Honduras country trip overview. This report provides insights into the complicated nature of the relationships between a host country government, foreign-owned companies, civil society groups, and local communities. It also highlights the difficulties that the various actors have in finding common ground to resolve whatever issues divide them.
Country visits have allowed us to directly advise Canadian companies on how they should and could improve their social and environmental performance at their project sites. There is a commonality of critical issues and concerns that cut across the region, including, for example, consultation and consent, water use and quality, environmental contamination and health impacts, land acquisition and resettlement, the integrity of traditional livelihoods and protection of sacred sites, competition over access to natural resources, the use of public or private security forces, jobs and decent work for local people, project closure and potential abandonment by companies, and benefit sharing with project-affected communities.
These concerns are not specific to Canadian oil, gas, and mining companies but are characteristic of the extractive industry in general. When these concerns are not responsibly addressed by host country governments, by extractive companies whether foreign or domestic, and by civil society organizations, they can degenerate into situations that open the door to potential human rights abuses.
I'd like to share a few examples of how the office has attempted to promote new conversations around difficult issues that have clear human rights implications. In Colombia in June we coordinated and moderated a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the roles and responsibilities of different actors, including government, civil society, communities, and the private sector in building peace in a post-conflict state with special attention to the role of the extractive sector.
In Honduras, with the Canadian ambassador in tow, we spent two days in the field meeting with community representatives, national NGOs, the local human rights commissioner, and project site managers to support local efforts to find solutions that would work for all parties. In Argentina, where mining is still in its infancy but has faced public scrutiny and skepticism, we participated in a special meeting of parliamentarians to help them better understand the risks and opportunities presented by extractive activities and what policy initiatives might work for Argentina as a federal state like Canada.
Should the office come across a Canadian company that is not acting in good faith or is behaving in a way that I would regard as irresponsible or unacceptable, then I, as the counsellor, am ready to recommend the denial or withdrawal of Canadian economic diplomacy. This approach is different for those companies that, acting out of ignorance, negligence, or misunderstanding, create problems for themselves and for others but are willing and committed to rectifying situations and rebuilding positive relationships.
Of all of the OECD countries that serve as home for extractive companies with international interests, Canada has taken, in my opinion, the most progressive and aggressive approach to promoting and attempting to assure responsible conduct and respect for human rights by its own companies.
There are those, at home and abroad, who question whether Canada is doing enough, whether we should be doing more given the scope and scale of Canadian oil, gas, and mining activity abroad. What that “more” should be or look like has been the focus of ongoing private as well as public discussions within government and within the broader civil society community.
I leave you with that thought.
Thank you.