Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2021

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witness for being here today. We're glad to have you with our subcommittee.

You say “provide advice” and you've referred to this by the term “know and show”. What kind of advice do you provide? How would this be useful either to those who are afraid of having their rights abused or, presumably, to companies that are anxious to remain compliant with both international rules and with the rules that you set out?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

There are many ways we can provide advice to companies. For the greatest impact, we wouldn't be providing advice to individual companies. They have other resources to go to for individual advice. The CORE would be looking at.... For instance, I gave an example of COVID and the new strains on business that would end up resulting in human rights abuses. We point those out to companies and indicate that they should be aware of these pitfalls. We show them what they can do to take action against it. That's the kind of advice. We would provide that advice on our website and very broadly to companies.

We can do own-initiated reviews, which is one of the tools I didn't mention. We can initiate our own review, an ombud-initiated review. That is something we can look at if there is a systemic issue out there that all companies need. We can do an investigation on that and let companies know about it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The advice you're giving is not about rules that you've developed yourself, but rather you're providing advice about rules that come from elsewhere.

I have to ask the obvious question. Why not just go to those other sources rather than to you? What value added are you providing in that regard?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

Yes, that's right. We can't make any new rules, so, absolutely, we're looking at the rules that already exist.

We're an option. We're a non-traditional option available to companies. There are other places for them to go. Maybe companies will choose to use other sources for advice for particular things. It may be that we, in some circumstances, would be the best place for them to come.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We will move over to the Bloc and Madame Gill, for two minutes, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Meyerhoffer, I carefully listened to everything you said.

Your mandate is very broad: advising companies, providing mediation and receiving complaints. You talked about the portal where people will be able to file complaints.

I remember that, in 2019, Minister Carr commissioned an external legal review to determine the best way to provide the ombudsman with sufficient tools to carry out credible and effective investigations on presumed human rights violations. The report concluded that, without enforcement powers, CORE would not be as effective as it should be.

What do you think about that report's findings?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

CORE does not currently have the power to compel witnesses and documents. As I mentioned, our review powers are unique, and they do strengthen Canada's responsible business conduct mechanisms.

I'm confident, as I said, that we have what we need to do on our complaint portal now. Of course, that may change down the road. We can re-evaluate what we need at that time, and I'm open to that re-evaluation and assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll move to Ms. McPherson, for two minutes, to conclude this panel.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Meyerhoffer, I just want to clarify. I tabled a petition, because people within the sector and people across the country were understandably outraged when the position of the CORE ombudsperson was announced. You did not have the ability to compel testimony, and you did not have independence.

Do you feel that you could do your job better if you had the ability to compel testimony, and if you were actually a truly independent office?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

I support any measure to improve human rights protections as part of responsible business conduct. At the same time, as I said, I'm confident I can do the job that I've been given, with the mandate that I've been given, and make a real positive impact. I am definitely open to having advancements in the future.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One of the advancements we could look at.... We know that we are developing a feminist foreign policy. We have a feminist international assistance policy. This position has an important role in terms of the sustainable development goals, which we've also signed on to. All of those things call for equitable access to justice. When you don't have the ability to compel testimony, when you don't have the ability to actually hold Canadian companies to account, that does make me quite worried, of course.

In terms of human rights due diligence legislation, have you considered how you could make that mandatory as part of your mandate, and how you could, in fact, have that in place, so that you could be holding companies accountable before they undertake human rights abuses and environmental degradation?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

We support mandatory human rights due diligence. I support it. It's the right thing to do. Globally, it's going that way. There would need to be discussions about how CORE would take that on, but we're for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much, Ms. Meyerhoffer. Thank you for your testimony and answers to the many questions. We appreciate it for our CORE study.

This will conclude our first panel.

On our second panel, from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, we have Ms. Emily Dwyer, coordinator.

Ms. Dwyer, you have five minutes for your opening statement.

[Emily Dwyer, Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability]

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here and for your interest in studying this vital issue.

I coordinate the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the CNCA. We were formed in 2005. We bring together 39 organizations from diverse sectors across Canada, which collectively represent the voices of millions of Canadians from coast to coast.

We are calling for urgent action by the Government of Canada to address human rights and environmental abuses by Canadian companies operating overseas.

Our network was vital to the government's creation of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. In 2016, we published model legislation that was based on years of engagement with impacted communities and extensive research, and vetted by subject matter experts.

We engaged in good faith with the Government of Canada to help build a best-in-class model based on specific commitments critical to the future of the office's credibility. We stood with Minister Champagne when he made the announcement of the CORE in 2018.

It is telling that today Canadian civil society, human rights organizations and labour unions are not standing up in support of this version of the CORE. To the contrary, we have had to issue warnings to impacted communities to approach this office with caution, if at all. We should be singing this office's praises, and there's a reason that we're not.

For years, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, organizations from diverse sectors and multiple United Nations bodies have called on Canada to implement effective mechanisms to prevent and remedy Canadian corporate human rights abuses overseas. The kinds of abuses we're talking about include threats, killings, bodily harm, gang rape, unsafe and exploitative working conditions, forced labour, failure to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and women, and serious environmental damage.

Instead of implementing effective mechanisms, Canada has relied on voluntary approaches, providing advice to companies about the expectation that they respect human rights, and sometimes offering mediation and mediation approaches, like joint fact-finding.

The experience with Canada's toothless mechanisms—the CSR counsellor's office from 2009 and Canada's national contact point for the OECD guidelines since 2000—demonstrates that this approach has not worked. When the CSR counsellor's office was closed in 2018, it had not resolved a single case. Canada's NCP, which is still in operation today, has also failed to investigate, prevent or remedy harm by Canadian companies operating overseas.

When it comes to effectiveness, the version of the CORE that we see today is not materially different from these failed offices. Without independent investigatory powers, the CORE will be equally unfit for purpose. Investigatory powers are the foundation of an effective ombudsperson's office, upon which the rest of the office's functions depend. Key information that's crucial to investigations is often held exclusively by companies, and it will not be offered voluntarily.

I would like to put clearly on the committee record that what I'm suggesting here is not a new ask, not a request to reform the CORE right before it opens its doors; it's a request to give effect to what the Government of Canada explicitly and publicly committed to in 2018.

From the Government of Canada website at the time of that announcement, I quote: “The Government [of Canada] is committed to ensuring that the Ombudsperson has all the tools required to ensure compliance with information requests—including the compelling of witnesses and documents”.

It's also a request to give the CORE the absolute minimum powers needed to do its job: the power to compel documents and testimony. These are powers that the Government of Canada's own external legal review, the McIsaac report, which was commissioned by Minister Carr in the spring of 2019—which I hope to table for this committee—confirms are needed and are within the federal government's authority to mandate. That report concludes that the federal government can provide the CORE with these powers and the office's effectiveness would be compromised without them.

It is urgent that communities and workers impacted by Canadian companies operating overseas have access to effective grievance mechanisms in Canada, particularly as there is often nowhere else for them to seek redress for harm.

We hope and expect that the current study at the subcommittee will lead Canada to fulfill its commitments, honour Canada's international human rights obligations, and empower the CORE to independently investigate.

I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions and provide further information now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was right on time. Perfect. Thank you, Ms. Dwyer.

Now we're going to move to members for questions.

We will commence with Ms. Khalid, from the Liberals, for seven minutes.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Ms. Dwyer, for coming today.

You mentioned that the objective that was anticipated by you and many others from this organization, from CORE, and other renditions of it in the past hasn't been achieved. Obviously, this has been quite a long-standing issue as we deal with Canadian corporations going abroad.

What do you think are some of the challenges that the government faces in creating the kind of framework that you've advocated for in the past through the advisory body?

[Emily Dwyer]

What are the challenges the government faces in terms of fulfilling its explicit commitments to give the office the basic minimum powers it needs to investigate? Is that what you're asking? I'm sorry if I didn't entirely understand the question.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'll repeat my question. You mentioned that what you had advocated for over the past number of years has not been fulfilled through what is the current operation and operating mechanism of CORE, as well as any past renditions of a similar kind of framework to address these issues that you've raised in the past. In your opinion, what are some of the challenges that the Government of Canada, no matter which government it is, faces in fulfilling or providing specifically what you're asking for in terms of the mandate for an organization like CORE?

[Emily Dwyer]

It's somewhat difficult for me to answer in the place of government, but I can share with you my observations based on the years of engagement with government, both the previous and the current.

The CNCA published model legislation that provided a blueprint for this office. We commissioned and produced memos, legal memoranda and expert opinion. We helped facilitate—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Sorry, I'm going to cut you off there. I'm specifically asking, as a corporation goes out to perform whatever business it conducts in other states, other countries, specifically what challenges does the Government of Canada have in terms of...? Is there a balance issue between industry and indigenous issues within the frameworks of other countries? Is the issue labour laws within other countries or disputes with labour? What kinds of specific challenges, in your opinion, would a government like the Government of Canada have in establishing that framework with teeth, as you put it?

[Emily Dwyer]

There is a global and international accountability gap when it comes to business and human rights, when it comes to holding companies accountable. Our international framework is based on the obligations of nation-states and doesn't easily apply to corporations. Around the world, host countries where companies are operating sometimes don't have laws that protect human rights or the environment, or those laws aren't enforced vis-à-vis multinational companies.

What is needed is for Canada to take its place in that international accountability triangle to look at holding companies accountable and ensuring that communities have access to remedy here in Canada for the impacts of Canadian companies operating overseas. What is entirely within the Canadian government's authority is to require companies to respect human rights around the world—not simply to expect them to, but to require them to and to create mechanisms that ensure that impacted communities and workers have access to remedy in Canada.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Can you cite or give some examples of other organizations that possess the enforcement powers that you're looking for in CORE?

[Emily Dwyer]

Yes. CNCA's model legislation for an ombudsperson's office was based on the examination of existing ombudspersons' offices across Canada. The powers to compel documents and testimony are the norm in these offices and in analogous offices, things like the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and so on.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Sorry, my apologies. Let me clarify. Is there an international framework or a framework that exists within another country, similar to Canada perhaps, that has a similar kind of office set up for corporate accountability?