Evidence of meeting #11 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was core.
A video is available from Parliament.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I heard that from the interpreter who was speaking to me.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Did the interpreter say it to you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe? I don't know. I didn't hear.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, the interpreter told me so earlier, but everything is okay now.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Clerk, can you just clarify? Are interpreters speaking to members about how they are getting the interpretation?
8 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes. If the sound quality, either due to connection or due to the way the witness is speaking, is too poor for the interpreters to interpret, they will indicate that directly through the interpretation channel.
My suggestion to the witness would be to speak a bit more slowly and clearly. Hopefully, that will allow interpretation to keep up.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You have one minute, Ms. O'Connell.
Ms. Dwyer, I did stop your time.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry. I'd like to finish my question from before being interrupted.
The U.S. has been challenged and has not been able to implement the ability to compel outside of the court system, and even that is in challenge. Can you point to anywhere around the world...that has been able to compel this information, especially outside a judicial setting?
8 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
The Alien Tort Statute decision had nothing to do with the compelling of documents and testimony. It had to do with interpretation of application to business and human rights. That's just to say it's not related to the compelling of documents and testimony.
In terms of the legitimacy of compelling documents and testimony, these are commonplace, normal practices. All of the provincial ombudspersons' offices in Canada, to my knowledge, have this power. Analogous offices across Canada do as well.
One thing to note—
8 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry to interrupt.
To go into another jurisdiction—
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm sorry, Ms. O'Connell.
We have to move to Mr. Chiu now for two minutes.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Kenny Chiu Conservative Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I actually have a question similar to Ms. O'Connell's.
I'm interested to see what the ideal situation would be, given that, unlike other ombudspersons' offices, the CORE would require.... If we are to have full investigative power, we would have jurisdictional conflict with the host countries. For example, we would be required to have the ability to compel documents and witnesses, etc.
How would you respond to that, Ms. Dwyer?
8 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
The power to compel documents and testimony is vis-à-vis the Canadian company, Canadians and documents under Canadian control. This means that an order for production or an order to provide testimony would not be applicable vis-à-vis an overseas company or someone overseas.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Kenny Chiu Conservative Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I understand.
To have a full investigation to see all sides of the picture, you would require access. Therefore, you would need the power to compel documents and also witnesses from perhaps overseas in the host country. Is that correct?
8 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
The Government of Canada could have, on our advice, authorized the ombudsperson to enter into mutual legal assistance agreements and letters rogatory. You can do desk research and site visits, etc.
The power to compel documents and testimony would be vis-à-vis the companies in Canada, which means that there are some circumstances in which an investigation would not be able to be completed if the information that's being looked for is being held exclusively overseas. Having the power to compel documents and testimony vis-à-vis Canadian companies would go a very long way to getting that information.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you.
We're moving over to the Bloc.
We have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two minutes.
8:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
This may be my last comment.
Ms. Dwyer, Ms. Meyerhoffer talked earlier about a portal where human rights abuses would be denounced. However, she was unable to tell us with much conviction about the ability of the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise to give it a broad scope. I don't think it is enough to have a website in Spanish.
Could you give us your opinion on how people should be able to report such abuses to the office?
8:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
You should be able to bring complaints in person, via email or paper, or via partner organizations, etc.
8:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Is this not a glaring problem?
It all often starts with a denunciation. If people are unable to denounce abuse, it will be difficult to conduct an investigation or to examine certain cases in depth.
Don't you think that's one of the problems?
8:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
I have not seen the CORE web portal and how they're expecting to accept complaints, so I can't comment on it specifically. For now, our main concern is that even once you've gotten through the admissibility stage, the office doesn't seem to have powers to really do anything meaningful to respond to impacted communities once they get there.
8:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I understand.
Do you have one last message to share with us in 15 seconds?
8:05 p.m.
Coordinator, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
One of the points I would really like to emphasize is that the Government of Canada's own research, its own external legal review, confirms that it's within the federal government's authority to grant the powers to compel documents and testimony, and that those are needed to be effective.
I will table that report with the committee.