Evidence of meeting #14 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 companies.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I still don't understand why you wouldn't add that in. It does feel like you have a whole bunch of reasons why the CORE is good the way it is currently set up, but no real answer for why you wouldn't want to give them further powers to compel witness and testimony.
Minister Ng, have you ever spoken to somebody from a community that's been detrimentally impacted by Canadian mining ?
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I spent some time last year on a mission to Africa. While there, I had an opportunity to speak with non-governmental organizations and the Canadian organizations that are doing some terrific and challenging work on the ground.
I fully appreciate the responsibility that our Canadian companies need to bear and bring to bear when they operate globally [Technical difficulty—Editor] that we uphold those values that are absolutely core to our Canadian values, which are upholding human rights and ethical behaviour.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I guess that means probably you haven't actually spoken to somebody on the ground.
One of my concerns about this particular role is that it seems to me like.... Why isn't it any different than under Harper? Why isn't it any different than “Harper light”, basically?
We had a position. We had an ability. We had an expectation. I'm sure the minister under Stephen Harper also expected Canadian companies to act appropriately. They don't act appropriately. We have facts about that. Your expectations that this will happen don't seem to be based in a historical, factual sort of climate.
I'm just wondering why you would say this is any different. Without the power to compel testimony and witnesses, how is this any different from what Harper put in place? We still had companies that were perpetrating human rights abuses. We still had somebody who couldn't compel documents and witnesses. It seems very similar to me. This seems like “Harper light”.
Show me why it's not.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I totally disagree. The CORE operates at a distance from me. She has a longer term. She is able to initiate investigations. She is absolutely able to in fact do the dispute resolution work with the complainant and with the companies with the view and an objective to create more sustainable, positive behaviour.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Give her the power to compel. That would make it easier for her to do that work.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
As I said, I believe that the CORE has the tools and the instruments she needs. Ms. Meyerhoffer has indicated that. I'm looking forward to her beginning her work. Like any new program, I'm happy to review this, but she is focused on beginning that work. I'm looking forward to and I have every confidence in the work she will be doing.
Liberal
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Since we started eight minutes late, I propose that we divide up the speaking time and give two minutes to each party. We don't often meet with a minister in the committee—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I think we are about three minutes late, so we're going to move on to our second panel, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It was a very short time. There's very little time.
We thank the minister on behalf of all the members. Thank you also to the officials who were here for taking the time to appear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, now we are going to suspend, and within a few minutes we'll start up with our next panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We will get started.
Welcome, everybody, to our second panel on the role of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.
Again, for the benefit of our new witnesses, I'd encourage all participants to mute their microphones when they're not speaking and address all comments through the chair.
For our witnesses, interpretation is available on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen in either English or French.
Also, just to make everybody aware, there are no screen captures or photos permitted during the meeting.
With that, in our second hour we have the following witnesses. From the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, we have Surya Deva, vice-chairperson, working group on business and human rights. Welcome. From Export Development Canada, we have Ms. Lavery, president and chief executive officer. Welcome, Ms. Lavery.
We're going to commence with Mr. Deva. Please proceed with your opening statement. Then we will follow with Ms. Lavery.
Surya Deva Vice-Chairperson, Working Group on Business and Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
Mr. Chair, good evening.
Thank you very much for inviting the UN working group on business and human rights to share views about the role and powers of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, CORE.
The working group has a mandate to promote the effective dissemination and implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We work with the states and other stakeholders to discharge this mandate. If requested, we can provide advice and recommendations regarding the development of domestic legislation and policies relating to business and human rights.
Access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses is an important component of the UN guiding principles. As the working group clarified in its 2017 report to the UN General Assembly, affected rights holders should be able to secure an effective remedy. That means a tangible outcome, not merely access to a remedial mechanism.
While effective judicial mechanisms are at the core of ensuring access to remedy, state-based, non-judicial grievance mechanisms such as the CORE also have an important role to play. However, several conditions should be satisfied to allow the CORE to fulfill this role effectively. The CORE should meet the effectiveness criteria stipulated in principle 31 of the UN guiding principles.
In addition, I will reiterate our recommendation made in the 2018 report on the country visit to Canada. We had recommended that the Canadian government ensure that the CORE:
... is well resourced...so that it can provide effective and timely remedies for and recommendations about complaints.... have total independence from government, undertake meaningful investigations and have investigatory powers to summon witnesses and compel stakeholders to produce documents...to fully address human rights abuses.
That recommendation, made three years back, is very much relevant even today. Moreover, the mandate of the CORE should not overlap significantly with other non-judicial grievance mechanisms such as Canada's national contact point.
For example, if the CORE mostly adopted collaborative approaches of facilitating dialogue and mediation, it might end up duplicating what the national contact point should be doing.
I also think the CORE should not have the mandate to advise Canadian companies, because this may create a potential conflict of interest if it were to deal with complaints against these very same companies. In short, if a core objective of the CORE were to provide effective remedies and hold Canadian companies accountable for their overseas human rights abuses, it would need more powers to fulfill this objective. The CORE should have the power to investigate, power to compel documents and testimony, and the power to enforce its recommendations against companies. With such powers, the CORE would not only be able to remediate, but also prevent human rights abuses linked to overseas operations of Canadian companies.
I will also take this opportunity to encourage the Canadian government to develop a national action plan on business and human rights similar to the regulatory initiatives unfolding in Europe. It should enact a comprehensive, mandatory human rights due diligence legislation governing business activities, both inside and outside Canada. Only then would Canada be able to claim rightfully global leadership in promoting business respect for human rights.
I look forward to our dialogue today. The working group also welcomes further opportunities to engage the Government of Canada, as well as the CORE, in promoting responsible business conduct in line with the UN guiding principles.
Thank you very much.
Mairead Lavery President and Chief Executive Officer, Export Development Canada
Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for your invitation.
The focus of your conversation concerns the role and powers of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. I welcome this opportunity to provide additional context for the larger discussion that is the intersection between the promotion of Canadian international business and the protection of global human rights.
For the last several years, the company I lead, Export Development Canada, EDC, has been guided by an agenda that puts the pursuit of sustainable, responsible, progressive and inclusive trade at the centre of its business operations. This agenda is built on a foundation of policies that deliver clarity and accountability in three key areas: environmental sustainability, business ethics and transparency, and, of course, the protection of human rights wherever EDC’s customers do business. This foundation is aligned with the best practices and highest standards of business today, but more importantly, I believe, it is aligned with the expectations of Canadians everywhere. It is also, of course, the right thing to do.
Before I go too deeply into EDC’s history and approach on human rights, it may be useful to provide committee members with a brief primer on EDC’s role and mandate. EDC is a Crown corporation dedicated to helping Canadian companies succeed on the world stage. As international risk experts, we equip companies of all sizes and in all sectors of the economy with the tools they need to grow their businesses with confidence, using a wide variety of solutions from advisory services to financing and insurance offerings.
In 2020, EDC facilitated over $102 billion in business for more than 24,000 Canadian companies, about 70% of which were small and medium-sized businesses. Along with these activities, in 2020, EDC took on an additional domestic role, helping with the Government of Canada’s pandemic economic relief efforts.
This is not the place, nor is there time, to go into all our activities in these extraordinary circumstances last year. I will simply say that, pandemic or not, underlying all of EDC’s solutions and support is a belief in sustainable and responsible business practices. Central to this is our commitment to human rights.
Getting to this point has not been a straightforward journey. There have been many important and sometimes difficult lessons about the kind of impact that international business can have when not managed with appropriate oversight and due diligence, but straightforward or not, it is a journey EDC is committed to and one that continues today.
Our first statement on human rights was released in 2008, and since then, we have made consistent efforts to improve our performance in lockstep with evolving best practices and the highest of international standards, including those of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights.
By 2019, EDC had become Canada’s first commercial financial institution to release a dedicated, board-approved human rights policy. This policy outlines the principles that guide our internal decision-making related to our customer relationships and our transactions. It also underscores our intention to use our leverage for the purposes of influencing our customers and enabling remediation in those instances where there is evidence of severe human rights risks and impacts. Today we continue to work to develop the due diligence tools that will help us implement these leverage and remedy commitments.
The intersection between human rights and international business is an area of tremendous complexity and increasing public scrutiny. EDC understands the complexity and welcomes the scrutiny. When and where we have fallen short, we believe in accepting responsibility and finding ways to do better. That is our promise.
Given the nature of our mandate, there will always be risks. The key is being alert to these risks and addressing [Technical difficulty--Editor]. Any initiative that supports this objective is one that EDC welcomes. I believe the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible business is such an initiative.
Indeed, embedded within our 2019 human rights policy there is already a commitment to take steps to co-operate with the efforts of CORE, and while it is still early days, we look forward to working with the office. I am hopeful that this new body can contribute to our shared goal of managing the risks and challenges of international trade both for the sake and success of Canadian companies and for better outcomes for people and markets around the world where those companies do business.
Thank you for your attention.
I'll be pleased to answer your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Ms. Lavery and Mr. Deva.
Now we are going to proceed to the members for questions. We are going to start off with seven minutes with the Honourable John McKay from the Liberal Party.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have two questions, the first is to Mr. Deva.
I take it your evidence is that you can't have the ability to both compel testimony and evidence, impose sanctions, and simultaneously be an adviser, facilitator, mediator and do, if you will, the softer functions. Essentially it's the difference between a judge and a person who is a mediator.
Am I interpreting your evidence correctly?
Vice-Chairperson, Working Group on Business and Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
Mr. Chair, I have two points of clarification.
First of all, I was suggesting that the CORE should not duplicate what the NCP does in Canada, which is mediation. There is not much purpose in giving the mediation power to CORE, because that function is already done by the national contact point in Canada.
My second point is that one of the mandates of the CORE is advising companies. If the CORE advises, let us say company X, to do A, B, C, and then the CORE receives a complaint against the same company, this may raise a potential conflict of interest. That advising should be differentiated from CORE providing generic guidance to businesses on how they should respect human rights. That is different. If they are advising specific companies to do A, B, C, that will definitely raise, in my view, a potential conflict of interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you.
I'd now like to turn to EDC.
When I started with Bill C-300, I remember distinctly an interview with your predecessors. The core point they were making—not to pun that—is that EDC had a robust corporate social responsibility approach and that this was a redundancy that was unnecessary and we were already doing it. Apparently the views have changed over time and now you're looking forward to working with the CORE person.
The question I have is with respect to the extent of your examination of supply chain slavery. In particular, you lend a lot of money to a lot of very high-profile companies. I would like to know what certification EDC obtains from those potential recipients of government-backed funding that they have examined their supply chain and they are satisfied that the supply chain is free of slave elements.