Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 20th, 2021

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reassure the witnesses that Mr. Reid isn't always right, but that's another story.

Mr. Neumann, you touched on this earlier, but I want to follow up on when the government announced that it was creating the role of the ombudsperson. What were your expectations back then? In particular, what did the government promise?

[Ken Neumann]

As I said in my testimony, I was in Ottawa on January 18, 2018. There was a group of us assembled for a celebration because the minister was making an announcement with respect to the ombudsperson which basically was going to enhance in the legislation the powers that we're talking about today. The powers that we have been testifying about would be put in. That's why we happened to be there. We knew this and were invited to partake in it, only to find out sometime later that they didn't follow through on the decision. As I said in my testimony, had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have attended the so-called photo op, as I refer to it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Neumann.

It's important for the committee, but especially for Canadians and Quebeckers, to hear what's happening on the ground. I think you are in the best position to explain it to us, Ms. Cépeda, so I'm going to give you the floor. If there is anything you want to say to the Canadian government, now is the time.

[Aymara León Cépeda]

We believe that justice is not built only on political limits within governments. We believe that justice is built on the contribution of different actors. That is why indigenous organizations are seeking more and more allies in different latitudes of the world so they are able to get the reparation they need.

That is why we insist on having stronger entities, such as the CORE. We also insist that we take it a step further and involve the Canadian government in the reparation of damage that has already been done in this territory. The Canadian government should talk directly with the indigenous organizations, and the workers' organizations in other cases, that have been affected by these companies that are not meeting the standards they would work under if they were in Canada.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have about 45 seconds.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Very good.

Some Canadian companies operating abroad are said not to be respecting Canada's human rights obligations. Could one of you tell me which obligations, specifically, are meant?

Mr. Neumann, can you shed some light on that for me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Ken Neumann]

Doug would probably be more on top of that.

Doug.

[Doug Olthuis]

I think I would refer you again to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which essentially say that companies have a responsibility to respect and that states also have responsibilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we'll transition over to the NDP.

We're going to have Ms. McPherson for about three and a half to four minutes.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to our witnesses this afternoon, or this evening, depending on where you are. I want to continue with the line of questioning I hadn't finished with Ms. Cépeda.

In terms of your putting a proposal or recommending to the impacted communities in Peru that they put forward a proposal, you mentioned that you have not done that and that you wouldn't recommend that. Is there anything else you would like to add to that? I now we cut you off, unfortunately.

[Aymara León Cépeda]

Yes. I was saying that we had looked into the old option of bringing this complaint to the CORE, but we have received information from other cases and also have our own information about how this mechanism is working. It wouldn't provide sufficient investigation for us to feel confident in the use of the CORE to present the report on what is happening in the indigenous communities. We do believe that if the CORE had stronger competencies, we would highly consider this option, but we are looking into having more strategies or avenues whereby we can help the indigenous communities and organizations to have the truth and the justice that they are seeking.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Basically then we have exactly the kind of situation for which the CORE was created and put into place. We have a Canadian company with 90 spills affecting 25 indigenous communities that has not provided an abandonment plan and has not followed through on its obligations to these communities. This is the exact situation, and yet the communities do not want to apply to the CORE because they do not have sufficient powers to compel. Is that correct?

[Aymara León Cépeda]

That is correct and I could not have said it any better.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Just to hammer it home, if the CORE did have the powers to compel testimony and witnesses, would the indigenous communities that are affected by our Canadian oil company put forward a complaint to the CORE?

[Aymara León Cépeda]

One hundred per cent they would, because we believe that what has happened in their territories has to be known by the Canadian government and something must be done about that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. That's very clear and important testimony to hear.

This committee has not had the opportunity to hear enough from impacted communities. We have heard an awful lot from sector representatives. We've heard a lot from other groups, but we haven't had the opportunity to hear as much as I'd like from impacted communities, so thank you very much.

I just have a few seconds left but I wanted very quickly, with this last kick at the can, to underline some testimony we've already received.

Mr. Neumann, you talked about how excited you were about the possibility of the change that the CORE would bring forward and how disappointed you have been since. Do you even think that the CORE provided any change from what we had under the Stephen Harper administration?

[Ken Neumann]

No, they changed the name and they said that they would put together a bit more money. As I said in my testimony, if you have an ineffective office, just adding more money still makes it an ineffective office, and that's exactly what's happened.

Our union has been working on this file. There are some members who I see here. We've been working on this file for quite some time. Yes, the labour movement in particular, our member was there with Hassan Yussuff and some other affiliates that were invited by the minister at the time.

It was a celebration. That's why we all gathered and we were assured those changes were coming forth at some point. I guess the question that we never had answered is what was the change of heart. Why was there change?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Neumann.

That's our time for the first panel.

Witnesses, we want to thank you for your time. We appreciate that you have joined us here and answered the questions.

Just to let everybody know, Mr. Clemente Bautista will be joining us on the second panel. He was supposed to join us on the first panel, but unfortunately, due to technical issues, we were not able to do that, so he will be here on our second panel.

We are going to suspend now, colleagues, for about five minutes as we bring in our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome everybody. We're continuing to meet to hear from witnesses in view of our study on the role of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

For the benefit of our witnesses, I encourage all participants to mute their microphones when they are not speaking and address all comments through the chair.

When you have about 30 seconds left in your questioning time, I'll signal you with a paper. Also, for the benefit of our witnesses, there is a globe icon at the bottom of your screen if you require interpretation in English or French.

Let me introduce the witnesses.

Joining us from the Philippines, we have Mr. Clemente Bautista, who is the international network coordinator at Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment.

We have Mark Agnew, vice-president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

We have Lisa McDonald, executive director, and Jeff Killeen, director, from Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

We have Margareta Dovgal on behalf of the Task Force For Real Jobs, Real Recovery.

On behalf of the Mining Association of Canada, we have president and CEO Pierre Gratton and senior vice-president Ben Chalmers.

I am going to ask our witnesses to make their opening remarks for no more than five minutes. I will hold you to that just because we don't have a whole lot of time and we have quite a few witnesses.

We'll begin with Mr. Bautista.

[Clemente Bautista, International Network Coordinator, Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment]

Good evening. It's my honour to testify before you.

I am Clemente Bautista. I am the international network coordinator for the Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment.

Kalikasan is a leading network in the Philippines working on ecological protection, conservation of resources and defending the rights of people and communities. We have previously received funding from the Canadian government through its Canada fund for local initiatives.

I have been involved in advocacy regarding environmental degradation, human rights violations and environmental justice related to the operation of foreign mining corporations, such as Canadian-owned OceanaGold, TVI Pacific, Placer Dome and B2Gold.

In 2004, indigenous Subanon leaders testified before this committee about the harm they were enduring from TVI Pacific. In its 2005 report, this committee recommended that Canada should develop laws to hold Canadian companies to account for the harm they do overseas.

According to the international organization Global Witness, the Philippines was the most dangerous place for environmental defenders in 2018.

In Kalikasan's 2019 submission to the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, OHCHR, we reported that from 2001 to 2018, at least 225 environmental defenders were killed. The majority of the victims came from rural sectors; 36% were indigenous peoples and 58% were involved in campaigns against large-scale mining projects.

There are other forms of human rights violations, such as red-tagging, which is the practice of state forces classifying individuals as members of rebel groups, such as the New People's Army, NPA, and the Communist Party of the Philippines, CPP, leading to trumped-up charges, warrantless arrests, illegal detention and extrajudicial killings.

Kalikasan and its staff have been red-tagged as a front for the NPA and CPP. During meetings at the Canadian embassy in Manila, we and our partner organizations who are opposing OceanaGold and whose lives were in danger were asked if our local organizations are a front for the rebel groups.

In 2019, police officials threatened to raid our office alleging we were recruiting rebels, because we sheltered indigenous people displaced by mining projects and the militarization in their communities.

How dangerous is this?

In April 2018, human rights and environmental defender Benjamin Ramos was accused of being a CPP member. Months later he was assassinated.

News articles, UN Human Rights Council reports, statements of UN officials and findings by the Philippines Human Rights Commission validate my testimony.

On the human rights and environmental violations of OceanaGold Corporation in the Philippines, our field investigations showed worsening degradation in the mining-affected area, such as water pollution, forest denudation, along with social impacts such as community displacement, land grabbing, militarization and increasing community disputes.

In December 2009, the Philippines Human Rights Commission reported that OceanaGold committed human rights violations in Nueva Vizcaya, particularly the displacement of indigenous peoples.

In February 2017, the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources ordered the suspension of OceanaGold for serious environmental violations.

In December 2018, we submitted to the UN a complaint against OceanaGold. Our concerns were formally relayed by seven UN special rapporteurs to the Philippine government and the company.

Since July 2019, OceanaGold has not had a permit to operate. There has been an ongoing people's barricade since then to oppose the mine reopening. The people are supported by different sectors.

In December 2020, in a letter to President Rodrigo Duterte, Nueva Vizcaya Governor Carlos Padilla, along with the other religious groups, reiterated their opposition to the reopening of the mine.

The call to stop the operation of OceanaGold rings clear and loudly in the Philippines.

On the ombudsperson, it is my understanding that civil society in Canada agrees that the ombudsperson should have investigatory powers to get to the bottom of the facts by being able to compel the company to provide critical documents and testimony.

I hope that this will be immediately realized.

Maraming Salamat po.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. You're right on time, Mr. Bautista.

We'll now move to Mr. Agnew for five minutes.