International Trade Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

To CORE, we had some concerns raised by a witness who referenced two companies under investigation by your office, but this study is about mining firms abroad. By a little bit of further research, we learned that they have may have been involved in the garment industry. I don't know if you followed what happened at committee. Are there any investigations about mining companies right now with CORE, or is it just with respect to garment companies, likely in the Xinjiang region?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

We currently have 15 complaints with the CORE. There are 13 in the Xinjiang region, and two of those are mining companies. One of the mining companies is actively involved, and we're at the initial assessment stage of our process. One of the others has not responded to the complaint.

With regard to the one that's engaged, we are in the process of determining how we could work with them and the complainant to resolve the issues that are set out in the complaint, and we will decide at the end of the initial assessment whether we will be doing a mediation review for early resolution, and we'll be reporting on that.

With respect to the company that has not responded, we will be reporting at the end of our initial assessment the fact that they have not responded.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Just to be clear, did you say 13 of the 15 complaints are in the garment industry?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

That's right.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. McKay, you have six minutes, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll direct most of my questions to the CORE representative, Ms. Meyerhoffer.

It's good to see you again.

As you know, Bill S-211 is on the docket for March 6 for report stage and third reading. It's gone through the Senate, and it had a unanimous vote in the House. Then it went through the foreign affairs committee, and now it's back on the floor of the House. The witness who will follow you will say that it would be better if parliamentarians voted against this bill as it is counterproductive to the, quote, “momentum” around due diligence.

As my first question, given the resolution of your organization that Bill S-211 should pass as quickly as possible, what would you say to anyone, let alone the witness who will follow you, that Bill S-211 should not see the light of day?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

I want to start by stating that strong supply chain legislation is critical for preventing and addressing human rights abuses in global supply chains and ensuring that Canada remains competitive. I believe—my office believes—that Bill S-211 is a first step forward in strengthening respect for human rights by Canadian companies operating abroad. We support any efforts to strengthen supply chain transparency.

As you know, we believe that Bill S-211 can be strengthened. We submitted a brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights during its deliberations, and we suggested four ways to strengthen it. Those were to add fighting labour trafficking, to add the ability to make regulations identifying thresholds, to make reporting requirements more detailed and to strengthen oversight, including through independent audits and annual reports.

You can find our brief on Bill S-211 on our website, but to summarize, we support the legislation. We believe that it can be strengthened. We said in our brief that strengthening can happen through regulation. No law is perfect.

I think I'll stop there.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You didn't have to stop there, but you can.

The argument on the other side is that they prefer due diligence legislation. There are only two countries that have due diligence legislation, Germany and France. The French are still fiddling around with their due diligence legislation. In fact, there's a report that says that the law is still very poorly applied. Some of the companies they'd hoped to get involved haven't even bothered filing a vigilance plan.

In the event that Bill S-211 does apply, what regulations do you think the government could attach to the bill that would move us a little bit further along towards what everyone would agree is an aspiration?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

Thanks for that question.

I just want to say that in the CORE's mind, in my mind, it's not an either-or of transparency legislation or human rights and environmental due diligence. They both serve a purpose, so I think they both have merit.

With respect to regulations, what we can look at is that the different sectors need to be treated differently, with maybe different thresholds within those sectors. Some sectors have more complex and longer supply chains. There are different situations for each sector that need to be, and we think can be, and should be, addressed through legislation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay. Basically, we're talking about what's reality and on the table and passable in this Parliament versus aspirational at this point.

I want to move from that point to your current mandate as it's set out. There are those who argue, me among them, that you should have the authority to compel documents and compel persons to give testimony before you. Has the lack of that authority hampered your ability to conduct your office?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

I'll go back to what I said when I responded about the complaints.

We now have some complaints that have come into the CORE. We are dealing with them. Some companies have refused to participate in our process. Having the power to compel witnesses and documents would provide my office with the powers needed to require company participation and avoid the need for human rights allegations to go to courts, a process that is less accessible and is expensive.

I think we have some indication now that not all companies are going to engage. The only way we could move forward and do a true, thorough job would be to have those powers. With others, I'll reiterate that our hope is that in most cases, and we're experiencing that now, we are able to work in a co-operative and productive manner with companies to address the issue, but that's not every situation, and we already have evidence of that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is first for the representatives from EDC.

Do you count on the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise to help you know if your organization is funding mining companies that have violated human rights?

[Rachel Guthrie]

Thank you very much for the questions.

I can't get into hypotheticals, but we do take responsible business and human rights very seriously here at EDC. If CORE were to have concerns about a company, we would definitely want to hear about them. Our due diligence process doesn't end at signing. We would want to learn more about the situation.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll now turn to the representative from the Office of the CORE.

How long has the office existed?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

Thank you for the question.

I opened the office door on May 1, 2019. We are just closing in to the end of the fourth year.

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

In four years, how many Canadian mining companies have been convicted of human rights violations as a result of your work?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

As stated previously, out of 15 admissible complaints that we have right now, two of them are with respect to mining companies.

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

It is my understanding that no Canadian mining companies have been convicted as a result of your work.

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

No, not to date.

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

Take the hypothetical case of a Canadian mining company that flies the Canadian flag. Let's say it does business in the far reaches of Colombia and commits human rights violations against an indigenous population in that country.

What are the chances, in your opinion, that the victims of those violations would even know that your office exists?

[Sheri Meyerhoffer]

Thank you for raising that question. Why do we not have more complaints on mining companies coming to the CORE, given that we know it has a large footprint?

We've heard from other people who have testified that there are a lot of situations out there that acquire attention and redress. I don't know all of the answers, but as we all know, there are a number of situations that are going directly to the court. That's one reason.

We also heard testimony that because we lack the powers to compel, civil society organizations are not recommending to those they work with to bring their situation to the CORE for dispute resolution.

Third, as you've mentioned, I think it's a lack of awareness that we exist. That is something that the CORE is working very diligently on, because that indeed is one reason that we may not have seen them.

Thank you for that raising that point.

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

What I understand is that, to file a complaint, the person has to go to your website.

In the hypothetical situation I just cited, the indigenous residents in the far reaches of Colombia whose rights are violated should go to your website if they want to file a complaint.

What you're telling me is that it's almost impossible that that would happen.

Regardless, they are not even directed to your website. I gather, then, that the website and the financial resources the Government of Canada has put towards it are wasted.