Evidence of meeting #49 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was core.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:03 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting back to order.
With us today on the second panel, from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, we have Emily Dwyer, policy director.
Ms. Dwyer, welcome to our committee. I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, followed by a round of questions from the members.
The floor is yours.
12:03 p.m.
Emily Dwyer Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Good afternoon, Chair and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you very much for the invitation to be here, and for your interest in studying this vital issue.
We are thankful that Parliament takes this issue seriously and we urge it to quickly address the many reports of human rights violations linked to mining activities abroad.
My name is Emily Dwyer. I'm the policy director at the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, CNCA.
Founded in 2005, the CNCA unites 40 member organizations and unions from diverse sectors. They collectively represent the voices of millions of Canadians. Our members are located across the country and have long-standing relationships with workers, women and indigenous peoples in every corner of the world.
I work from the unceded and traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
What I can tell you in no uncertain terms is that the mining sector is linked to serious risks of human rights abuse and environmental harm. To illustrate, John Ruggie, author of the UN's “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”, reported to the UN Human Rights Council that “The extractive sector is unique because no other has so enormous and intrusive a social and environmental footprint.”
In addition, for the past seven years, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has reported on attacks on human rights defenders and it has consistently documented that mining is the most dangerous sector for people who work to protect human rights.
These facts are particularly relevant given Canada's outsized share of the global mining sector. According to Natural Resources Canada, around half of the world's mining companies are headquartered in Canada, and Canadian-based companies are present in 97 foreign countries. As a result, we have a particular responsibility to act.
To be clear, I am not here to argue that all mining is bad. I am also not here to argue that all mining is good. What I am here to demonstrate is that Canada's approach to Canadian mining abroad is flawed. It is an approach that is based on voluntary oversight. What mining companies do is almost entirely based on their own goodwill, benevolence and their bottom line, without real rules requiring companies to respect human rights and no real consequences if companies are involved in harm-causing behaviour.
Canada's approach therefore allows companies to get away with serious human rights abuses, and it ignores the very real impacts on a large number of people around the world. The kinds of abuses we're talking about are serious. They 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.
For years, our network, along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians, organizations from diverse sectors, impacted people from around the world and multiple UN bodies, has called on Canada to implement effective mechanisms to prevent and remedy Canadian corporate human rights abuses abroad, particularly in the mining sector. Other advanced economies are increasingly recognizing that meaningful measures to address corporate malfeasance are essential to long-term prosperity and sustainability. There is growing momentum towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence laws that require companies to respect human rights and the environment. Canada should join this race to the top.
Our network is urging the Minister of Labour to move swiftly to deliver on his mandate letter commitment to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains” and ensure that companies don't contribute to human rights abuses abroad.
To be effective, Canada needs a law that goes beyond a basic reporting requirement and includes these three key elements: The law should require companies to prevent harm rather than focusing on reporting; it should help impacted people to access remedy; and it should apply to all human rights.
Unfortunately, modern slavery reporting Bill S-211, which will soon come before Parliament, will not help to address corporate abuse nor help Canada catch up with legal trends in other advanced economies.
As a final comment, we note the absence of directly impacted people on the witness list for this study. We would encourage this committee to expand the number of hearings so that MPs could hear directly from impacted communities and workers. We would be happy to facilitate that.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to responding to your questions.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Ms. Dwyer.
We will go on to Mr. Carrie for six minutes, please.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witness for her testimony.
This has been a very insightful study, and I'm looking forward to seeing the report.
One thing you mentioned in your testimony was that Canada's approach is flawed. We've had other witnesses in front of us basically admitting that it's flawed and it's not perfect, but when we compare our approach relative to other countries around the world, we see there are still ways in which Canada is leading.
In order to educate committee members here, I am wondering which countries around the world do it better than Canada. Are there any other countries that have an organization like CORE—that mechanism? Could you enlighten us as to what other countries are doing for best practices?
12:05 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Sure.
We have testified to this aspect and submitted this to the Government of Canada and to the CORE's office itself. Without the power to compel documents and testimony, the CORE is not very different from the offices that already existed in Canada.
A national contact point is a requirement in all OECD countries and we've had one in Canada since 2002. It has the ability to receive complaints, offer mediation and report publicly. What would have distinguished the CORE and made it the first of its kind in the world are those robust investigatory powers that exist in other ombudspersons' offices in Canada.
What we're seeing around the world in terms of best practice is momentum towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. There are the French and the German laws. There are also laws that are expected to cover the entire European Union before the end of this year. There have been several other national proposals around the world.
This is what the United Nations is calling on Canada to do and what the UN guiding principles really are expecting of the Canadian government. It is to put in place mechanisms to ensure that companies are required to respect human rights and to ensure that people can access remedy.
I think the notion that Canada is somehow a leader when it comes to business and human rights is not something that could be substantiated by the facts.
Surya Deva, former chair of the UN working group on business and human rights, testified before the Senate when it was studying Bill S-211. He was quite clear that if Canada wants to be a leader in business and human rights, it should empower the CORE with the powers to independently investigate and it should pass comprehensive human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.
Mr. Deva also testified in that committee that he was very surprised that Canada would be trying to replicate models in the U.K. that were established to be failures, that have not changed corporate practice and that are not catching up to global practice, which is towards human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you for that.
My question was, though, who specifically is doing it better right now? You mentioned the idea of what the United Nations and other organizations would like.
When you're dealing with mining, my understanding is you're either going to have a Canadian company develop these resources in these countries or you're going to have the U.K., the U.S. or China, for example. If you compare Canada's record with Chinese companies, for example, you see that the reality is that they're operating around the world.
Could you point us to countries that are doing things better than Canada right now, or are we just getting there now, as a world?
12:10 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
I will point out that I do have a bit of a hearing issue. I'm having a lot of trouble actually hearing you. The mikes don't provide very much echo, so if you are able to, could you speak a bit louder in your next question so that I could make sure I hear you properly? If I'm not answering your question correctly, let me know.
Are you asking whether mining companies in other countries do better than Canada or...?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
When countries—the big ones like the U.K., the U.S.A. or China—go out in the world and mine in different countries, they have domestic laws that govern their companies...or do they in any way whatsoever? Could you point to a specific country that does do it better than Canada?
You mentioned the United Nations. There are all kinds of things that we and other countries should be doing. Are there countries out there right now that are actually doing things that you would say—
12:10 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Do you mean in terms of regulating companies? Yes. There are several examples across Europe.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
There are France and Germany.
The Netherlands has an advanced proposal. It has a child labour due diligence law on the books and it's planning to expand that to other sectors.
Across the European Union there are regulations. The United States has a ban on the import of goods from the Xinjiang region. It has a ban on the import of goods made with forced labour that is actually enforced.
There are quite a few examples of other jurisdictions that are quite seriously working to ensure that corporations are respecting human rights and to ensure that it is substantiated in the legislation in their jurisdictions.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Do you have ideas for companies?
Very briefly, one of our witnesses said that sometimes you have local governments that are corrupt and that you have to deal within that situation. Sometimes, for security reasons, they may not be able to guarantee the security of their workers and things like that.
How does a company going into a foreign country whose rules and regulations are very different from Canada's consolidate how they do things with best practices if the local governance isn't supportive of those things?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Ms. Dwyer, I'm sorry. You're going to have to try to answer that question while you're responding to one of the other members, possibly.
Go ahead, Mr. Sheehan, please, for six minutes.
February 13th, 2023 / 12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Thank you very much to our presenter for your passion and commitment to these very important subjects.
Previously we were talking a lot about what's happening internationally.
Can you discuss the role of Canadian laws and policies in promoting corporate accountability for human rights? Can you delve into that for us?
12:15 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Do you mean existing Canadian laws and policies on human rights?
12:15 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Canada has a responsible business conduct strategy that was developed and first came out as a CSR strategy in 2009. It was updated in 2014 and again in 2022.
It primarily is an approach based on advising companies on how to manage risks involving voluntary guidelines and the possibility of offering mediation. That kind of sums up the approach in the responsible business conduct strategy. There's more there, but the essence of it is around providing guidance and advice to companies and having non-judicial mechanisms that can potentially offer mediation to people who are harmed.
What's notably absent is any binding legislation that articulates that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and the environment and that they need to take any steps to prevent human rights and environmental violations from occurring in Canadian supply chains or help people who are harmed to access remedy.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Continuing down this path, can you speak to the CNCA's approach to engaging with corporations and encouraging them to respect human rights?
12:15 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Our network is a network of 40 organizations and unions from across the country. We work together to advance respect for human rights by corporations. We do that through education, engagement with decision-makers and developing detailed law and policy reform proposals.
Our network has engaged with companies and industry associations in the past. We don't do that as a centre point of our work as a network, although some of our members do. That's partly due to a lack of resources and partly to the fact that those efforts did not lead to an impact in terms of getting information from the Mining Association of Canada and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada on what kind of mechanism outside of industry control they would support. We couldn't get information or support about that.
Our focus is really on engaging with people who are impacted, studying best practices around the world and helping to ensure that the Canadian response lives up to Canada's international human rights obligations.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
What would be your future plans and goals for promoting accountability with Canadian mining companies that operate abroad? What would your focus be on that?
Obviously, we've heard your testimony. Part of it is encouraging. Due diligence legislation is in the Minister of Labour's mandate letter. It's also in three other mandate letters, as you well know. We are certainly taking a look at how to further strengthen legislation as well.
If you want to talk about your group's plans for the future, that would be helpful for us.
12:20 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Our focus right now is advancing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in Canada. As you rightly pointed out, several ministers have been mandated to advance legislation to eradicate forced labour and to make sure that Canadian companies are not involved in supporting or contributing to other human rights abuses when operating abroad. That is certainly our main focus, and we do think that it's an opportunity for Canada.
It's different from when we were advocating the creation of an ombudsperson. We were advocating something that would be the first of its kind in the world. MHREDD legislation is something that is emerging. There is growing momentum around the world, and there's a real opportunity for Canada to catch up. There is also opportunity for Canada to lead there. There are examples of really strong laws, and there is also space for Canada to show leadership if it wants to go further than the EU examples out there.
In addition to due diligence legislation, we continue to advocate that the CORE ombudsperson's office should have the powers that were originally promised and that the office needs, and that the Government of Canada recognizes are needed for the office to be effective. That's what the Government of Canada's expert report uncovered.
In addition to that, we think Canada's responsible business conduct strategy approach should be shifted.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Ms. Dwyer.
We go now to Mr. Duceppe.
Go ahead for six minutes, please.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Dwyer, thank you for being here. Welcome to the committee.
Is there a strong likelihood that, through EDC, Canadian taxpayer money funded Canadian mining companies that committed human rights violations abroad?
12:20 p.m.
Policy Director, Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
I can give you the example of our member Above Ground. There is an entire website, Out from the Shadows, that details EDC's practices and the need for tighter regulations.
In particular, that organization has a document that sets out eight cases in which EDC funding was granted to mining companies accused of human rights violations. That includes SNC-Lavalin, Teck Resources, Kinross Gold, Bombardier and the Gupta family.
I could forward the document to you.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
That would be good.
Earlier, the representative from the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, or CORE, Ms. Meyerhoffer, told us that she was proud that the CORE was a world leader in defending human rights. However, the office has only dealt with two complaints about Canadian mining companies since its creation. There are no results, and victims have difficulty accessing the CORE.
How can we say that we're proud of the CORE right now?