International Trade Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Emily Dwyer]

I'm pleased to see Ms. Meyerhoffer finally acknowledge that her office doesn't have the tools needed to conduct real investigations.

However, our network found that several years ago. We dealt with the organizations that used to exist in Canada, particularly the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, which was the national contact. We knew that, without those powers, the Office of the CORE could not be effective. That's what the studies by the Canadian government showed, and that's why the United Nations recommended that the Canadian government give the office binding powers of investigation.

It's important for Ms. Meyerhoffer to now demand those powers. Victims should not wait another four or five years for the government to act.

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

Logically, if the Office of the CORE is given more powers, it would become more accessible. Local organizations abroad would refer people to the office, knowing that it could use its binding powers on Canadian mining companies.

[Emily Dwyer]

Yes. Our network has never recommended that anyone not file a complaint. That said, once we've explained what can be achieved through the office, no partner wants to file a complaint against the mining companies.

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

Since its creation, what purpose has the office served, not to mention all the money invested in it? It should serve the purpose for which it was created, should it not? The question must be asked.

[Emily Dwyer]

That's an excellent question.

In our opinion, an effective office should have a budget to conduct investigations. The very purpose of the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise is to ensure that people are not left on their own by mining companies. However, the office has not fulfilled that function to date.

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

It can be said that, for four years, public funds have been outright wasted, without any results. Ultimately, the hardest part is seeing that the victims of human rights violations have no recourse through the office because it has no power, and that all the Canadian mining companies or those that fly a Canadian flag always get away with it. Perfect, I won't expand on that.

The government said that it has enhanced Canada's Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy, created under the Stephen Harper government. Do you share that opinion?

[Emily Dwyer]

In 2014, the CSR strategy was updated to include the withdrawal of trade commissioner supports if companies were implicated in abuses. That is the improvement that we saw in the strategy back in 2014. We still do not feel that it is effective.

As I said earlier, the reliance on voluntary proposals and voluntary mechanisms and the exclusive reliance on mediation means that it's not a strategy that has lived up to its potential. We really should be focused on mechanisms that can actually hold companies to account. We need legislation now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, and thank you, Ms. Dwyer, for being before us here.

In a previous panel, Mr. McKay talked about his bill, Bill S-211, and mentioned that you might have a few things to say about it. I'm going to give you more opportunity to do that.

In discussions about this bill, it seems that NDP efforts to add due diligence parts to the bill would make it something that would really achieve something. Mr. McKay seems to think that would make it too difficult to pass. In other words, the Liberals and Conservatives wouldn't support it.

Could you maybe make that pitch again? Is this something that is happening elsewhere in the world? Are we falling behind? We could be leading on this. It can happen. It really has to happen if this bill is to have the powers that we need to make sure we put an end to slave labour.

[Emily Dwyer]

One of the things I would point to, with all due respect to MP McKay, is the description of Bill S-211. The effect of it that you gave last week, in my view, misrepresents what the impact of the bill would be. The statement that company directors would be required to examine their supply chains and satisfy themselves that there was no forced labour in their supply chains is not borne out by a reading of the legislation.

Bill S-211 would require companies to report each year on any steps they've taken, if they've taken any steps, to identify, mitigate and address forced labour and child labour in their supply chains, but it does not require companies to actually take any steps.

This is a very significant part of the rub for civil society and for impacted people around the world. Having a law that only requires you to report but doesn't require you to stop using child or forced labour and doesn't require you to take any steps to identify the use of child or forced labour and doesn't require you to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Dwyer, please direct your comments to the chair.

[Emily Dwyer]

My apologies, Chair.

What we have seen from other jurisdictions.... For example, I could bring out some quotes from a five-year study of the U.K.'s modern slavery reporting registry. That approach revealed no significant improvements in companies' policies or practices and failed to be an effective driver of corporate action to end forced labour.

In reality, I agree with what was stated earlier, which is that it's not a question of transparency versus due diligence legislation. Both can exist. We believe that Bill S-211 will likely be passed into law. However, I think it is important for members of Parliament to understand clearly what that law would and would not do and to understand that it is absolutely not a replacement for the need for Canada to take meaningful action.

What it would do would be to catch up to a 2015 law in the United Kingdom, where the evidence showed that it did not impact corporate behaviour. Why would Canada replicate that kind of approach when there are other models that are more comprehensive, that fall in line with what the UN guiding principles are asking for and that fall in line with what impacted people around the world are asking for?

When CNCA published its model legislation, 150 organizations and unions representing directly impacted people from 32 countries endorsed our model. I have never heard of any impacted person asking for a law to report only.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you very much.

Switching gears to the responsible business conduct strategy, could you comment further on how effective that is? Have we made it better over the years? It's in its third iteration.

[Emily Dwyer]

As I was saying earlier on the responsible business conduct strategy, one of the pieces brought up previously was around integrity declarations or digital attestations, and that was touted as kind of the hallmark of this responsible business conduct strategy. It's essentially a check box that asks companies to say that they recognize the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and agree to operate effectively.

What's still missing so wantingly from Canada's approach is something that responds to the demands of impacted people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Martel for five minutes, please.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dwyer, last week, we heard from an expert witness who worked for mining companies for over 47 years, in 35 different countries. I would also like to point out that he was independent and in no way benefited from protecting Canada.

He told us that, at the beginning of his career, Canada was a leader in environmental laws. What's your opinion on that?

[Emily Dwyer]

Statistics do not show that Canadian mining companies are better than others around the world.

I can give some statistics. For instance, a study conducted in Latin America by the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project shows that 28 Canadian mining companies were linked to 44 deaths and over 400 injuries between 2000 and 2015.

In addition, studies by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre also revealed that attacks against defenders of human rights and the environment are certainly more dangerous in the mining sector. Those studies were conducted in the past seven years.

In my opinion, the statistics answer that question. However, the issue is not whether Canadian mining companies are better or worse than others. Indeed, there are examples of abuse in all sectors. Unfortunately, we do not have the means to address the issue.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Ms. Dwyer, excuse me, but I have another question for you.

That independent expert nonetheless had experience on the ground. If I understand correctly, you're saying that Canada is almost at the bottom of the list. China and the United States have laws, like Canada, concerning human rights and environmental rights.

Does that mean that China and the United States are better than Canada in this respect?

[Emily Dwyer]

I have not done that comparison, and if that's what it sounded like, no, I was not saying that Canada and the United States have better laws on this plane. I was saying that I don't think there is statistical evidence that Canadian companies are definitive leaders. What is the case is that there are a lot of other countries that are showing leadership in terms of holding companies accountable.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Ms. Dwyer, there are laws in Canada for Canadian mining companies. However, it's much harder to enforce them outside the country, since every country has its own regulations and laws.

If Canadian mining companies want to apply certain things outside the country, the countries in question may not agree, even if it could be dangerous for Canadian mining companies to adopt their standards.

What do you think?

[Emily Dwyer]

There are some really clear examples of this. I'd say first that the United Nations is clear that companies are required to respect human rights around the world and that Canada has international human rights obligations to make sure that third party actors, including companies, respect human rights.

At the same time, Canada is entirely in a position to be able to regulate. One example I would give is the case of Nevsun Resources, which is operating in Eritrea. Sometimes there are difficult decisions that need to be made. This is a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Canadian mining company was obliged, in order to operate in Eritrea, to use slave labour, conscripted labour. If they had done any due diligence, they would have known that.

In some circumstances, companies will need to decide that if you cannot operate in a way that respects basic human rights, maybe you can't operate there, but there are many circumstances in which companies do have a really strong amount of power and leverage to be able to ensure rights are respected, and the notion that it is simply problems with other countries doesn't bear fruit. I would point to another court case—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dwyer. I'm sorry. We're tight for time.

We'll go to Madam Lapointe for five minutes. She will be the last questioner, as we have to do some committee business at 12:45.

Madam Lapointe, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm from Sudbury, which is a major mining hub of Canada, and I will tell you that in Sudbury we saw first-hand what an increase in corporate social responsibility can do when we underwent the now globally recognized regreening of Sudbury.

I'm not a member of this committee, but I want to acknowledge the work of this committee and the work being undertaken with this study. I believe firmly that it is timely as well as necessary.

We have seen increasingly that the world is acknowledging that there is no energy transition without critical minerals. They are the building blocks for the green and the digital economies. Without critical minerals, there are no batteries, there are no electric cars, there are no wind turbines and there are no solar panels. Canada is a global leader on the mining front, so we do have a very important role to play here.

As I come from a mining town, some may assume that I and Ms. Dwyer have opposing views, but I would tell you that isn't the case at all. I listened very attentively to your opening statement, Ms. Dwyer, as well as a lot of the responses you gave. You talked about how Canada's role in the mining sector means that Canada has a particular responsibility to act, and I agree. I think we need to ask ourselves how we can assist Canadian mining firms to identify and mitigate those environmental and human rights abuses that are associated with their mining activities abroad.

Here is my first question for you. You expressed concerns about getting co-operation from the mining sector in Canada. In your opinion, what can the government do to help build that bridge between industry and organizations like the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability?

[Emily Dwyer]

I think I'd like to give a bit of an example.

One is that we look at the situation of the rules for driving, for example. Most drivers are going to respect a stop sign or a stoplight because it's the right thing and they don't want to hurt people around them, but some will need the laws of the road in order to make that happen. We recognize that we can't leave everything to simply doing the right thing because we're asking for the right thing to be done.

I think the same thing applies when it comes to the mining sector abroad. Even if you believe that the vast majority of companies respect human rights, there will always be a need to hold accountable those who are not going to do so of their own volition.

I think, again, the question is not necessarily around how to bring companies and impacted people together. The question that really should be on this committee's mind is how to ensure that Canada is upholding its international human rights obligations to make sure that companies respect human rights and the environment, that the impacted people can access remedy, and that impacted people's rights are respected.

Thank you very much.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Can you tell us what the key areas of focus are for the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, and why these are important for promoting accountability?