Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 20th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.

We go now to Ms. Duncan for up to seven minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all of you for coming to present, and the fellows there in my city of Edmonton for joining us.

If you have looked at the record, you're probably aware that we've received briefs and submissions from other people, and I might refer to those, as well. World Vision, the Canadian Bar Association, and so forth have all submitted very good briefs.

One thing I noted was the great effort taken by the miners and prospectors along with non-governmental organizations to work together and come up with joint proposals for a form. Kudos to you for doing that.

What I really noted was your early submissions and, based on your submissions here today, the abject failure of the government to actually listen to your very sound recommendations. I speak specifically about your recommendations to be consistent with U.S. and European laws. I've taken the opportunity to study those, since this is important because the government is alleging they are doing this to be consistent with our trading partners, to be fair, and to have a level playing field for our Canadian corporations operating here and in other countries.

You may or may not be aware that we have also received a submission from the United States Senate, who seem to be concurring with a lot of the recommendations made today, particularly that project-by-project reporting be publicly accessible and that there be no host company exemptions.

Sadly—and thanks for your analyses on this—if we look at the bill before us, those basic provisions do not appear to be reflected. It is not allowing for, as you recommend, project-by-project reporting. There are broad exceptions and waivers, which the E.U. are very strongly saying they do not want to allow. It's seems very clear, looking at the European and U.S. legislation and at the presentations by the Canadian Bar, by mining and prospectors, and by the non-governmental organizations, that it's very important for the law to require that the information be provided, particularly for the communities adjacent to or centred in these mining or oil and gas activities so they are able to receive the information and so that in fact we do avoid corruption and they can track payments that should be made.

I guess my question to any or all of you is, based on the reforms you're identifying and the inadequacies in the bill, whether you stand by those and whether you would recommend those changes be made before the bill goes forward and is voted on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Ms. Woodside.

[Claire Woodside]

We have been very pleased to see the government take leadership on this issue, and we have played a very important role in the process, and we appreciate the inclusion throughout the process by which this legislation was developed.

But we have pointed here to a few issues that we think could be remedied quite easily, and that would bring Canada up to the global standard.

I think you know Publish What You Pay is a global organization. We represent some of the primary users of this data so the 800 civil society groups in our network are going to be accessing these company reports.

I hear from them all the time as to what they really need. Without the project-level disclosure, if for example some of the countries they live in like Cameroon, which has been put forward as a country from which the oil and gas sector might want an exemption, was to be excluded from the legislation, these are the kinds of things I think would be to the detriment of the purpose of the legislation. This is why we have pointed out these concerns. We stand by the amendments we have put forward. I believe they will strengthen the legislation and bring Canada into alignment without hindering the flexibility that we know industry needs to ensure things like equivalency.

As long as these provisions are in other legislation, and we know they clearly are, we're going to be able to achieve equivalency with other jurisdictions.

Those are the kinds of concerns we hear, and that's what we're expressing here today. It's to make sure this data is used for the purpose of the act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Rather than asking you all to elaborate again what you have already said, I simply need a yes or no. Are you recommending that these amendments are necessary to deliver on sound legislation consistent with the EU and the United States?

[Lina Holguin]

Absolutely, yes.

[Andrew Bauer-Gador]

Yes. We're recommending alignment with the U.S. and EU.

[Ben Chalmers]

Yes. We believe our recommendations are needed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

I have a quick question for the Mining Association. I notice in the bill before you section 10 talks about other jurisdictions, but what's not clear is there's no differentiation between a Canadian jurisdiction such as a province or territory and a foreign government.

Both CAPP and the Mining Association seem to be talking about the ability to claim equivalency with a province or territory for example under CEAA or CEPA . Is that what you're speaking of?

My understanding is that the U.S. and EU do not agree on relying on reporting mechanisms in foreign nations.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

May I add one point here on the issue of equivalency? We have always hoped this would be enabled through provincial securities legislation, but besides Quebec no province has yet committed to doing so. Quebec hasn't done anything yet. They have just said they will.

But we certainly still hope that Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, the three key jurisdictions for mining, will eventually.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So you're speaking of Canadian jurisdictions?

[Pierre Gratton]

It's just one example. We want equivalency with the EU, the U.K., and the United States, but probably more than anything else, when the provinces come on with securities legislation, we would want the federal government to immediately acknowledge that reporting through securities is deemed equivalent. That's why we have certainly strongly recommended the “may” be a “must”.

[Ben Chalmers]

Equivalency is absolutely critical here because essentially this data becomes most relevant, and to Claire's point, most usable when it's reported consistently. If you're dealing with multiple jurisdictions internationally or domestically that have slightly different rules you could end up with different numbers.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To clarify, my question was very simple. Are you talking about the ability to claim equivalency simply with Canadian jurisdictions law, or are you also talking about Mozambique, Nigeria, foreign jurisdictions?

[Ben Chalmers]

It's Canadian provinces, Canadian and international jurisdictions where equivalent laws are in place.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So the law as it stands right now needs to be clarified and perhaps differentiated between foreign jurisdictions and Canadian jurisdictions.

Would you agree with that?

[Ben Chalmers]

No. I don't think so. The equivalency provision in here speaks to other jurisdictions as long as they have mechanisms that are equivalent to this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That includes foreign jurisdictions, so are you recommending that you should be able to claim equivalency and not report under Canadian law?

[Ben Chalmers]

If you are reporting to say the requirement has been established under the European directives and in the U.K., then absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

We go now to Mr. Regan to end the seven-minute round. Go ahead, please, for up to seven minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses.

I hope I get the opportunity today for Ms. Woodside, Mr. Bauer-Gador, and Ms. Holguin to respond to Mr. Chalmers' recommendations in particular, and perhaps also to the CAPP ones. I had a heads-up from a colleague about Mr. Chalmers' recommendations, so I hope we'll hear some responses to see if you're in agreement with those recommendations, or if there are key ones that you disagree with while agreeing with the rest.

That said, let me ask all of the witnesses to briefly respond to what I'm about to propose. Based on the testimony this committee has heard today and Tuesday, it's obvious that divisions 28 and 29 of Bill C-43 need to be modified and strengthened. In light of that clear evidence, there are a number of recommendations for amendments that I will be proposing when we go in camera to discuss what recommendations we should report back to the finance committee. Mind you, I'll be amazed and pleased if my Conservative colleagues agree to change a comma.

I will ask the committee to include the following recommendations and hope that the Conservatives will not kill them when we're in camera. First, with respect to division 28, proposed section 29 provides that the act will apply to aboriginal entities two years after the definitions section of the bill comes into force. I will recommend that this section of division 28 be deleted, given the clear evidence from Mark Pearson—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On a point of order, we have Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, I understand that we will be going in camera at the end of the meeting to discuss any recommendations that this committee may want to bring forward to the finance committee. I'm just wondering why the member feels it necessary to read into the record the recommendations that he will be making at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

What he's doing, Ms. Block, with all respect, is completely in order.

Mr. Regan, you can continue. You can use your time as you choose. It's relevant. Your comments are relevant to the discussion, obviously.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will recommend that proposed section 29 be deleted, given the clear evidence from Mark Pearson that there is absolutely no evidence of corrupt practices in the extractive sector inside Canada. In the absence of any evidence of corruption, one can only surmise that this is a punitive measure.

Secondly, if my Conservative colleagues will not agree to delete proposed section 29, I will recommend that the act not apply to aboriginal entities for a period of not less than five years and that aboriginal governments be included in the development of standards that will apply to them.

Thirdly, with respect to division 28, I will propose that the committee recommend the following change to proposed subsection 9(5), to read as follows: 9(5) The Minister shall specify, in writing, the way in which the payments are to be organized and broken down in the report—including requiring disclosure of

(a) the payee to which each payment has been made and the country of that payee;

(b) the total amount of payments made to each payee;

(c) the total amount per category of payment made to each payee;

(d) where those payments can be attributed to a specific project, the total amount per category of payment made for each such project and the total amount of payments for each such project;

and the form and manner in which a report is to be provided. The Minister is to make those recommendations available to the public, in the manner that he or she considers appropriate.

Fourth, and finally, I will recommend that division 29 be amended to state that the three-year Public Service Superannuation Act provisions will apply to new employees of the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in exactly the same manner as it applies to existing employees.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be interested in hearing comments from witnesses.