David Anderson

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that I had the chance to work with the minister in Natural Resources. Once again tonight I hear him coming back to some of the things for which he was responsible, looking after the forestry across the country.

We know there have been global economic challenges, and Canada has faced them head on. We have been a leader over the last several years. I am often surprised. Opposition members probably should be praising us for what we have done. Too often they fail to do that or they are too embarrassed to do that.

Could the minister to tell us a bit about how Canada's economy is leading the way, leading the economic recovery, and how it is putting us in an enviable position?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, it is good to be here tonight and to be able to discuss some of these issues. I have been sitting here for quite some time listening to the debate.

I guess I am surprised. I thought that the NDP would have come with some positive suggestions, but again tonight it accuses us of ragging the puck. However, what we have seen is the NDP ragging the puck. It basically has no positive contribution to present at all. It is just criticism, as usual. It is always critical, never constructive. Those of us who have had to sit through NDP regimes know how damaging and destructive it is whenever it gets a chance to put any of its policies into place. It is because of the NDP's failed policies that some of us have seen our province fall decades behind others, so I understand why it would not want to present them here tonight.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee. In my time today, I would like to focus on the important contribution that natural resources, forestry, and agriculture make to the Canadian economy.

They are a pillar of our Conservative government's action plan. These sectors create jobs and prosperity, particularly in rural communities across the country.

Consider, for example, Canada's natural resource sector. The sector represents 18% of the economy and over half of our exports. It supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly. Furthermore, it generates about $30 billion annually in revenue to governments, equal to approximately half of all spending, for example, on hospitals in Canada in 2013.

There are hundreds of natural resource projects under way or planned in Canada over the next 10 years, representing a total potential investment of $650 billion. A significant element of this economic boost is represented by Canada's unique oil sands industry, and this sector is an asset that will increasingly contribute to the prosperity of all Canadians.

The oil sands are among the world's largest technology projects, contributing about 275,000 jobs across Canada and $48 billion in GDP, numbers that could grow to an average of 630,000 jobs and a contribution of $113 billion in GDP per year up to 2035. This is owing to an increase in global demand for resources, particularly from emerging economies.

Increasing global demand for resources such as oil, particularly from those economies, will create new economic and job opportunities from which all Canadians will ultimately benefit. However, Canadians will only reap the benefits that come from our natural resources once investments are made by the private sector to bring those much-needed resources to market. Approval processes can often be long and unpredictable. Delays and red tape often plague projects that pose few environmental risks. That is why our government has worked hard since 2006 to streamline and improve the regulatory process at the same time as it is safeguarding our environment.

A modern regulatory system should support progress on economically viable major projects and sustain Canada's reputation as an attractive place to invest. That is why, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we are modernizing the federal regulatory system. We would establish clear timelines, reduce duplication and regulatory burdens, and focus resources on large projects with the greatest potential environmental impacts. For example, we would implement system-wide improvements to achieve that goal of one project, one review within clearly defined time periods.

We have invested $54 million over two years to support more effective project approvals through the major project management office initiative.

In the most recent budget, we supported the National Energy Board by announcing $28 million over two years for the comprehensive and timely reviews of applications and to support participant funding programs, and we would eliminate tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

We also announced an extension of the mineral exploration tax credit until March 31, 2015. This credit helps junior exploration companies raise capital by providing an incentive to individuals who invest in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration. The credit is in addition to the regular deduction provided for the exploration expenses flowed through from the issuing company. Since 2006, this measure has helped junior mining companies raise over $5 billion for exploration.

Our Conservative government has also amended the Coasting Trade Act to improve access to modern, reliable seismic data for offshore resource development. Offshore oil and gas developments create jobs and support economic growth in Canada's communities. Continued exploration activity is required to bring new projects to communities and sustain these economic benefits over the long term.

However, it depends on modern, reliable seismic technology and data, which is why amending the act would ensure companies have the information they would need to identify potential resource development opportunities.

In addition to supporting responsible resource development, we must not forget the important contribution our forestry sector makes to our country as well. Canada's forestry sector directly employs over 200,000 workers in all regions of the country, including in 200 communities that rely on the sector for at least 50% of their economic base. Our government has helped this vital industry stay strong. The investments in the forest industry transformation program introduced in budget 2010 have been very successful in enabling Canadian forest companies to lead the world in developing and demonstrating the viability of innovative technologies that improve efficiency, that reduce environmental impacts and that create high-value products from Canada's world-class forest resources.

Through programs like IFIT, we have seen an over 1,000% increase in exports to China, which has helped this sector weather the economic downturn in the United States. For example, IFIT provided support to the Tolko Industries mill in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan to develop the first facility in North America to use innovative technology to boost productivity by enabling the production of different types of oriented strand board on one single production line. Economic action plan 2014 will provide $90.4 million over four years, starting in 2014-15 to renew the IFIT program. Our government will continue to work with the forestry sector as it invests in innovative new products and pursues new markets for Canadian forest products.

Finally, the last topic I would like to highlight is our support for the agriculture and agri-food sector. This sector accounts for $100 billion in economic activity and provides employment to over 2.1 million Canadians. It is a sector that we continue to support. Since 2007, we have partnered with federal, provincial and territorial governments. We have partnered with producers through a suite of business risk management programs, including agri-stability, agri-insurance, agri-invest and agri-recovery to provide assistance to producers in cases of severe market volatility and disasters. In addition, federal, provincial and territorial governments invested substantial amounts, actually over $2 billion during the first growing forward agricultural policy framework, to promote competitiveness and innovation, to promote food safety and environmentally responsible farming practices.

In April 2013, working with the provinces, we introduced the new growing forward 2 policy framework, which will provide more than $3 billion over the next five years for investments, innovation, competitiveness and market development.

In February, through economic action plan 2014, we announced the expansion of the types of farming livestock that qualified for tax deferral on sale by farmers dealing with drought or with excess moisture conditions.

Since 2006, our government has continued to create the right conditions to enable Canadians and Canadian businesses to feel confident to invest, to create jobs, to participate in the global marketplace and to grow our economy. The role of government is to put in place the right balance of policies and initiatives to support growth and to unleash potential. That is exactly what we are doing. We believe it is the ingenuity and creativity of individual Canadians that will create lasting economic growth in jobs in their communities and across the country.

Considering the importance of this sector, I would like to ask the minister a question. What recent measures has the government introduced to support the mining, forestry and agriculture sectors in Canada?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I am listening this morning I am reminded that some of us are far more aware than others in this country of the havoc that the policies of the New Democrats continually wreak when they get a chance to implement them. Once again this morning we hear them being completely out of reality. I would argue that they are once again demonstrating that they do not have the capacity to govern responsibly.

On Wednesday, their aboriginal critic stated that they are opposing this bill. This is a bill that is aimed at lifting on-reserve high school graduation rates, which are less than half of those in the rest of Canada. Certainly, any reasonable Canadian cannot possibly agree that the status quo is acceptable or sustainable. I do not think we can do that.

Our government has brought forward a bill that would finally address this issue. It would give first nations control over their education, and it addresses the five conditions that the chiefs laid out in their special assembly in Vancouver, yet every step of the way the NDP members have chosen to oppose this bill.

I want to ask the opposition this. Why do they continue to support the status quo? How will they explain that to this next generation of first nations students who are trying to get through school?

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, one of the challenges here is trying to deal with the short term, prior to dealing with the medium and long term. We have made our commitments, as the member mentioned. We have also made additional commitments, but we are also finding ourselves in the situation where there may be a huge food shortage in the short term; so it makes it very difficult in this situation to try to begin to address the longer-term challenges that the country of South Sudan has, when the crisis and the conflict is causing so many larger short-term problems as well.

As the member pointed out, we have made a commitment of $25 million to our humanitarian partners. I mentioned some of those partners a few minutes ago. Those are folks who are already operating on the ground. That is emergency assistance, but beyond that we have also provided another $50 million to help them address some of the longer-term food security and livelihood needs, which we anticipate and hope will begin to alleviate that potential problem of food shortages over this summer.

We are trying to deal with this on a number of levels: deal with the short term, deal with the medium term, but then also take a look at the longer term and ask how we can contribute in the best way to the institutional strength of South Sudan, so that when this immediate emergency is over, it will be stronger and able to move on from there.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, we have an obligation to try to do what we can. I would back up one step before that, and this was addressed in the last question as well. That is the necessity to try to find some sort of a short- and medium-term solution and cessation of hostilities as best we can, so we can begin to put in place some of the institutions that need to be in place if we are going to bring education and health care to the population of South Sudan. We know this is a huge challenge.

One of the things we are trying to do is work with international organizations and agencies, which can provide some of that stability. We have partnered with a number of international partners such as the Canadian Red Cross. World University Services is one of those institutions that would be certainly geared toward trying to find educational opportunities and development. The University of Calgary, from western Canada, is involved with us in partnerships as well and World Vision Canada. Those are a few of the organizations that the Government of Canada is already partnered with in order to try to bring some peace and stability, some of the educational opportunities, and also some of the health provisions that the people in that area so desperately need.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, my colleague opposite is well aware of some of the causes of the conflict in South Sudan and how some of the roots of this go back many years and are deep seated between particular people. She is wise to suggest that we need to take a look at the longer term as well, trying to find what we can do to make sure that, when there is a resolution to this, it is a long-term resolution.

We all want South Sudan to succeed. South Sudan has been established because there was a desire that the people of South Sudan would finally have peace, would have the kind of governance they deserve, and would have the institutional strength and capacity to begin to participate in the world economy.

There are a few things we need to do.

One issue is that every person in South Sudan needs to have some opportunity to participate in and to influence the direction of the nation. That is a big statement to make, but certainly when we feel we have an equal share and are participating in our country we are far more likely to get involved in trying to solve the problems we have in our country.

Second, a peace agreement really needs to learn from some of the other examples we have seen and to certainly be inclusive to try to bring peace to the entire country, not just to reflect the demands of a certain number of people but to try to include all citizens, all people groups, and all ethnic groups in that as well.

Third, typically in these situations we need a comprehensive reconciliation process as well. Canada has participated in the past in the establishment of some of the institutions that bring those kinds of things about.

We can help with this situation, but there is first a need to deal immediately with the violence that is taking place and try to bring a real ceasefire to the country, so we can begin to discuss some of these other things.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I can reassure my colleague opposite that we have been paying attention to the situation. This is not something we have been ignoring.

I have here four press releases that have been done. Our government is directly engaged. Our parliamentary secretary has stepped forward to deplore the attacks that have taken place in South Sudan. Our minister has stepped forward as well to condemn the attacks that took place at UN camps. We have press releases explaining the contributions we are making in terms of international development and the like.

Therefore, the member opposite can be assured that this is an important issue to our government and that we continue to pay attention to what is going on there, continue to make our contribution, and continue to try to work with the international community to find a resolution to an extremely difficult situation.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, it is great to be here tonight. I join my colleagues in voicing serious concern over the situation in South Sudan and I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the deliberations today in the House by focusing particularly on the security dimension.

The violence that exploded in December 2013 continues to ravage the communities of South Sudan. While it is difficult to estimate the casualties with confidence due to the continuing access issues, a reporting indicates that between 10,000 and 40,000 people have been killed just since December. More than one million people have been displaced. Tens of thousands of citizens, desperate and terrified, have camped out at UN bases seeking protection.

To be honest, the UN mission in South Sudan, UNMISS, has struggled to respond and to meet the basic needs of those seeking refuge and has provided what it can in terms of aid needed to survive and has actually contributed to saving countless lives. UNMISS was not prepared nor resourced for such a large-scale crisis, and reinforcements and support are still needed.

The UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan was created the same day as South Sudan itself on July 9, 2011. Although there had been previously a UN peacekeeping mission in Sudan, it had been focused on supporting the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement between north and south Sudan.

The new country of South Sudan required a different kind of support from the international community. UNMISS took on the responsibility of supporting the consolidation of peace, assisting the government of South Sudan with preventing conflict and protecting civilians and also helping to establish the rule of law. The Security Council authorized the mission to use force when required, especially if it was necessary to protect civilians from attack.

The July 2011 separation from Sudan was relatively peaceful following decades of conflict. However, it soon became clear that independence itself would not automatically deliver the hoped-for security gains across South Sudan. A legacy of decades of conflict included a highly militarized society, fragmented communities, weak institutions, and an underdeveloped and very vulnerable economy. It was well understood by international partners that the stabilization and development of South Sudan would be a formidable task and that the society was still fragile, with simmering ethnic tensions under the surface, with power vacuums, and with shifting political alliances. However, the scale and the ferocity of the outbreak of conflict last December took everyone by surprise.

In response to the spiralling security situation in December 2013, the UN Security Council authorized an increase to the size of the UN force from about 8,000 to almost 14,000 personnel. The cessation of hostilities briefly agreed to in January is not being respected by either side, and clashes between government forces and rebels continue. Civilians remain vulnerable and in desperate need of protection. As recently as the Easter weekend, reported up to 1,500 civilians were brutally killed in Bentiu when opposition forces took control of the city. My colleague was just talking about the attacks on the hospital there. Many were targeted, specifically for their ethnicity, driving an additional 20,000 people to seek refuge and the protection of civilian camps there.

As a security situation, South Sudan has eroded, and so has the relationship between the government of South Sudan and UNMISS. UN bases have been attacked, UN personnel harassed. This situation is utterly unacceptable. UNMISS is routinely blocked from accessing people in need by both government and rebel forces. The South Sudanese government has falsely accused the mission of supporting and supplying rebels. Throughout this, UNMISS has repeatedly underscored its neutrality in the conflict and has done all it can to implement its primary goal of protecting the civilian population.

On April 17, an attack on civilians and United Nations personnel at UNMISS in Bor resulted in a reported 58 people killed and over 100 wounded. If it had not been for the interventions of the UNMISS peacekeepers, more than 5,000 displaced persons housed at the camp would likely have met a similar fate.

UNMISS personnel have time and again stepped up in their mandate to protect those most at risk of violence. I would like to take some time to pay special tribute to the two Indian soldiers who were killed while protecting the UN base at Akobo in December, and to the five Indian soldiers who gave their lives last April when they were ambushed while protecting a humanitarian convoy.

Canada's engagement in South Sudan focuses on helping set the conditions for long-term peace and stability. To this end, we have been a supporter of UNMISS since its inception in 2011.

We currently have 12 Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed to the mission. CAF personnel occupy positions in the mission's headquarters. They provide key advice on intelligence, on military planning, on logistics, and on military liaison. Both CAF and RCMP personnel were also part of its predecessor, the first UN mission in Sudan from 2005 to 2011. Through its office in Juba, Canada has worked closely with UNMISS leadership, including the Special Representative of UN Secretary-General, Hilde Johnson. Canada is also a major financial contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget. It has provided over $27 million in assessed contributions to UNMISS in the past fiscal year.

It is critical that the international community stand behind the people of South Sudan at this difficult time and that we demonstrate our unwavering support for a peaceful solution. Canada, along with key like-minded partners in South Sudan, supports UNMISS and its work on behalf of the international community for the people of South Sudan. We also condemn the continued obstruction of UNMISS operations by government and opposition forces, as well as any threats or harassment toward UNMISS personnel. Canada, along with its international partners, has strenuously condemned the violations and the abuses of human rights and the violations of international humanitarian law perpetuated during this conflict. Finally, Canada continues to call for the lives of civilians to be protected, including those seeking refuge from violence at UN bases.

We call on all parties to facilitate the work of UNMISS and to provide unhindered access to humanitarian workers. The Government of Canada takes very seriously the protection of civilians during humanitarian emergencies, including the specific protection needs of women and children, the elderly, religious minorities, and other particularly vulnerable groups. To this end, we continue to forcefully advocate for stronger civilian protection measures at the UN on issues such as the protection of medical personnel and assets, the safety and security of humanitarian workers, and we recognize the vulnerability of certain populations in conflict situations.

To date, in 2014, Canada has committed more than $24.8 million in humanitarian assistance to South Sudan through a number of key organizations on the ground. Canada's permanent representative to the UN urged the UN in December to work more effectively to protect and to better meet the needs of vulnerable populations, including religious minorities. This includes working to prevent and respond to sexual violence in humanitarian emergencies and ending the scourge of child, early, and forced marriage.

Canada has frequently called for perpetrators of violence in South Sudan to be brought to justice, for all parties to the conflict to exercise restraint and to participate actively in peace negotiations, and for the international community to increase efforts to improve the humanitarian and security situation in the country.

Canada also supports the High Commissioner for Refugees through $3 million in funding to provide assistance to conflict-affected displaced women and girls, who are survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. It also provides specific protection activities for displaced children in internally displaced sites, as well as in the refugee camps. Canadian support of $2.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross is helping to provide protection services to the survivors of sexual violence throughout South Sudan, as well as the reunification of minors with their families. Another $2 million of Canadian support through the International Organization for Migration is helping them work in conjunction with the ICRC to reunite separated family members by ensuring that all internally displaced people seeking protection in UN bases are registered.

Canada is doing its utmost to promote the principles behind the protection of civilians in South Sudan and around the globe. The Government of Sudan needs to do more to ensure that UNMISS, its bases, and its personnel are not vilified, and that they are enabled in their capacity to protect civilians caught in harm's way. Both sides of the conflict need to do more to immediately cease the deliberate targeting of civilians, tone down their rhetoric, and work toward a peaceful solution so that civilians no longer have to fear for their safety. As recent events demonstrate, UNMISS is under constant threat, exemplifying the need for the Government of Sudan to publicly support the work of the mission, to respect the work of UNMISS personnel and, most importantly, to step up to their responsibility and ensure the safety of their own citizens.

To conclude, the UN needs to move more quickly to bring in more troops to support the mission, and the international community must show its full support for the protection of civilians in South Sudan. Civilians must never be targeted as they are today in South Sudan, in violation of all civilized norms.

[Conflict Minerals Act, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to rise to speak to the issue of conflict minerals and the role Canada is playing on the international stage to address this problem.

First, I want to thank the hon. member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre for drawing attention to this important issue.

As outlined in the preamble to his bill, the Government of Canada has been active for many years in advancing initiatives designed to address that nexus between natural resources and conflict. One of his colleagues asked a few minutes ago about the role that Canada has played. One of the places we have played an important role is at the OECD with its due diligence guidance document, which has been put in place and is now gaining international acceptance.

I am pleased to say that this government agrees wholeheartedly with the hon. member that further engagement by Canada is warranted to find effective and efficient ways to address the issue of conflict minerals. However, I have to say that we do not agree that Bill C-486 would bring us closer to this goal.

He talks about establishing clear roles for transparency and accountability in his speech. We do not believe that would be the result of this bill.

Before I outline some of our concerns with the present bill, I would like to talk a bit more about how minerals have been linked to conflict and what is being done about this already.

I am sure that many members are familiar with the Kimberley process on conflict diamonds, developed in response to the use of diamonds to fund violence and conflict in such countries as Liberia and Angola in the late 1990s. Canada was a founding member of the Kimberley process. As a leading diamond producer and exporter, we continue to play an active role in the initiative.

While it is not perfect, the Kimberley process has helped to deprive criminals and armed groups of easy access to capital. However, the illicit use of minerals to fund violence, which is what is meant by the term “conflict minerals”, did not end with the establishment of the Kimberley process. While it is not perfect, it has had an impact in its area.

A new generation of conflict minerals, however, has emerged since, including gold and the so-called 3Ts: tin, tungsten, and tantalum. These minerals are used in a variety of industrial sectors, including the aerospace, automotive and, perhaps most notably, the electronics industries. Indeed, these minerals are present in all of those gadgets that we love so much.

Unfortunately, in some contexts, the illicit trade in these minerals is contributing to violence and conflict. The problem is particularly acute in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, or DRC. The lack of state control in that part of the country benefits various armed groups that illegally control mining sites by taxing miners and trafficking in illegally sourced minerals.

Fortunately, the international community is taking action, and Canada is playing a leading role. The OECD, in co-operation with international partners, has developed a due diligence framework, which I mentioned, to foster responsible mineral supply chains. The purpose of that framework, known as the OECD due diligence guidance, is to help companies that are operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas to identify and mitigate against risks related to their sourcing decisions and practices and to avoid contributing to human rights abuses and conflicts.

The Canadian government actively participated in the negotiation of the guidance, which includes mineral-specific supplements on gold and the 3Ts. We continue to be engaged in its promotion and implementation, and we currently chair the multi-stakeholder steering group that serves as the management committee for this forum.

What is more, several Canadian companies have been at the forefront of efforts to combat conflict minerals and have incorporated the guidance into their management systems. Others are implementing industry-led initiatives pertaining to conflict minerals that are consistent with and build upon these guidelines. For example, the members of the World Gold Council, which includes several Canadian companies, adhere to the conflict-free gold standard. The standard establishes a common approach by which gold producers can assess and provide assurance that their gold has been extracted in a responsible manner.

Several Canadian gold refiners have also been certified under the conflict-free smelter program, which was set up by the electronics industry. I should note here that smelters and refiners have been identified as the critical junction in the mineral supply chain, as traceability becomes extremely difficult after that point.

I would like to emphasize that all of these activities and initiatives are international in scope, because the mineral supply chain is global in nature. In other words, conflict minerals are an international problem, requiring international solutions to bring all the relevant actors—government, companies, and civil society—to the table.

Unfortunately, we do not believe that Bill C-486 aligns with this approach.

The genesis of the bill is clear. In its intent, it mirrors section 1502 of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act by requiring companies to undertake due diligence activities and to report annually on these activities.

However, in contrast to the U.S. legislation, which, as I mentioned earlier, is focused on manufacturing companies, Bill C-486 is broad. It is not focused. It implicates every stage of the complex mineral supply chain.

Moreover, in contrast with the OECD guidance, which recommends targeted audits of due diligence practices at those key points that I have mentioned, Bill C-486 would require each and every report produced to be audited by an independent third party. The House can see the incredible bureaucracy that would build around this requirement.

What is the anticipated result of the implementation of this bill? It would certainly make a whole lot of companies pay for a whole lot of reports. We would also have some very happy auditors. However, do we think that anything on the ground would change as a result? Would Bill C-486 stop conflict minerals from entering international markets or put an end to the protracted and complex conflict in the DRC, which happens to be the primary focus of the member's campaign against conflict minerals? We do not believe so. The bureaucratic weight and complexity that is required by this bill would make it impossible to realize his goals.

What about the unintended consequences of focusing exclusively on the Great Lakes region of Africa? It has been a huge problem and concern with U.S. legislation that numerous countries have simply chosen to source these minerals from elsewhere, not because there is necessarily conflict where they head their operations but because the countries did not have the capacity to set up the structures that were required to do the reporting. Depriving developing economies of much needed investment and local communities of much needed empowerment would not solve the conflict minerals problem. Rather, it may exacerbate it.

There is no doubt that the ongoing conflict in the DRC has had a devastating impact on the lives of civilians, especially women and children. The prevalence of serious human rights violations in the eastern region of the DRC in particular, including continued acts of sexual violence and alleged crimes against humanity, are of huge concern to our government.

Our efforts in developing peace support operations in the DRC have included funding projects on enhancing the effectiveness of security institutions, strengthening the capacity of Congolese authorities to curtail the illicit exploitation of natural resources, and mediating and preventing conflict.

In October of 2012, our Prime Minister announced a Canadian commitment of $18.5 million over five years to provide legal, medical, and emotional support to victims of sexual violence in the DRC and to assist law enforcement agencies in bringing perpetrators of these crimes to justice.

We have also called for concerted efforts to implement concrete solutions to the conflict and advocated for the engagement of regional actors in particular to protect civilians, including women and children, and to pave the way for peace and stability in that region.

With all due respect to the concerns of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, a complex situation like the one in the DRC cannot be solved with more red tape for these countries.

I should point out that Dodd-Frank touches specifically on manufacturing. This bill is much broader and would force companies to report at every sector, meaning the extraction sector, the transportation sector, the refining sector, the processing sector, the manufacturing sector, the retail sector, and even recycling. Those products would all require reports to be filed and then audited by third parties. We believe that is an onerous burden that does not achieve the result the member opposite would like to see.

Making progress in the fight against conflict minerals need not come at the expense of responsible investment in affected areas. For example, as I mentioned earlier, smelters and refiners have been identified as a critical juncture in the mineral supply chain. More work can be done to encourage these actors to participate in certification initiatives.

As the member mentioned earlier, this voluntary approach seems to be working. Companies such as Apple and Intel were mentioned by him as companies that have taken this seriously and are applying it.

There is no doubt that further international efforts are required to tackle the problem of conflict minerals, but pursuing a mandatory initiative such as the member has presented is not an approach this government can endorse.

[Conflict Minerals Act, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his concern over this issue and the intent of the bill. We will have our chance in a few minutes to speak to it, but I wanted to ask him two questions.

The first is: Why did he make such a broad application in terms of the application to the companies? With Dodd-Frank, the application of the act was primarily to manufacturing, the refining and smelting areas. His is much broader and requires too much. It is too broad, and we will talk about this in a few minutes.

The second question is: Why has he been so narrow in the focus of the countries that have been involved? Some of the consequences of Dodd-Frank have been that countries that just do not have the ability to put the reporting mechanisms in place have found themselves with their local area being affected really badly because they just cannot provide that information and so are being punished.

I just wonder if he could address those issues.