Paul Dewar

[Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the mover for this motion and also thank his colleague for the legislation he put forward.

I am going to start my comments by quoting an article that was written a couple of years ago by Eve Ensler. Her article, which was in Glamour magazine, sent shock waves through the world. It started off with, “I have just returned from hell”. Those words were conveying her return from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we see horrific violence. What she had just seen was something no one should ever see, but for sure no one should ever experience.

She had been to the Panzi Hospital. She had seen girls as young as eight years old who had been gang-raped. She had seen the effects of gender war on a civilian population. What she had seen is something that is still ongoing.

Hundreds of thousands of women and girls, children, have been subjugated into something that is not just deplorable, but something that has been contemplated. What we are talking about is rape as a weapon of war. Indeed, it is rape as a strategy in war.

I say this because it relates directly to the responsibility of our corporations to make sure that when they conduct themselves in countries abroad, they follow every single humanitarian, labour and environmental standard that they follow here.

Right now, the machines that we all use on a daily basis, that we keep our calendars on and send emails from, these BlackBerrys, contain a mineral called coltan. A majority of the coltan that is used in our BlackBerrys comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Right now, the money that is being earned by some companies is directly connected to the war that is going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indeed, if we recall years ago the whole issue of blood diamonds, we are now having to deal with the issue of blood coltan.

Right now, over 80% of the mineral coltan that keeps our PlayStations going, that keeps our computers going, that keeps our BlackBerrys functioning, comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the exact place where we see rape being used as a weapon of war and the exact place where unscrupulous mining techniques are being used to actually fund and keep the oxygen going for the conflict, where we have three to four proxy armies absolutely devastating not only the geography but the humanity of the area, and that is the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This is not just about a nice piece of legislation that we should all pass. This is about our commitment to human rights. I have to say, it is not good enough to say nice things about corporate social responsibility. Indeed, we must act when it comes to corporate social responsibility, and the only way to do that is what is contemplated both in this motion and in the bill that was presented. We must have not just guidelines but absolute certainty in how companies behave abroad.

Further to that, members might not be understanding of the issue, perhaps, but what has been proposed by the government is guidelines, instead of absolute, strict adherence to protocol abroad. Also, it says we would have a counsellor instead of an ombudsperson to make sure that these practices overseas are actually adhered to.

If we in this country are going to stand on the world stage and say we are doing everything we can to end gender violence, to end rape as a weapon of war, to stop the ongoing absolute war against women in the Congo, then we must actually adopt this motion. We should adopt legislation like Bill C-300, and we must make sure that everything we can do is being done to end gender violence, to end the war on women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

I would like to take a minute to give some historical perspective on this. My predecessor, Ed Broadbent, started this file when he asked that the government of the day conduct a study to have business and civil society work together to come up with recommendations about how companies should do their business abroad. It was carried on by Alexa McDonough. It is now in the House by a motion and by a bill by my colleagues in the Liberal Party.

This has been an ongoing project. It took the government two years to respond to a report that was done in concert, where we had civil society and business working together and what they came up with was that Canadian companies would adhere to the same laws and provisions that they adhere to here in Canada and that we would have an ombudsperson to make sure that would happen. My constituents would say that is a reasonable proposition. That is the proposition we have in front of us in the House.

The proposition that the government has put forward, after two years of having it in front of it, says we should have guidelines, which may or may not be followed, and a counsellor. It is not strong enough. If we are serious about Canadian companies, who by far have the largest footprint in mining and extractive industries of any other country in the world, we must adhere 100% to the laws that we have here in Canada. That means that no money goes to those who commit genocide. No money goes to proxy armies. No money goes to people who are using it to abuse the people who are supposedly benefiting from the presence of a company there.

Members should take the time to read the history of what is going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo right now. There is a direct connection between what is going on there and what is happening with the investments of multinational corporations. These are things that Canadians are waking up to. Over five million people have been killed in the D.R.C. since the late 1990s. Most people are not aware of that. As I said, hundreds of thousands of women have been raped, and many of those are children. Many of those are women who have been raped multiple times. Why? It is a tactic that is used by militias, not only to use violence against women, but a strategy to clear out villages so that they can get to the economic bounty that is fueling this conflict.

In sum, if we in the House, as members of Parliament, are serious about having an effect on femicide, as some people are calling it, on what is going on in the D.R.C., if we read the words written by Eve Ensler a couple of years ago that she has just returned from hell and then try to do something about that hell on earth, we must pass this motion. We must pass Bill C-300.

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned and seized with the issue of pathogens and protecting the health of Canadians. We have heard on the news recently concerns about what is happening in Mexico and concerns about protecting Canadians coming from Mexico, and for that matter people living in Mexico.

Coordination is one of the challenges that we face in this country. The member laid out the need for investment in a more robust infrastructure. One of the areas we need to do more on as it relates to this legislation is coordinating the facilities in Atlanta with those in Winnipeg.

What does my colleague think of the approach the Americans have taken in the past in terms of sharing data and protecting human health? Does he believe that we have enough infrastructure in place right now to do what this legislation is asking for?

[Afghanistan, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we did not hear this from the government. We heard this from people on the ground in Kabul. What I am outlining here are facts that the Conservatives did not tell us. Does the government want to know why this information was sent to us? It is because women in Afghanistan are not being protected and their rights are not being asserted. Our government is not doing enough because we have not heard this story about rape and minors.

Did the government know about these new facts? What is it doing to protect women and children in Afghanistan? What is the answer? It is pleading--

[Afghanistan, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned new facts about the Afghan law and how it attacks the rights of women and children. It is actually worse than what we were told before. It acknowledges sexual intercourse in a marriage with minors. While sex with minors is generally prohibited, it is made legal by paying a fine with no criminal sanctions. The law spells out no repercussion for rape of an adult woman, including violent rape causing physical harm.

I have a simple question. Was the Canadian government aware of these details of the Afghan law that has outraged so many Canadians and so many Afghans?

[Petitions, April 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I stand today to present a petition from constituents of Ottawa Centre and from other ridings including from the province of Quebec. They are petitioning Parliament and the government to adopt a private member's bill that I just introduced to protect Gatineau Park. These petitioners want Gatineau Park to have federal protections.

[National Capital and Gatineau Park Act, April 22nd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-367, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for supporting me on this bill as a seconder.

This bill in essence would do what should have been done many years ago, and that is to make our national jewel just across the river, Gatineau Park, a protected national park. In fact many people are surprised when they hear that Gatineau Park today is not protected legislatively. This bill would provide protection for what is a crown jewel but is without protection.

I rise today to join with others who have asked for this bill to be adopted, such as Sierra Club Canada and the Friends of Gatineau Park, among others. On this day, Earth Day, they would like to see us make advancements in the protection of green space. We could do that by adopting this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we support this bill.

Fundamentally, this project regarding corporate social responsibility is about taking the responsibilities, the rights and the standards that we enjoy here in Canada, that people have worked so hard to put in place, and ensuring that those standards on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights are applied to Canadian companies when they do their business abroad.

I do not have to tell members that this is important work that we have done here, and we continue to do that kind of work, protecting the environment and protecting human rights and labour rights here in Canada, but it is absolutely critical that we establish standards that are consistent when our companies are doing operations abroad.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his initiative. I also have to reference a couple of my colleagues who brought this issue to the House. The member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre prior to me was Ed Broadbent. He worked tirelessly on this file, on democratic reform, and he pushed to have the round table report written.

Members will know that the round table report was a good way of getting to the issue by bringing people from both civil society, including some of the groups that were mentioned by my friend from the Bloc, as well as from business. Mr. Broadbent, during his entire career in terms of academia and public service, as a member of this House and as leader of our party, always wanted to see the model that has worked so well in other mature democracies, where we bring together all of the disparate groups of business, labour and civil society, to forge good policy.

I must give credit. That was done. We had the report. It was tabled and the government was asked for a response over two years ago. It was not until just last week that we received a response from the government. I am actually very upset, disappointed and surprised that the government did not take the advice given to it from business and civil society to do the right thing.

Instead of bringing in standards, along the lines of what I just laid out, on human rights, labour rights and environmental rights that should apply to Canadian companies doing business abroad, and bringing in an enforcement and monitoring mechanism with an ombudsperson, what did the government do? It brought in voluntary guidelines. Just put those two words together and I will leave it to members if they think that is sufficient.

Instead of an ombudsperson, it brought in a counsellor. Counsellors have a role. We go to them for advice sometimes, but they have no business in this file. What the government did was play around with nomenclature. It said that instead of an ombudsperson there will be a counsellor.

What the government did was an insult, to be blunt. After years of waiting for a response from government on this important file, it gave back thin gruel. It might as well have not responded at all because the consensus report by business and civil society was very clear as to the road forward. All it had to do was adopt the recommendations.

I remember well at committee, having a motion put forward at the foreign affairs committee asking for a response from the government. It said, “It's okay. We're working on it”. Two years later and this is what we get.

This is an important initiative. We have to forge ahead. We cannot let this ball be dropped. We cannot let it be watered down. We cannot let the government's response be seen as a responsible response to all those people who worked so hard on this file.

What is this about? I want to talk a bit about the extractive industries abroad. I worked for half a year in Latin America in countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, I saw directly what happens to everyday people when a company comes in, obtains rights to drill or mine and moves people who have been there forever off of their land because they are allowed to do whatever they want. They pull the resources out of the land, make a profit and leave town. They often leave behind tailings, a devastated environment, people who received meagre wages and an economy that is not better but worse. As they leave the country, they bring with them a handsome profit.

I know that most people who invest want to ensure their investments are ethical. Most people believe they are. I do not know anyone in my neighbourhood or constituency who would sleep well if they knew that the profits they were making off their investments were made at the expense of human suffering or environmental degradation. Sadly, most of the time they have no idea what is going on. This bill and the idea of corporate responsibility would shine a light on what is going on abroad and ensure we have standards and oversight in place.

I know many members of the Conservative caucus believe strongly in human right and in ethical investment. Many are members of faith communities and the old adage that one should not make a profit off the back of their brother is consistent with their faith. It is something that is understood and internalized by them. I am not sure that they know this as members of the Conservative caucus but they have not taken this opportunity.

Many faith groups have gotten behind this initiative, as well as civil society groups that believe strongly in the representation of workers and indigenous peoples in third world countries. Since I pushed my private member's bill initiatives at committee, the number of petitions from faith groups of all faiths that I have received in support of the bill has been tremendous. They have been very determined to see that what we do abroad is something that is consistent with our values. For them, it is consistent with their faith. For them, there is a direct connection between their faith and what happens to our companies that are investing abroad.

I am a little surprised that the Conservatives would allow voluntary guidelines to replace an ombudsperson with a counsellor. It does not seem to be consistent with many of them and their work within faith communities and the grassroots communities that we all work with. I challenge those within the Conservative caucus to take a look at the private member's bill here, take a look at their response that took two years and really measure it. I challenge them to talk it out with some of the people who are behind these initiatives in their faith communities. I think they would have a different opinion than the opinion they have provided. I challenge the members of the Conservative caucus to do that.

In summary, this is the way forward to get responsibility in our investments abroad. This would ensure that Canada's name is solid and that the article we saw in The Globe and Mail yesterday about Canada's reputation will not be repeated. This would ensure that when we have mining companies in South Africa, Latin America or anywhere else in the world where Canada is involved in enterprise, we will not be seen as exploiting people, nature or any of the other conditions that we seem to be exploiting. We need this and we should support it. I stand here gladly supporting this initiative and my party will as well.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

My colleague is someone who knows very well the issues of our aboriginal and first nations people. We all want to see more recruitment and retention of aboriginal and first nations people in the service. Does she see this as an opportunity to invite more aboriginal and first nations people into the service? If the pensions were portable, people right now who might be fully trained and are wanting to go into the service could take their pension, which perhaps is with the public service, and go into the RCMP.

The other question I have is in regard to the need of our rural areas to have more representation in the RCMP of people who are from the rural areas. Does she see this bill as helping in any way to recruit people from the rural areas, as well as aboriginal and first nations people?

[Afghanistan, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government must come out unequivocally against torture. The Afghanistan Human Rights Independent Commission cites the use of torture, get this, by law enforcement agencies in every province of Afghanistan. Among the practices that it has reported are: electric shocks, hot iron rods, and the use of cable beatings. That is not what we are there fighting for.

How can Canada be an accomplice to the use of torture by the police and the army? Will the government, in no uncertain terms, tell President Karzai that Canada will not support the use of torture?

[Community Builder, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Jack McCarthy to our community in Ottawa. On April 16, Ottawa will celebrate 20 years of Jack's work as the executive director of the Somerset West Community Health Centre.

Jack is a community builder. He is passionate for social justice. He believes in people and empowers them. At his core, he embodies a humanitarian commitment to all, regardless of race, class or gender. As a result, Jack has led our community by bringing a diversity of voices together from right across Ottawa.

From the time he began his career as a child protection worker, his advocacy for affordable housing, education, employment and health promotion has made our community stronger.

Jack embodies the notion of thinking globally and acting locally. He has used his experience in community development to benefit thousands of people here and abroad.

We thank Jack McCarthy for his commitment to our community and for making our community a healthier place to live.