Wayne Marston

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member back to the very first part of my speech where I said that the fundamental criterion for the NDP is that the proposed partner is one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values. If there are challenges in this regard, is the partner on a positive, direct trajectory toward our goal?

Is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada?

If we use the same criteria for some of the countries we trade with, and whom we do not have free trade agreements, then I would call into question why we are trading with them.

I realize that the job of the business community is to go about trade as best they can. We want corporate social responsibility here in Canada so that when our companies are trading with other countries, they take into account the human rights record and standards of those particular countries.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that important question, because there is a different perception between that side of the House and this side as to how that responsibility is completed.

The reality is that there is a belief in many circles that if we have a free trade agreement and raise all boats in that country, so to speak, human rights will float up with them. That is not the case. If we look at places that we have concluded arrangements with, there are still very troubling situations in those countries. So I am not satisfied that this is the case.

In the case of Gildan and its reputation, if we talk to social justice groups, the NGOs who work in that country, we would find a different message coming out about Gildan than what it is reporting.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to further discuss the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement. From my standpoint as the critic for international human rights, I have a particular interest in the type of trade agreements that have been signed by the government.

From my standpoint as the critic for human rights, human rights must take a priority in the packaging and pulling together of any agreement with any country. When I look at the kinds of things that are important to me, is the partner we are about to do business with at a fundamental level, with an actual bilateral free trade agreement, is that a partner who respects democracy? For me, especially human rights, does it have adequate labour standards? Are these things codified in law? Is the economy of the proposed partner in balance with Canada? Are we very much higher than it is? Is there a sense of equity in that agreement?

Finally, once the free trade agreement has reached the draft form, are the terms of that satisfactory? I would suggest from the view of the NDP, it is not satisfactory. Honduras is the murder capital of the world. Think about it. More people are murdered there than anywhere else in the world. It has very undemocratic practices. Obviously, the institutions are weak because they are not able to give fundamental policing services to their people. It has very low standards when it comes to human rights and the so-called rule of law.

On this side of the House we recognize there is a significant importance to trade and to the agreements that are reached. We just do not believe the types of agreements that have been repeatedly put together by the government, where human rights and labour laws and many times environmental law are side agreements, unenforceable by law; in other words, are just window dressing to help sell this agreement.

For example, on May 15 of this year we are supposedly going to receive a report on what impact of the Colombia–Canada free trade agreement has had on human rights in Colombia. The last one we received was nowhere near the type of comprehensive report we were anticipating. When the debate on that free trade agreement happened in this place, we were told by the other side that we could look forward to a very comprehensive report. It just has not been forthcoming.

I want to draw attention to the U.S. Senate call for accountability in Honduras that took place on June 18, 2013. Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat, which will not be a surprise, a senior member of the foreign relations committee and 20 of his Senate colleagues together sent a letter to John Kerry, urging him to work to support human rights in Honduras and free, fair and peaceful elections which were slated for that November. They went on to say that “Given the ‘reported violence and impunity linked to state entities in Honduras’, the letter questions the State Department's decision to certify that the government is implementing policies to protect due process of law and ‘prosecuting military and police personnel who are credibly alleged to have violated human rights’”.

We are talking about the military and the police, the ones who are supposed to enforce human rights and protect the public and enforce the laws of the land.

They went on to say that “U.S. taxpayers demand accountability at the highest levels when their resources are used for any purpose, especially in foreign assistance”.

This free trade agreement is not about direct foreign assistance but about an even closer working relationship between Canada and Honduras.

They went on to ask for “a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of the efficacy of current Honduran government efforts to protect freedom of expression and association, the rule of law, and due process, and to investigate extrajudicial killings and abuses allegedly [again] involving police and military…”.

Many of the murders taking place in this country are by these public officials or by the military. The rampant violence in Honduras has its roots further back in history. In the 1980s, Honduras was controlled by military governments. When they demilitarized, the process that followed failed to hold to account those who committed serious offences, serious human rights abuses were overlooked, plus a culture of impunity was widespread in that country. Again, there was a coup in 2009, and there is a continuation of that sense of impunity.

When we hear today that it is the military and police who are committing these crimes, it tells us very clearly that this country is very close to a failed state.

If we are going to have a free trade agreement with this country, would we not think it sensible for us, a nation of rights and human rights observation, to ask of the other country, as part of that agreement, to establish an improvement, benchmarks for changes to the human rights in that country, and to have that codified into the agreement?

Trade has to be more about the betterment of both parties, and in a country where the people deal with governments noted as being corrupt, it is very concerning that our officials, our government, could reach and conclude an agreement with such a nation.

Further to the agreement itself, there has been a complete lack of transparency in the negotiation process of this trade agreement. Despite repeated calls by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada has failed to make public the text of the agreement during the negotiation process.

If we look at our country, when legislation is proposed and the lack of input to the development of legislation here at home, it should be no surprise, sadly, that this is the case in dealing with this agreement. We have people who are world experts in relationships with South American countries, in particular, who could have offered insight, but they were not allowed to take part in any fashion.

The government's token environmental impact assessment of the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement, which was released in October 2013, omitted any assessment of impact of Canadian investments in Honduras because those figures were considered confidential.

We have had, repeatedly in this House, calls for corporate and social responsibility for legislation to be put into place in this House. It went to a vote here previously, on Bill C-300, which was lost, as I recall, by about 12 votes.

Very clearly, when we talk about an environmental assessment and consider the impact of Canadian companies in another country, these things should not be confidential to Canadians. We have expectations of our companies. My presumption is that they are meeting our expectations, so why not provide the evidence? Those that are good companies and performing properly deserve the respect of this House. However, those who are not, deserve the criticism of this House.

Our view of this trade agreement is that it is a very flawed agreement with a very flawed nation. It leaves us wondering how far the Conservative government is prepared to go, when we think of Colombia and Honduras, and who it is willing to do business with.

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Ottawa Centre for putting forward this bill. In the past, we have had bills before this House that have dealt with corporate and social responsibility. It is an important issue, and I am most pleased to speak to it today.

I want to read one part of the bill. This is, “An Act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability...”. That strikes me as almost the Conservative mantra, when I see that.

However, the reason I am particularly interested in this bill and pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it today is that in my capacity as critic for international human rights for the last eight and a half years, I have had numerous delegations. In fact, in a one-month period about a year ago, I had indigenous groups from Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, the Philippines, and Mexico, all of whom accused their governments of removing their communities from their traditional lands to allow mining exploration and development, some of which was conducted by Canadian mining interests.

I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe that Canadian mining interests would operate and function with the values that we hold dear about human rights in Canada. Unfortunately, from time to time that has been called into question. This bill would require that Canadian mining, oil, and gas corporations submit annual transparency reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purposes of further mining, oil, or gas activities.

We know there have been Canadian companies called into question around Libya and other countries. We have some court cases that are under way. This type of legislative responsibility is important, not for the good mining companies, not for the people who follow the rules and have some pride in what they do, but for those companies that we would call into question their activities and how they proceed in foreign lands.

I spent time in Saudi Arabia, in the 1970s, and in that country at that time bribery was a huge undertaking. Nearly anything one needed or wanted to get done had a bribe attached to it. That is a culture that needed change. Part of the change is that countries that provide workforces to a country that functions on bribery have a responsibility to start that change.

From the reports of abuses that I heard from the indigenous groups who visited me, it is clear that part of the equation for change in those countries is contained in this bill. Clear reporting on those transactions will ensure that Canadian companies continue to use the proper due diligence in those countries with murky governments, and we all know what we are talking about here. There are governments out there that will use torture and will attack their own citizens. Members of the leadership of these indigenous groups are physically at risk as a result of standing up for what should be rights to their own traditional lands.

New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian corporations overseas. The member who sponsored Bill C-300 is with us here today. In fact, in that bill we had an opportunity to further corporate and social responsibility in the world by having Canada become a leader. Unfortunately, even though it was a minority Parliament, we lost, if I recall, by some 12 votes. We see that this bill further complements legislative efforts that the NDP members and others have made in this House to encourage that kind of responsibility and sustainable and transparent management practices in the Canadian extractive sector, which is then used around the world.

We also believe that the responsible management of natural resources means that part of the arrangement must provide the people of these countries with social and economic benefits. Rather than having all of the profits skimmed off, when they have a corrupt government that is practically willing to give away the resources in these countries, there must be some responsibility to ensure that the people who have lost their land receive the benefits.

It is clear to NDP members, as well, that corporate transparency about payments to foreign governments should further Canada's national foreign policy objectives, and we think it would do that.

Part of our goals as a country, for many years, has been to encourage the development of democracies around the world. Part of that, particularly, is governmental accountability. If there is a trail of transparency where we can see where the monies have flowed, when those get off base, it would be something that we could identify and act upon.

With this bill, Canada would join the growing international community that is starting to move toward disclosures of this nature. Another speaker earlier quoted the Barney Frank initiative in the United States. We also believe that enforced regulations would create a more level playing field for all Canadian companies.

In these countries, we know bribery happens and huge amounts of money are fed to governments under the table. When Canadian companies are abiding by the rules and being responsible but have been defeated in getting a chance to explore for a certain resource because someone else outbid them under the table, we have to develop international rules and regulations to ensure it does not happen.

Today, the EU, Australia, and the U.K. are considering standards similar to what was just imposed in the United States. Bill C-474 would put Canada on the path to joining those nations that believe their companies must show a commitment to corporate and social responsibility when dealing with resource development, particularly in the developing world. It would ensure that Canadian corporations are accountable for the payments they make, as I have said over the last few minutes.

The bill complies with the corporate standards of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Payments are required to be identified, under this initiative, and separated according to the specific extractive projects to which they apply. It is very direct, maybe in some terms simple, accounting for what people do, but if that payment is not linked to a specific reported project, it must be listed separately. If a payment that is listed generically is believed to apply to a specific project, the bill would authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to launch an investigation. That is what I would call true accountability.

The Transparency International bribe payers index ranks the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. Consider that for a moment, because Canada is a leader in resource development in both of these areas. We do not want our companies tempted or compromised into feeling they have to pay bribes in these other countries.

Two-thirds of the world's poorest people live in countries rich in natural resources. As I said before, if Canada is party to the extraction of those resources, it is part of our responsibility to ensure that those poor people benefit from that extraction and the sales of their resources. Note that I said they are their resources. Effective environment and labour standards in developing countries often depend on advocacy and activism by local populations; thus the groups that visited my office over last summer.

This bill would make sure local people are aware of the payments made to their governments by Canadian extractive companies. Beyond that, it would show where the give and take has been in those agreements and where the principles have been tested for the Canadian companies. We hope to be able to say that this bill would encourage those Canadian companies to the point where we will never see on record any evidence that they have bribed, been part of any coercion, or had anything to do with it. My belief is that companies do not do it, but this would ensure that it is not done and it would ensure direct accountability.

When the leaders of those nations see that there is an accountability chain that could cause Canadian companies to withdraw from their country, perhaps that is just the one lever that might be needed to start the change to where they treat their own people with dignity, they do not push them off the lands for exploration, and when the lands are taken and the delivery of the resources is done, the people benefit in a true way.

[International Trade, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the annual report on the impact that the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement has had on the human rights situation in Colombia is due. Civil society groups and labour groups have been given only six days to provide input to that report.

The Conservative government has clearly set an impossible deadline. Will the Conservatives now agree to extend this arbitrary deadline to ensure meaningful consultations can take place on this important report? Or, will they once again this year simply fail to take into consideration the very serious human rights situation in Colombia?

[Industry, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what have they done to date? That is not an answer that will give any comfort to the retirees and the steelworkers in Hamilton. The Conservatives promised that this would be an investment creating the next generation of quality, decent paying jobs in Hamilton. Now instead of actually investing in our community, the company has said it is “mindful” of the promise, which is good enough for the Conservative government. When will the minister commit in clear and unequivocal terms to holding U.S. Steel accountable for the promises it made to the government and Hamilton?

[Foreign Affairs, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, award-winning Canadian journalists have been imprisoned in Egypt for three months, and now Mohamed Fahmy's trial is again delayed, meaning more weeks in an Egyptian jail for this Canadian.

I am sure that the minister would agree with the NDP that targeting journalists simply for expressing their views is unacceptable, so what is she doing to press her Egyptian counterparts to ensure Mr. Fahmy's freedom and bring him home? Will the minister urge Egyptian authorities to respect press freedom and end this crackdown on journalists?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Hamilton Mountain, when we start talking about liability, we can look at the fact that Japan has gone through an experience like no other country on earth, practically, when we look at the damage done there.

Our friends from the Liberal Party were asking questions about certain situations, but they left out the gas plants that were cancelled in a provincial election and the liability that suddenly hit Canadians in Ontario on their hydro bills because of that. There was no cap on liability, so the people are absorbing that cost. That is minuscule compared to the risks we would have. If we are capped at a billion dollars, it just does not make any sense.

[Petitions, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on transportation and long-haul carriage. Drivers are at risk because of the many hours they are putting in on the road. One can imagine at Lac-Mégantic we lost close to 50 people. One bus in a serious accident could match that.

I am very pleased to support this petition and to support the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River with his bill.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Hamilton Labour Council and we had our books audited every year. I know the struggle it is for small organizations to follow through on these kinds of things.

However, the House of Commons is not a small organization. We have tremendous resources.

What I would like to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is, are not the Board of Internal Economy, which we have been trying to get rid of and made arm's length, and the procedure and House affairs committee, where the blocking has been, dominated by Conservatives?