Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Okay. I guess I'm still not.... You're saying that if Canada regulates its corporations...?

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Right. I think, then, the onus is on us, and actually we have obligations under international human rights law to regulate our corporations and provide effective remedies. I don't think it's a question, if I understand you correctly, of somehow bringing a claim against Canada. I mean, that could happen at the international level, and I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I think if a corporation is operating somewhere, then they can be liable for violations of human rights.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to bring cases to the courts. I've participated in a number as an intervenor. Only a very few cases get to the courts. You have to actually be able to fit the harm into a particular cause of action. You have to have resources. You have to have a lawyer and all of that.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  A lot of western countries or members of the OECD have national contact points. Some of them are much more effective than the Canadian one, because they actually investigate allegations. The Canadian NCP has always held itself, even though there is a lot of leeway for NCPs in terms of deciding how to conduct themselves....

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Erga omnes obligation is a kind of higher level of customary international law, and it's an obligation that is owed by states to the international community as a whole. What it does is give standing to other states that haven't been harmed by a violation of an erga omnes norm to bring a claim, perhaps in the International Court of Justice.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes, I do agree with that. For somebody to even mount a complaint to the Canadian ombudsperson, it's not going to be super easy, because it's going to cost some money. The other thing is that if it's not going to come to anything, if there's not going to be a full investigation with all of the facts, then it will not be worth their while.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes. The CORE, without the powers to compel witnesses, to compel documents and to engage in investigations, is not that dissimilar from the NCP. The CORE has a mandate so that it can advise companies. I don't think the NCP does that, but the NCP engages in mediation. A CORE that doesn't have power to compel witnesses and documents can settle disputes only with the agreement of both parties participating and providing information.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I'm glad you're talking about prevention, because I think that's absolutely a key thing. As I mentioned before, we need to have measures like human rights due diligence in place to ensure that companies prevent. However, effective remedies also play in role in prevention in the sense that if you get a decision in the courts that holds a company liable for violating human rights and that requires it to pay compensation, then that liability and that precedent will have a preventative effect.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I appreciate the question, but I guess it goes back to allowing corporations to self-regulate. Of course, there are companies that have good business practices in this regard, but there are always the laggards. We've looked at self-regulation over the last decade. It has been absolutely insufficient in terms of preventing companies in any systematic way from engaging or becoming complicit in violations of human rights.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes, that's exactly right. They will be tarred with the same brush. For the companies that believe [Technical difficulty—Editor] good business practices and engaging in human rights due diligence, making sure that any allegations are looked into or making sure that they don't actually commit violations of human rights, if they're actually doing that, then they have nothing to fear from a CORE that has powers to compel witnesses and documents.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes. I absolutely don't think that they are sufficient or that naming and shaming is sufficient. That's what we've had in place for many years. We have policies. We ask companies to align themselves to certain multi-stakeholder initiatives or intergovernmental initiatives like the guiding principles, but they are not sufficient to prevent companies from becoming engaged or to ensure that Canada's reputation is protected as protector and promoter of human rights.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you very much. That's a great question. I think one of the things that would change is that we would be provided with—the Canadian public and also the government—public reports that have been properly investigated in relation to allegations that have been made against Canadian mining companies.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  In terms of sanctioning an entity...? Is that what you're saying?

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I think she could also recommend other types of remedial action. She could recommend that a Canadian company pay some sort of remedy or that sort of thing. This is where the powers would be necessary. It would be very unfortunate for a company if they withdrew support without having looked at the full facts because they couldn't compel witnesses and documents.