CIIT Committee Report

dissenting report - Bloc Québécois

 TECHNICAL ISSUES

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, International Trade Critic for the Bloc Québécois, and Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, points out a number of shortcomings in the process of drafting and adopting the report.

Firstly, on several occasions in the text, the vocabulary used does not reflect the reality of the testimonies and contributes to undermining the witnesses' assertions, notably by using the verb "to suggest" to introduce a clearly stated element. We cite the following 2 examples:

• Paragraph 23 states that the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability is « suggesting that studies conducted by the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre on the operations of Canadian mining and mineral exploration firms in Latin America and other jurisdictions have concluded that—when compared to their foreign counterparts—those firms do not meet higher standards regarding human rights or the natural environment.”

In their testimony on February 13, 2023, they stated that «Statistics do not show that Canadian mining companies are better than others around the world. […] For instance, a study conducted in Latin America by the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project shows that 28 Canadian mining companies were linked to 44 deaths and over 400 injuries between 2000 and 2015. In addition, studies by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre also revealed that attacks against defenders of human rights and the environment are certainly more dangerous in the mining sector. […] In my opinion, the statistics answer that question.”

• Paragraph 26 states that “The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability’s brief suggested that certain Canadian mining and mineral exploration firms have faced “well-documented allegations” of human rights abuses relating to their operations in Guatemala, Papua New Guinea and Tanzania.”.

A look at the brief reveals that the CNCA clearly states that “Canadian mining companies operating abroad are linked to serious human rights violations and environmental damage around the world. For example, there are well-documented allegations of serious bodily harm, death and gang rape linked to security personnel and/or police at Canadian mines in Tanzania, Papua New Guinea and Guatemala.”

In addition, information crucial to understanding the issue at hand was requested but not received. In fact, during the testimony of the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Mary Ng, on March 27, 2023, the Bloc Québécois asked what the requirements were for a company to be legally recognized as a Canadian mining company. As the Minister did not have the answer, the Chair asked her to send the information in writing, which was not done.

We should also mention the hasty adoption of the final report: after debating the recommendations, and with the hour scheduled for studying the report almost up, the Chairman decided not to read out the report paragraph by paragraph, and to proceed directly to its adoption. This was done extremely quickly, leaving little time for members wishing to review extracts to react. This haste is all the more problematic in that the changes were numerous compared to the previous version.

POLITICAL ISSUES

In addition to these technical considerations concerning the errors noted in the report's drafting process, there are political concerns. The Bloc Québécois, which initiated the study in question, does not wish to see the voices warning of the abuses of the foreign mining industry diluted or sidelined. More than 10 years ago, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill to create a Commission of Inquiry into Mining Activities Abroad, independent of political power and empowered to conduct its own investigations. This was defeated, but was a far more interesting option than the symbolic ombudsman that the Trudeau government has created to pretend to follow up on the demands of civil society organizations. This ombudsman is no more than a complaints office with no concrete effect. It was also ironic to hear the ombudsman refer to Bill S-211 as a first step towards strengthening human rights by Canadian mining and exploration companies. Shouldn't he consider its creation as such a first step? Is this not an admission of futility?

Other unfortunate issues were also addressed, but the Committee deplorably refused to adopt the necessary recommendations. One of these concerns was the origin of mining operations. Several organizations pointed out that Canada was a veritable flag of convenience, and that it was enough to register in Canada to present oneself as Canadian, and thus enjoy tax and speculative advantages (guaranteed by the Toronto Stock Exchange), as well as the legal laxity in force in Ottawa.

Another example is the financing provided by Export Development Canada to supposedly Canadian mining companies abroad. It soon became clear that no real checks were carried out on how the money was spent, and that companies that violated human, social and environmental rights could indeed receive money from EDC. Canadian diplomats echoed this view: while we have heard many accounts of the complicity and unlimited support of Canadian embassies abroad, a real investigation could certainly be set up.

Finally, there is the question of the legislative framework. Bill S-211, mentioned by several speakers at the Committee's hearings, offers only a reporting obligation. S-211 in no way obliges companies to respect human rights, prevent harm or take due diligence measures. It imposes no consequences in the event of a company's failure to comply, does not establish any verification of the reports filed annually, and does not address the right of aggrieved individuals to obtain reparation or justice for harm suffered. It applies only to companies with over 250 employees, significant revenues or assets, and is limited to the issue of forced and child labor. It's also a safe bet that the government will use this symbolic measure to rest on its laurels and abandon all vigilance.

The Bloc Québécois supports the adoption of a due diligence law with teeth, in terms of rights (human, social, environmental or health), vis-à-vis Canadian companies. Such a law would: 1) would require companies to prevent negative impacts on human rights and the environment throughout their global operations and supply chains; 2) would require companies to exercise due diligence, including carefully assessing how they might contribute to human rights or environmental abuses abroad, and guaranteeing access to remedies in the event of harm ; 3) would have significant consequences for companies that fail to conduct and report on adequate due diligence; and 4) would establish a statutory right for aggrieved persons to seek justice in Canadian courts. As such, Bill C-262, tabled by the NDP and co-sponsored by the Bloc Québécois MP for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and International Trade Critic, is very much in keeping with what a true due diligence legal framework is all about.