November is when we pause to remember those who have fought for us in past and present wars; those who are still doing so in Afghanistan and in peace missions in other parts of the world; those who have come home, but injured in body and spirit; and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives.
It is a time to say thank you, to remember--and in the spirit of thanks and remembrance, to reflect on how we can best promote peace, instead of war.
I am very proud of my family’s military history. My grandfather (from Willowdale) was a pilot in WWI, flying with Billy Bishop against the famous Red Baron. One of my uncles (also from Willowdale) was a pilot in WWII, but, sadly, he was shot down and killed, and never came home to his family. Another uncle (also from Willowdale) was a pilot with the naval air force. He made the navy his career, ultimately commanding a destroyer (the HMCS Qu’Appelle).
My own father landed on DDay. He was the first Allied soldier in Caen. He won the Military Cross for his work in laying and keeping open the signal lines under fire, and went on to help liberate Holland. I am able to tell you this story because he was one of the lucky ones who was able to come home and build a family—of which I am one.
I myself was able to “join the Navy” this summer, as part of a program offered by the Armed Forces to Members of Parliament. For five days, I was welcomed as ‘part of the crew’ of the frigate HMCS St. John’s. It was an extraordinary experience, and I learned so much about the incredible teamwork necessary for the survival of a ship at sea. (One night was so rough we had to use our “bunk belts” to keep from rolling out of bed!)
I am very proud of my family’s contributions. I am very proud of the fact that, when called upon to help internationally, Canada and Canadians have not only stepped up to the challenge, they have punched far above their weight and earned worldwide respect.
Unfortunately, our veterans have not been treated well enough. I, as the MP for Willowdale, along with many of my colleagues, are calling on the Harper government to properly honour our veterans, our military, and their families on all days of the year by (i) conducting an extensive review of the New Veterans’ Charter with real consultation with veterans across the country; (ii) immediately correcting the problems with the lump-sum payment system for injured veterans returning from service; (iii) clarifying whether the new benefits for seriously injured veterans will be retroactive to 2006; and (iv) helping the growing number of veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We must ensure that veterans, who have given so much, are given the support, and treated with the respect, that they deserve.
I also want us to do all we can, as a country, to promote peace, not war. We have a long tradition in this country, from Lester Pearson’s work creating UN Peacekeeping efforts, to Canada’s role in the anti-land mines treaty, to Jean Chretien’s refusal to send Canadian troops to invade Iraq, to the promotion by Michael Ignatieff of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine at the United Nations. These efforts are not perfect. The United Nations itself has flaws. But Canada can either sit back and refuse to help, or we can step up, once again, to the challenge of ensuring a multilateral approach to achieving world peace. I choose to have Canada step up to make the world a better place.
Martha Hall Findlay
MP, Willowdale
Official Opposition Critic for International Trade
2.11.10
My View on Bill C-300
I, and everyone in the Liberal Party, agreed completely with the intentions behind Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil and Gas in Developing Countries. ALL members of the Liberal Party are 100% behind improving the Corporate Social Responsibility of Canadian mining companies in developing countries (CSR). Indeed, I commend my colleague John McKay from Scarborough – Guildwood for remaining so concerned about this issue while the Conservative Government has done so little.
However, intentions aren’t always enough, and I had serious concerns about Bill C-300. Despite considerable pressure to do so, I refused to vote for something I felt was very flawed. I was therefore not in the House of Commons for the vote this past Wednesday. I was one of 13 Liberals, 4 NDP and 6 Bloc Quebecois who were not there. (Interestingly, that’s pretty much the same proportion from each of the three opposition parties.)
Ironically, I did not support C-300 specifically because of the fact that I, too, am very concerned about CSR of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. There’s no question that Bill C-300 sounded very good on its face, but that’s not enough. It was flawed—something John McKay, its proponent, himself admitted. Due to the limitations on Private Member’s Bills, it could not include some fundamental pieces that would have made it function in an acceptable way. The proponents said that, although it was flawed, at least it would “go part way”. However, in my view, this particular effort at “going part way” would cause other, unintended damage.
And to address the allegations that the mining companies engaged in major lobbying: I had made my decision long before any mining company came to talk to me. Indeed, I and many of my colleagues were lobbied far harder, for a longer period of time, by supporters of C-300---far harder than the mining industry. My decision had nothing to do with either side’s lobbying efforts.
I did not support it based on the Bill’s own flaws, based on the extensive personal research I did, based on listening to as many stakeholders as I could—and based on my own understanding of the political process, domestic law, international law, international finance and international business (thanks to significant personal background and experience in these areas). I came to the conclusion that its flaws would cause significant negative unintended consequences in the short term—negative consequences for the very people in developing countries that it was intended to help. Not only that, I felt that passing C-300 would, in fact, put truly successful improvements to CSR backwards. In order to really accomplish what we’re all trying to achieve, we need to do this right.
Others disagreed, of course. I have had no shortage of criticism, including a surprising number of unpleasant personal attacks. But I stand by decision. I'm proud to live in a society, and be a part of a political party, that allows people to disagree. It is critical, particularly where the current Conservative government is so controlled, and where debate is so often silenced, that when we are able to debate, we do so with respect and civility—with respect for other people’s opinions.
My biggest upset is that there has been so much division, so much antagonism that has developed among so many people who want the same thing. I hope that we can move forward.
I, and the whole Liberal Party, believe that we will achieve real and truly effective progress on CSR through the implementation of the 2007 Report by the Advisory Group on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Industry (Click Here to view the report). This 2007 Report included strong and very positive recommendations for the improving of CSR among Canadian mining companies working in developing countries. Most importantly, it was developed with the participation of ALL stakeholders—NGOs, CSOs, mining companies, governments, and more. It is extremely powerful because of that fact. I’d like to see those recommendations implemented. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did nothing, and sat on the 2007 Report, silent, for two years. A Liberal government would do it right.
* * * * * * * *
Here is some information about the 2006 Round Table process and the resulting 2007 Report:
In 2005 a decision was made, under a Liberal Government, to move forward on the issue of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. Throughout 2006, extensive, all-stakeholder round tables were conducted. These included non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), mining and oil companies, labour, governments and individuals. It was an extraordinary process—and very unusual in the progress achieved with so many different participants.
There were 156 oral presentations and 104 written submissions. Of these, 61 were from civil society, 33 from industry, 15 from labour organizations, 31 from academics and research institutes, and 16 from members of the public without a stated affiliation.
This process was an extraordinary example of all of the stakeholders coming together to address this fundamental issue—and the resulting 2007 Report was roundly approved and supported. It was the product of many people who might have had opposing views but who came together, exhibiting a will to compromise and find constructive consensus.
The 2007 Report set out some very tough recommendations, including strict and clear guidelines on the level of CSR expected of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries, a robust complaint and review mechanism, the creation of an ombudsperson with tough responsibilities, and significant funding to help developing countries build their own capacity to create and enforce, locally, CSR standards and regulations. Yet the Conservative government did nothing. Nothing for two years. Only recently did they come up with a much watered down plan, but with no teeth.
Liberals are united in strongly supporting implementation of a regime based on the full 2007 Report, as the best way to achieve the highest levels of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries— something the Conservative government has failed to do.
However, intentions aren’t always enough, and I had serious concerns about Bill C-300. Despite considerable pressure to do so, I refused to vote for something I felt was very flawed. I was therefore not in the House of Commons for the vote this past Wednesday. I was one of 13 Liberals, 4 NDP and 6 Bloc Quebecois who were not there. (Interestingly, that’s pretty much the same proportion from each of the three opposition parties.)
Ironically, I did not support C-300 specifically because of the fact that I, too, am very concerned about CSR of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. There’s no question that Bill C-300 sounded very good on its face, but that’s not enough. It was flawed—something John McKay, its proponent, himself admitted. Due to the limitations on Private Member’s Bills, it could not include some fundamental pieces that would have made it function in an acceptable way. The proponents said that, although it was flawed, at least it would “go part way”. However, in my view, this particular effort at “going part way” would cause other, unintended damage.
And to address the allegations that the mining companies engaged in major lobbying: I had made my decision long before any mining company came to talk to me. Indeed, I and many of my colleagues were lobbied far harder, for a longer period of time, by supporters of C-300---far harder than the mining industry. My decision had nothing to do with either side’s lobbying efforts.
I did not support it based on the Bill’s own flaws, based on the extensive personal research I did, based on listening to as many stakeholders as I could—and based on my own understanding of the political process, domestic law, international law, international finance and international business (thanks to significant personal background and experience in these areas). I came to the conclusion that its flaws would cause significant negative unintended consequences in the short term—negative consequences for the very people in developing countries that it was intended to help. Not only that, I felt that passing C-300 would, in fact, put truly successful improvements to CSR backwards. In order to really accomplish what we’re all trying to achieve, we need to do this right.
Others disagreed, of course. I have had no shortage of criticism, including a surprising number of unpleasant personal attacks. But I stand by decision. I'm proud to live in a society, and be a part of a political party, that allows people to disagree. It is critical, particularly where the current Conservative government is so controlled, and where debate is so often silenced, that when we are able to debate, we do so with respect and civility—with respect for other people’s opinions.
My biggest upset is that there has been so much division, so much antagonism that has developed among so many people who want the same thing. I hope that we can move forward.
I, and the whole Liberal Party, believe that we will achieve real and truly effective progress on CSR through the implementation of the 2007 Report by the Advisory Group on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Industry (Click Here to view the report). This 2007 Report included strong and very positive recommendations for the improving of CSR among Canadian mining companies working in developing countries. Most importantly, it was developed with the participation of ALL stakeholders—NGOs, CSOs, mining companies, governments, and more. It is extremely powerful because of that fact. I’d like to see those recommendations implemented. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did nothing, and sat on the 2007 Report, silent, for two years. A Liberal government would do it right.
* * * * * * * *
Here is some information about the 2006 Round Table process and the resulting 2007 Report:
In 2005 a decision was made, under a Liberal Government, to move forward on the issue of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries. Throughout 2006, extensive, all-stakeholder round tables were conducted. These included non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), mining and oil companies, labour, governments and individuals. It was an extraordinary process—and very unusual in the progress achieved with so many different participants.
There were 156 oral presentations and 104 written submissions. Of these, 61 were from civil society, 33 from industry, 15 from labour organizations, 31 from academics and research institutes, and 16 from members of the public without a stated affiliation.
This process was an extraordinary example of all of the stakeholders coming together to address this fundamental issue—and the resulting 2007 Report was roundly approved and supported. It was the product of many people who might have had opposing views but who came together, exhibiting a will to compromise and find constructive consensus.
The 2007 Report set out some very tough recommendations, including strict and clear guidelines on the level of CSR expected of Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries, a robust complaint and review mechanism, the creation of an ombudsperson with tough responsibilities, and significant funding to help developing countries build their own capacity to create and enforce, locally, CSR standards and regulations. Yet the Conservative government did nothing. Nothing for two years. Only recently did they come up with a much watered down plan, but with no teeth.
Liberals are united in strongly supporting implementation of a regime based on the full 2007 Report, as the best way to achieve the highest levels of CSR among Canadian mining companies operating in developing countries— something the Conservative government has failed to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
