The "problem" with bill C-300

It is like clockwork, ladies and gentlemen of the progressive blogosphere. As soon as I start to trust the Liberal Party; as soon as I speak good things about Ignatieff to my friends and colleagues; as soon as I start to think, "Hey, I could fit under this big red tent" - WHAM! - I am hit with some bologna like this: Will Michael Igantieff Bury his own MP's Mining Bill?

A Liberal private member’s bill is the buzz of Parliament Hill as the Tories tries to score political points on its back, Michael Ignatieff distances himself from it and Liberal Whip Marcel Proulx tells caucus members to stay away from the vote on Wednesday.

Great! Just when you almost had me, you pull a stunt like this! Attracting guys like me who would actually get involved in the party and work their tails off to see LPC candidates elected in an election, is like trying to get a little squirrel into your hands. Right when we're at your fingertips you do not make big sudden movements!

Now, where was I? Yes. Bill C-300 apparently has some "problems" according to Ignatieff and Harper. (The only problem for Harper is that it will make him look like a giant hypocrite if he doesn't support it, oh wait, that's never a problem for the Prime Minister.) The bill is intended to, and I quote: is to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada's commitments to international human rights standards.

The bill would give considerable power to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of International Trade, along with the Governor in Council, to make the call as to whether or not a complaint received about a Canadian company in a developing country has committed human rights abuses (explicitly or implicitly) and whether or not their activities follow international standards on environmental care. Their power goes so far as to reject any complaint (submitted in writing by anyone involved in the corporation's activities, be they an employee, concerned Canadian at home, or a citizen of the developing country) outright, needing, at the very least, to consult only their personal opinion and a couple of phone calls.

Would this burden the aforementioned Minister's so much that they would be inundated with false complaints - taking up their time day and night? I doubt it. Would the bill implicitly make the claim against all Canadian companies operating abroad that they are committing human rights and environmental violations? Not at all. Would it help distance the public's MONEY from being used to support a corporation that may commit human rights violations (by taking advantage of lax domestic policies of foreign states for profit)? Yes. And that's the point!

The bill does not prohibit Canadian companies who ignore international best practices and international human rights law from doing business overseas - it protects the Canadian taxpayers from being accessories to human rights violations.

Would Canadians be proud of any company - whether we are in a recession or not - that knowingly goes into a developing country, spills toxins into the water system, strip mines the land making it useless for any other purpose, clear cuts trees, and puts human lives in danger with abhorrent working conditions? Moreover, would Canadians want their taxes to be given to this company, as a subsidy or grant? I wouldn't.

There is only one snag I can see with the bill: it gives too much power to the Ministers in question. The Minister should have the power to make a recommendation on whether or not the human rights/environmental claim has merit or is false, but the decision should ultimately go to committee where it is debated and a ruling made by consensus. The criteria for decision making should be clear: what evidence supports the claim; does the claim have legal merit; and is the evidence sufficient given the size of the project and the scope of the violations?

People may balk at the "international environmental best practices" portion of the bill and think that is too open to debate. But you would be surprised at the amount of best practice and standardization literature there is out there (not to mention entire international organizations dedicated to the topic).

I'd like to know what Ignatieff's problems with the bill are? Harper doesn't like it because the "Coalition" likes it. Oh, and it would (apparently) put Canadians out of jobs. And it would make the recession even worse. According to Harper, our economy is run on giving government handouts to companies that commit human rights and environmental abuses in the developing world.

Ignatieff's stance, however, is more aloof. He probably doesn't like the attention it's drawing from the government. And since this is a private member's bill, all the parties will tell their MPs to vote with their conscious. Which in the case of CPC MPs means, "your conscious tells you it's bad;" and in the case of the LPC, "your conscious tells some of you to go pick up your dry-cleaning when the vote takes place."

It's a shame. It's a shame the Canadians will buy the "coalition" narrative if the NDP, LPC and Bloc actually support a private member's bill that asks nothing more of our government,than to not give our taxes to companies who exploit people in the developing world.