Hon. Yoine Goldstein:

Honourable senators, last September, Prime Minister Harper stated that:

. . . a government needs to know when to be able to draw the line when any foreign takeover would jeopardize our national security."

I will argue today, briefly, having regard to the time, that we have to go further.

In its current form, the Investment Canada Act gives the government the right to decline the approval of foreign investments above a threshold amount when the proposed investment does not constitute a "net benefit" for Canada. The criteria for determining net benefit for Canada are entirely economic. I am presenting this bill because I believe that the determination of a net benefit for Canada should include more than dollars and cents. Indeed, it should include consideration of human life and dignity, which should count as well.

Many legislatures, universities, religious groups and cities have recognized the value of divesting from companies whose operations support genocide or other crimes against humanity. They have shown that this type of policy is both wise, in that it changes behaviours for the better, and profitable because it reduces risks for investors.

There are many problems with limiting our assessment of the value of an investment to the economic benefits that one can expect to derive from it. Some would say that our economy is currently in a fair bit of trouble because institutions south of the border created a regime of investment without considering the morality of their actions. This time, it has cost hundreds of thousands of Canadians their jobs, their pensions and their homes, but for many people the price of ignoring the morality of business is much greater. I speak of course of the victims of genocide or other crimes against humanity who suffer because some companies investing in foreign countries provide goods and services in support of regimes or groups that commit precisely those atrocities.

I will highlight the example of Sudan. I believe that it is a significant demonstration of assigning value beyond the financial benefit to human rights, and I want to point out the benefits that this has yielded.

On March 4, 2009, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, for crimes against humanity and war crimes for his actions in the frighteningly long horrifying seven years during the beginning of his genocidal campaign.

Years before, the United States recognized the situation in Darfur as an ongoing genocide. Many divestment initiatives followed largely at the instance of civil society. The Bush administration passed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act in 2007, prohibiting federal contracts with companies that operate in certain sectors in Sudan and providing protection to asset managers that choose to divest from Sudan. As a result, over 100 universities, 27 states, 23 cities, 18 countries and 11 religious organizations have initiated or adopted divestment policies.

These initiatives have worked. Twelve companies operating in Sudan have ceased their operations there or have significantly changed their behaviour.

Furthermore, divestment is considered beneficial to the asset managers and the funds they direct. A 2006 report by the United States House of Representatives concluded that:

. . . a company's association with sponsors of terrorism and human rights abuses, no matter how large or small, can have a materially adverse effect on a public company's operations, financial condition, earnings, and stock prices, all of which can negatively affect the value of an investment.

From the perspective of financial risk, it makes sense not to invest in companies engaging in practices that support genocide or other crimes against humanity. What this diverse group of individuals has come to realize and value, and what they have had the courage to do about it, was to say that they would not allow companies that support genocide or crimes against humanity to benefit from their resources or from their dollars.

I do not want my comments to be construed as a critique of trade and foreign investment. I believe, as we all do, in the value of free and open commerce and international investment, and God knows we need international investment. Our country is, and must remain, open for business.

Economies are local; we are, to use the usual terminology, part of the global village. However, we must understand that it remains our responsibility to ensure that our wealth is not exploited or sold to the highest bidder without some thought being given to the human impact of their activities.

Canada has a long and proud history of supporting human rights and of speaking up for those who have no voice. While this reputation has lost some of its lustre, unfortunately, in recent years, it remains one that garners honour and respect abroad, and justly so.

The current Investment Canada Act makes certain exceptions from the plain calculation of dollars and cents in the determination of a "net benefit" for Canada. The impact of foreign investment on competition and on Canada's cultural sector must be considered when granting a foreign investor the right to invest in Canada.

This bill suggests the drawing of a line when foreign companies supporting genocide and crimes against humanity want to use Canadian wealth to further their activities. We must not let our resources finance cruel, dispassionate support for senseless violence.

Will we allow Canadian oil to be used to fuel the jets that a foreign government uses to indiscriminately bomb its own people? Will we allow Canadian iron ore to be mined and made into Kalashnikovs for an army officer to shoot, at the order of a dictator, into a crowd of peaceful citizens marching for democratic reform? Will we allow Canadian lumber to be turned into the paper on which hate propaganda is distributed, on which lists are printed of those who will be targeted for beatings, for torture, for rape or for murder? Will we allow foreign investors to establish operations in Canada, where they can draw on Canada's brightest minds to create new computer programs, to develop new drugs, to engineer new machines and new production possesses that will be used to help a dictator oppress the people of his own country?

Honourable senators, I believe that no one here would agree to allow such things. Some may say that there is nothing we can do about it, but I say to you, in the now famous words of President Obama, yes, we can; I suggest to you, yes, we should. We have the power and we have the responsibility to make certain that this is stopped. Foreign companies who support genocide and crimes against humanity in the course of their business activities abroad should not be entitled to use and invest in Canadian resources under any circumstances.

Before I stop, I want to recognize some of my honourable colleagues and friends, both in this chamber and in the other place, who have worked so hard to bring forward similar measures.

Colleagues, friends, Canada has a history of advocating for human rights on the international scene. Its record is not unblemished, but it is one that is generally commendable. We have the duty to stand here for Canadians to defend the principle that our resources are simply not available for human rights abusers and that they are not to be sold to genocide perpetrators.

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators