Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I think the first country would be France. They have in place this duty of vigilance law that requires companies over a certain size to take steps to ensure that they have a vigilance plan in place and to make sure that their subsidiaries, other contractors and other entities in the global supply chain do not violate human rights, etc.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Okay.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  No. I think it would start to have a preventative affect on corporate behaviour if the CORE could properly investigate, if it had the powers to compel witnesses and documents. Then it would have a preventative effect. That would help to ensure that corporations engage in better practices through, probably, human rights and environmental due diligence.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes. Judicial remedies are of course central to the right to an effective remedy, but as I think you've mentioned, and as I've said before, too, they aren't sufficient because not every set of facts can be a tort claim. Harm that is caused will not be necessarily remedied through the courts.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  For some companies, it will be important to have that withdrawn, but it's important to remember that the CORE can only recommend to Export Development Canada. Export Development Canada has to decide that it's not going to provide funding to a company. That's a problem. As well, it will only hit certain types of companies.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  No problem.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  It's an obligation to ensure that companies that are operating within Canada's jurisdiction are not making decisions and taking actions that can have...or that through subsidiaries are violating the human rights of people in other countries.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I am talking about Canada's obligations to exercise due diligence to ensure that Canadian companies operating in other countries do not violate human rights while they are operating abroad. Canadian companies make decisions. They do a lot of things. Their subsidiaries or their contractors may violate human rights in another country.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I think this is what we're all talking about. If Canada were to put in place a legislative framework to require its companies to engage in human rights due diligence and then make sure that there are effective remedies, both through the courts and through a properly empowered CORE, then that would be getting much closer to Canada respecting or complying with its obligations.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Again, companies probably don't go out seeking to commit human rights violations, and some of them care greatly if their personnel or the contractors they hire or whatever become complicit or commit or perpetrate human rights violations. I think what companies need to have in place—and this is one of the requirements of the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights—is that the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights includes that they undertake human rights due diligence: that they look at what the risks are to the people, not to themselves; that they engage in meaningful consultation with local communities; and that they prevent and, if not, mitigate violations of human rights.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Okay. I think what I was saying was that there's a difference between a private individual suing a corporation for violations in Canadian courts for something that happened in Eritrea and, say, Canada bringing a claim against Eritrea for a violation, an erga omnes violation, for example.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Yes.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  In theory, I guess if one state violates an erga omnes obligation, then another state could bring a claim in an international tribunal. I just want to distinguish between a private party bringing a claim against a non-state actor, a corporation, in [Technical difficulty—Editor] being able to bring a claim in an international tribunal such as the UN International Court of Justice in The Hague—

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Okay. Was I speaking or was MP Reid speaking at that point?

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I'm not quite sure I understand what—