Michael Ignatieff said last week there are "some problems" with a high-profile Liberal private member's bill meant to hold mining, oil and gas corporations responsible for their actions overseas.
Its author, MP John McKay, confirmed the mining industry - whose reach includes his own party's leadership - has opposed that bill with an intense lobbying campaign.
But, when pressed, Ignatieff was unclear as to what changes he'd like to see made to C-300 - which has been supported by the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois and opposed by the Tories.
Speaking to a town hall meeting at the University of Victoria, the Liberal leader said, "It's absolutely essential to our honour as a country that we have good corporate citizens" - proudly citing McKay's bill as an example of how the Liberals have "taken a lead" on the issue.
"We don't want to exploit labour, we don't want to beat up union activists and militants and we want to make sure that the forms of mining that we develop overseas are environmentally and socially sustainable and have a decent return to the communities that they're a part of," he stated, telling the audience his party is "willing to look at any legislative mechanism" that will do just that.
But he said there are "some problems" with McKay's effort, which gives the ministers of foreign affairs and international trade the responsibility to receive and, if merited, investigate complaints against such firms.
Asked for details about how that bill could be made better, Ignatieff told Public Eye, "We want to make sure that our foreign affairs officials in other countries are able to monitor the work of our resource extractors in foreign countries without tying these guys in knots."
"Liberals believe in balance," he continued, adding he wants "encourage our big companies to be champions overseas and to be good citizens overseas."
So does that mean the bill, in its present state, is too onerous?
His handler appeared to try to cut-off that line of questioning before Ignatieff himself put a bullet in it.
"Let's go to another question," the Liberal leader said, "We've got work to do. I don't want to get lost in the weeds on this bill."
For his part, McKay said he wants to ensure the bill's complaint process will be "fair to all sides" rather than being a "kangaroo court" - an issue that would likely be dealt with in regulation not legislation.
But, in response to Ignatieff's statement, he said he "would not perceive C-300 as tying anyone in knots."
Nevertheless, the Scarborough-Guildwood parliamentarian said the mining industry has been "spending tens of thousands of dollars on various visits with MPs to tell them this bill was the end of Western civilization as we know it."
Despite that lobbying, McKay estimated 90 percent of his caucus supports the legislation.
"But you can never, ever underestimate the reach of the mining industry - including the reach into caucus and the Liberal leadership."
McKay said he's developed a series of amendments to C-300 with Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae - amendments that will "actually strength the bill and clarify the bill."
Those amendments will be introduced when parliament returns.
And once that happens, the MP said his hope is the "quid pro quo will be vigorous support (for the bill) on the part of the entire caucus."
Liberal leader's slick response
Michael Ignatieff sees no need to put into law a long-standing moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along Canada's west coast - a position that's being criticized by a former Grit candidate who's also a prominent environmentalist.
Despite a widespread belief that such a ban has existed since 1972, provincial Liberal and federal Conservative government officials - along with representatives from Enbridge Inc. - have pointed out it doesn't exist in law.
That's important because the lack of a legal ban means the pipeline firm could act on its plans to pump oil from Alberta's oil sands to Kitimat and transport it through British Columbia's coastal waters.
Speaking to the same town hall meeting in Victoria, Ignatieff - who supports the development of those oil sands, albeit in a more environmental and sustainable way - said he's in favour of the moratorium.
But when pressed by an audience member as to whether he'd introduce legislation to make that moratorium law, the Grit leader said, "I don't think we need to go there. I think what we need to do is maintain a moratorium."
Ignatieff didn't elaborate on why such a law wasn't necessary, even when the audience member pointed out the status quo means that ban isn't "really legally binding."
Nor would he do so when we questioned him about the issue after the event.
"As I've said, you put into law when you need to put into law," responded the former academic. "I think moratorium will do the job."
But that's not the view of The Land Conservancy of BC co-founder Briony Penn, who ran in Saanich-Gulf Islands for the Liberals when Stephane Dion was leader of that party.
In an interview with Public Eye, Penn - who campaigned on the moratorium issue during the last election - said, "I like many, many people who were Dion supporters have not been happy with his responses either on the tar sands or this issue."
"Why not just put it into law? I think any political pundit would say, 'Well, never go more than you need to because if you're in that position you're not pissing off anybody,'" she continued. "But, at this stage, I'm saying what I think Canadians are looking for is leadership and not the status quo."
However, New Democrat parliamentarian Denise Savoie, who has introduced a motion last year calling for a formal tanker moratorium, said she's not surprised Ignatieff isn't showing that kind of leadership.
"He's been purposely ambiguous on the issue of (the oil sands)," she said. "But I think it's really unfortunate because it comes at a time when even Alberta is considering slowing down the exploration of the oil sands."
Sean Holman is editor of the online provincial political news journal Public Eye (publiceyeonline.com). He can be reached at [email protected].
