Canadian Miners Strike Back Against Bill C-300

After taking abuse from both the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the better part of a week in late November, Canadian miners finally had their turn at the microphone.

Miners, and groups sympathetic to their cause, made their case in Ottawa before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as it debates whether or not to allow Bill C-300 to pass through to a vote in the Senate.

The bill would impose new guidelines for miners and oil companies in foreign countries and dish out penalties if they are broken.

Barrick Gold (ABX-T, ABX-N),Goldcorp (G-T, GG-N) and Kinross Gold (K-T, KGC-N) all appeared before the panel arguing that the bill was unnecessary and, if passed, would severely damage Canada’s robust mining industry.

In a release, Barrick laid out the key points of its case, saying that Canadian companies’ competitiveness would be hampered, reputations could be unjustifiably ruined, and the multi-stakeholder approach to corporate responsibility would be undermined.

The net effect, the gold miner argues, would be Canadian miners setting up headquarters in countries other than Canada.

Earlier in the week, the panel heard from a host of individuals complaining about the conduct of Canadian mining companies in foreign countries.

The most damaging of testimonials, however, came from former environment minister for Argentina, Romina Picolotti. Picolotti alleges that Barrick used strong-arm tactics in connection with its seeking approval for its Pascua Lama project, including physical threats to her and her family, bribes and the hiring away of her staff.

Picolotti is currently the president of the NGO Centre for Human Rights and Environment — a point seized on by the miners, who labelled her an activist.

Barrick also calls Picolotti’s allegations unsubstantiated and says the hearings themselves are serving as a harbinger for the false accusations that would fly should Bill C-300 become law.

“One thing has become crystal clear as the hearings have progressed: some individuals have not been made to substantiate even their wildest allegations about the Canadian mining industry and Barrick Gold — much of which has been thoroughly disproved well before today,” Vince Borg, Barrick’s executive vice-president of communications, said in a statement. “They have not provided the committee with facts or evidence to support their claims as they conduct these hit-and-run company character assassinations.”

Miners argue the bill is unnecessary because countries that miners operate in already have governmental institutions, regulatory regimes, policing authorities, legal procedures and courts.

Introduced as a private member’s bill by Liberal MP John McKay in February, Bill C-300 was based on the recommendations of a multi-stakeholder advisory group that included representatives from industry and NGOs.

A month after the bill’s introduction, the Conservative government unveiled a regulatory body with a mandate to enforce voluntary guidelines, saying at the time that the new body made McKay’s bill irrelevant.

But the new body would require a mining company’s consent to perform any investigation into any alleged wrongdoing, leaving it toothless in the eyes of the political opposition.

In response to the voluntary setup, in April, Bill C-300 narrowly passed by a vote of 137-133 in the House of Commons, with notable Liberals such as Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae abstaining from voting.

If made into law, the bill would allow anyone, from any country where Canadian mining companies operate, to bring complaints before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The government would then have eight months to investigate, with the results being made public. If a company is deemed to have broken guidelines, financial support would be cut off from Ottawa — namely through Export Development Canada and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Guideline infractions would also mean companies could no longer access consular services from Canadian embassies in foreign countries.

Lining up alongside miners before the committee was law firm Fasken Martineau.

“While the intentions behind the bill are laudable, and while it is without question that Canadian companies must operate in a responsible and accountable manner, we submit that this bill is flawed in its construction and unduly prejudicial towards an important Canadian industry,” said James Peterson, counsel with Fasken Martineau and a former minister of international trade, in statement. “If passed, this bill could deter companies from working in less stable developing countries, as it does not provide companies with any opportunity to address and remedy an issue without immediately being subject to a complaint, possible investigation and sanction.”

The firm also pointed out the difficulty in implementing the bill, as a country in which an infraction of the guidelines is alleged, would not necessarily allow the government of Canada to conduct an investigation within its borders.

Typically, private member’s bills such as C-300 have a low success rate, although McKay has already tabled two private member’s bills that were passed.

If the bill is to become law, it will have to first clear the current committee stage, then pass a third vote in Parliament before passing muster in the Senate.

That last step could prove tricky, as the Conservatives — who are in general cool to the bill — could have control of the Senate by next year.