Foreign Affairs committee  I think what would happen is that had the minister received seven or eight or nine frivolous or vexatious complaints from an NGO or another actor, the minister would clearly have some increased level of scepticism about that individual or group and perhaps could be more expeditio

Foreign Affairs committee  There are a number of Canadian cases being brought before the judiciary in foreign jurisdictions, including some cases that were funded by EDC. You heard about one of them earlier this week. It was formally a Placer Dome mine, now a Barrick mine, in the Philippines, where a lawsu

Foreign Affairs committee  I think it's actually subclause 5(3) that talks about the consultation. Subclause 5(2) is where the standards are discussed; then subclause 5(3) speaks to the consultation. It's quite explicit, as you mentioned. It enumerates the different actors and sectors that should be cons

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm just looking for the provision. If we go down about ten lines to subsection 4(3), your concern is explicitly addressed. The statute explicitly deals with the problem of frivolous and vexatious claims.

Foreign Affairs committee  It is true that there may be individuals who take advantage of this initially and lodge frivolous and vexatious claims, but those frivolous and vexatious claims will be exposed for what they are. I think when groups see that this mechanism doesn't work, because their claims are r

Foreign Affairs committee  As I described in my comments, there are a number of incidents that have occurred around the world, which were on an egregious scale in terms of the impact on affected communities, that remain unresolved for which people have been unable to seek redress. People have lost their so

Foreign Affairs committee  I think I was unclear. An investigation regarding a case that has been operating for some time and around which there are problems would concern that case. If that mine is still operating, but it's now operating to a standard that complies with standards included in the statute,

Foreign Affairs committee  That's a good question. I think in this economic context, companies may be inclined to continue soliciting that kind of support, because it's difficult to get credit from other places. I think also, if companies are as good as their word, this shouldn't pose a problem. Many of t

Foreign Affairs committee  There are a number of opportunities and fora for bringing forward information about what Canadian extractive companies are doing, and Canadian and other civil society organizations make use of those fora. Some of them are international, some of them are national, and so on, and w

Foreign Affairs committee  They will, only insofar as they won't be limited to EDC. They will have the power to review any extractive case, not just those cases that receive the support of EDC. But as we discussed, they're hamstrung. Unless corporations grant their explicit consent to participate, no inves

Foreign Affairs committee  I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour. I'm in contact almost on a daily basis with communities impacted by Canadian extractive operations. They're my partners and my colleagues. There was a lot of anticipation, a lot of excitement, around what the government's response woul

Foreign Affairs committee  If I were counsel for Barrick, I would advise against participating. I don't know what your advice would be.

Foreign Affairs committee  The statute includes provisions for an inclusive participatory process for arriving at those guidelines and those procedures, as does any statute of this type, so I don't share that concern. In addition, it's important to remember that a lot of work has gone into this area. Thi

Foreign Affairs committee  One of the complaints that I referred to was lodged by my organization. It was before I started working for the Halifax Initiative, but I'm aware of the case. It concerned a nuclear energy facility, and it was concerned with the review of that project. So it was Export Developmen

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm sorry, but you're referring to paragraph 5(2)(d), is that right?