Bill C-300 (Historical)

Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act

An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries

The purpose of this enactment is to promote environmental best practices and to ensure the protection and promotion of international human rights standards in respect of the mining, oil or gas activities of Canadian corporations in developing countries. It also gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of International Trade the responsibility to issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards for mining, oil or gas activities and it requires the Ministers to submit an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the provisions and operation of this Act.

[Tyler Giannini]

Second, Mr. Chair, in its testimony, Barrick stated in regard to the police that “There has never been restricted access to the mine site”, and that our October 2009 testimony that police “indicated that their investigative efforts have been hampered by PJV security” is “simply untrue”. Barrick also stated that crimes on mine property are reported to the police and that “...PJV would conduct its own investigation...”.

In our written submission, we included documents authored by a police investigator claiming that he had been prevented from accessing the mine and obtaining the time sheets and duty rosters he requested. We spoke with this individual and showed him the documents. He personally authenticated the documents in our presence. Other police officers have similarly told us that they have been hampered from investigating and having access.

This clearly indicates the need for a thorough and independent—and I stress independent—investigation. To the extent that Barrick conducts its own investigations, they have thus far been done in an opaque manner. Barrick should release information on the nature and outcomes of its internal inquiries, information on how many guards were disciplined or dismissed, and for what reasons, and information on whether guards were referred for criminal prosecution.

Third and finally, there is the issue of abuses since 2006--in particular, killings. Barrick stated that “...there have been no fatal shootings by Porgera security personnel” since 2006. First, it's unclear what Barrick means by “security personnel”. However, the existence of witness statements, together with the previously referenced autopsy and police reports on the 2006 to 2008 period and killings, as included in our prior submissions, bring Barrick's statement into question and reinforce again the need for an independent investigation.

In conclusion, Barrick's responses to the serious allegations of gang rapes and killings since 2006, and the inadequacy of both government and corporate investigations to date demonstrate, as previously testified, that there's a vital need for a bill like Bill C-300.

We also strongly believe that human rights standards and the voluntary principles, as referenced in the bill, do give specific guidance that is clear and manageable for companies and adjudicators considering allegations. An alleged abuser cannot police itself, and there must be genuine independent investigation into allegations of human rights abuses.

[Sarah Knuckey, New York University Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Harvard Law School]

Thank you, Tyler.

Chair and committee members, in October 2009 we provided testimony to this committee on allegations concerning gang rapes, physical abuse, and killings by security guards that we documented during three separate fact-finding missions to Barrick Gold's PJV mine in Papua New Guinea. Subsequently, we submitted a detailed supporting document, including extensive appendices of police and autopsy reports, which we encourage you to review.

Our 2009 testimony provided information on why independent, transparent, and comprehensive investigations by Barrick or the government of PNG have not yet occurred and are unlikely to take place. In 2006 the PNG government investigated deaths surrounding the mine, but four years later, it has yet to release the findings of those investigations.

We also testified to the existence of an MOU between the government of PNG and the PJV under which police reservists are part of the PJV security force, raising serious questions about the independence of any investigations by the police of Papua New Guinea.

Today, we respond to some of the claims made by Barrick Gold in its subsequent testimony to this committee, which further demonstrate the inherent problems of leaving a company to investigate itself and emphasize the importance of a bill like Bill C-300, which could help fill an alarming accountability gap.

First, let me address gang rapes. In response to our October 2009 testimony in which we documented numerous allegations of brutal gang rapes by guards on mine property, Barrick stated in its testimony that, to its knowledge, “no cases of sexual assault [have been] reported to mine management” and said, “It is not possible for the PJV to investigate an allegation it has never received...”.

Committee members, this exemplifies a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to human rights abuses. Through our investigations, we quickly discovered allegations of sexual violence. Barrick would have been able to do the same if it had conducted any investigations at all.

Sexual violence by PNG police across the country is well known, as is the reluctance of women to report rape. Senior Barrick officials have been aware of general rape allegations at the mine since at least August 2006. Given such knowledge, Barrick should have, at a minimum, taken steps to proactively prevent sexual abuses, including by installing surveillance cameras on the waste dump areas where women were raped, and in the guard patrol vehicles; by doing community outreach to women to inform them of their rights and how to complain; and by creating a reliable internal complaint mechanism.

Further, while Barrick seems to imply that the rape allegations we testified to are false because women have “numerous avenues” to report an allegation of rape, this grossly misstates the realities on the ground. Most of the women I met do not know to whom at the company to complain or are fearful of retribution, community disapproval, being arrested, or suffering further abuse from the police.

[Gary Nash, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My thesis will be that Bill C-300 will create some serious issues for the government and will not be of net benefit to Canada.

To begin, I want to clarify that there are not 4,000 mining projects abroad. There are likely fewer than 200 in developing countries; I received this information the other day from a consultant friend of mine. In his case, he shows about 182 as of 2007.

The second point I would make is that exploration companies can be quite small, as you've just heard, and these companies, as far as I know, do not draw on EDC funds, nor do they receive investments from the pension plans. As a result, they're probably outside the context of the bill.

Therefore, the real target of this bill is mining companies with projects abroad, but there are some questions about that.

To what mining projects will the bill apply? Does it apply to foreign companies investing from their Canadian subsidiaries? Does it apply to foreign companies that happen to be listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange? Does it apply to joint ventures where Canadian mining companies have a greater, equal, or minority interest in the joint ventures? Will the joint venture partners also be investigated if you decide to pursue it?

To undertake a case-by-case review can be costly and lengthy. It could require in-depth, technical, on-site expertise, and obviously the cooperation of the host government, which may take time for a decision, as well as a fair and transparent process, with oversight, to ensure that the investigative and administrative processes are carried out properly.

Without sufficient resources to investigate and to meet the famous Treasury Board guidelines for contracting, it could take some years to resolve a complaint, given a significant number of complaints, which is likely with the passage of this bill. The longer it takes to decide, the greater the likely negative impact on the company's reputation, its market value, and its ability to move forward on other projects that do generate some community benefits.

What happens if the minister cannot meet the eight-month deadline? And even if it's extended, what then, in terms of the negative impact on the company? Will there be need for an investigation to determine if the complaint is frivolous, especially if the criteria are not specific enough to avoid this need?

With the announcement of a review, the public will generally assume that the company is guilty. The fact that the minister publishes in the Canada Gazette the decision of innocence or that the complaint is frivolous is of little value. Who reads the Gazette in the general public, in Canada, or abroad? And do journalists in the implicated countries or here always follow up on the story? If so, do they get it right? You must have some experience with that.

Ministerial decisions also provide an opportunity for politically biased decisions in accepting to review a complaint or possibly deciding that the infraction wasn't significant enough to inform EDC, because you will run into those types of things. Each situation can be said to contravene procedural fairness, and you've heard from a constitutional lawyer on this. To minimize bias, should not the parties implicated be allowed to comment on the information and analysis received by the minister, obtained during the review, and prior to the minister's decision? Should they be allowed to appeal the decision?

There is no provision for protecting a complainant from local interests that might be negatively affected by a guilty decision of the minister, and I can give an example of a circumstance like that. In some countries, it is possible that a complainant might be at risk not only from affected local interests, but also from his own government, if he were to write a letter of complaint to the minister. This is possible if the government favours the mining operation or if the government was complicit in ignoring the infraction or rejects the right of any foreign government to interfere in its domestic matters.

What is the implication for the Canadian government should the complainant be killed? And what about instances where corruption or blackmail is prevalent? Threatening to complain might be used to gain additional funding or a bribe from the company. How will the minister determine the real basis of the complaint or an interest that encouraged the complaint?

What about the corruption of judges in some developing countries? We know of some. What if the minister finds that the complaint was unfounded, but the judge, possibly as a result of corrupt practices, finds otherwise? If, as a result, the consequences for this company are serious, then will Canada intervene in support of the company?

As far as corruption is concerned, complaints might be used by the government in the country concerned to withdraw a mining licence from a mining company. I can give an example. Should this occur, especially if the minister gave credence for the complaint, what are the consequences for the Canadian government? Will the minister seek and obtain the agreement of that government before undertaking a review? If that government opposes a review by the minister, will the minister then dismiss the complaint? If not, what will it mean in terms of the relationship with that country?

If Parliament approves a bill that provides for extraterritorial application of Canadian law, what are the consequences if it conflicts with the provisions of the developing country's law or regulations—and there are examples—and if the domestic law was legitimately not intended to accord with international standards or guidelines?

How will the government react if another government also decides on a bill that allows it to undertake reviews of complaints against its mining companies? As you know, Canada has a good number of foreign companies operating, from South Africa to China, India, and Russia, etc. Would the Government of Canada welcome the involvement of the United Kingdom or China in such a review of a complaint against their companies in Canada? It opens up a real issue if many countries decide to copy this bill.

Suppose that a mining company obtains a court decision in the country of concern in which it is found innocent of an environmental infraction. Then, suppose that certain persons in that country, or even in Canada, are not satisfied with the court's decision and submit a complaint to the minister. Would that complaint be accepted for review or just automatically be rejected? The bill does not provide for that.

If the minister finds the company guilty of an infraction and the infraction was known but ignored by the company, could the minister's decision lead to criminal or civil charges against the company in that country?

If the Canadian government decided in favour of a Canadian company, it might create some political opposition to Canada and to other Canadian interests in the country. If it favours the local or other interests and not the company, then, as you know, the government will have helped to injure the reputation of that company and its potential access to other opportunities that could have provided additional trade and benefits for Canada.

Also, since companies prefer certainty with regard to funding and insurance, this will encourage the company to seek support from other than EDC. This could cause a bit of embarrassment to the company, particularly given the fact that EDC often encourages the use of Canadian suppliers of goods and services.

The bill provides for complaints of a social/human rights nature, which need to be defined. Are we talking about family breakup, crime, working conditions, and hiring practices? But on the social side, to assess the impact on social changes in the community, a baseline study is required to know whether there is an increase in social problems that can be related to a mine. If there is more than one industry in that area, how will the minister distinguish who is at fault?

Overall, what will be the measurable standards based on human rights principles or guidelines? John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been working on this for nearly five years, and he is still working. Bill C-300 allows 12 months for the minister to establish corporate accountability standards pertaining to human rights guidelines. As you know, a guideline can have a number of different measurable standards.

As an alternative, I would agree with the prior advisory committee to the round tables that many issues need clarification and a proper analysis, some of which is detailed in my larger paper. An expert group could be established to consider the complications raised in the paper, as well as the necessary standards, procedural guidelines, and decision-making roles to improve corporate performance that maintains a positive image of Canada abroad. Again, details are in my paper.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Laureen Whyte, Vice-President, Sustainability and Operations, Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting us to join you, and I apologize; I've had the trip on which everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. I'm running.

I work with the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. I work out of our Vancouver office. What I really wanted to do today is bring a perspective to you from the exploration community, primarily in British Columbia, but also nationally and internationally.

The Association for Mineral Exploration was established in 1912. We represent over 300 corporate and 3,000 individual members. These are primarily prospectors and junior exploration companies. We also have the exploration divisions of some of the senior companies in our membership.

Our areas of focus are primarily health and safety, aboriginal and community engagement, and policy development. We also have a large conference, Mineral Exploration Roundup, where we do technical work.

The context for our members is that in some ways it is quite daunting for folks who are working in a small office or perhaps on their own to try to understand operationally what the guidance is telling them to do. In terms of the international work that has been happening, we've had to make a lot of investment in understanding and providing guidance to our members on how they can implement operational practices that will meet the tests of health and safety standards, environmental management, social development impacts, and, now, human rights.

I want to share some of my own involvement in this. I have worked with first nations for almost 25 years, both in the community as a social worker and in development initiatives as an industry employee. I think the challenge and the opportunity can both be underestimated in terms of what the presence of industry can mean to a community, and it's primarily the examples of first nations that have raised a lot of questions for our members about what the expectations are of them internationally.

As for some of the things we've been working on in British Columbia, we have been working with first nations in an area where there is very little of the province that's covered by treaty, so we're working in very uncertain kinds of situations, in a lot of conflict situations, and where there is a lot of uncertainty about decision-making and reaching consensus within the communities.

We work with the Prospectors and Developers Association very closely as well, and we've been deeply involved in the development of e3 Plus, on which I know Tony Andrews has shared some details with you already.

We also are participating as PDAC moves to its field testing of e3 Plus, and we've engaged two first nations in B.C. to participate in the field testing with companies operating in their area. I think that the connection to what we do domestically should not be lost. There is an awful lot that we've learned here, and there are a lot of similar kinds of situations that we've developed some expertise in managing.

Internationally, I think it's been recognized by all that the real performance challenge is being able to bridge the governance gap that has been created by globalization. But the current international human rights objectives were framed in relation to the obligations of states, not businesses.

At a practical level, there is also a lack for us of an understanding of the breadth and coherence of response. What I mean by that is that understanding who is responsible for what in any given situation on the ground is very difficult for people to do.

The way we experience success is by collaborating with government, with communities, and with non-profit organizations. I can cite several examples in British Columbia where we've done that very successfully in remote communities.

We can't do it alone. Nobody can do it alone. I feel very strongly that the way people learn how to manage these situations is not through sanctions, but by learning. It's by learning from each other, by having the responsibilities and the criteria set out for them very clearly in operational terms, and by being able to go to somebody who can provide them with some guidance.

I just want to speak briefly about what we're doing here in Canada. We have been following the work of the UN special representative very closely. In my experience in working in communities on a personal level, I am very pleased to see the scope and the comprehensiveness with which the UN special representative is approaching this work. It fits with my own experience of success and with the kind of guidance that I've provided to my members and that has been successful for them.

I also believe that here at home in Canada we've been providing a lot of support to the CSR counsellor and doing what we can to contribute to the CSR strategy, the centre for excellence, and a number of other initiatives. We have a very large group of people participating deeply in all of these consultations and discussions.

I want to speak briefly to the provisions of Bill C-300 in particular. I believe that the punitive measures that would be aimed at Canadian companies would divert significant resources away from the collaborative process that is under way now. We've made a huge investment in that. We're seeing results.

I don't want to see my members taking their time and resources away from the work we're doing now, which is helping, to something that would put them in a compliance mode. The compliance mode for them would be to do the minimum required, to not integrate that into their own corporate culture, and to not discuss with other people what their practices are. It becomes an issue of liability for them, rather than one of learning from each other.

It's very hard for me as an association staff member to get my members to speak openly about the challenges they face. They don't like making mistakes. They don't like it when they have done something wrong. They can come to me now, and we can bring opportunities to them for sharing and learning among each other; if they're looking at sanctions as the first line of response, all of that will disappear and I will have no ability to engage my members in these initiatives.

I also want to say specifically about Bill C-300 that I don't believe the IFC and voluntary principles give us enough detail to justify sanctions. They're too general. They don't tell people what they need to do operationally. I believe that sanctions should be applied after efforts to improve performance have been exhausted, not before.

The loss of the opportunity to improve is a loss for communities, host governments, and the competencies of industries. The ability to work things out with the communities is a really valuable thing for those communities as well.

I also don't believe that the bill accounts for the level of resources that would be required to implement its provisions. I have a great deal of experience with what it takes to implement these things effectively.

Thank you.

[David Stewart-Patterson, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting us here to testify and to discuss Bill C-300.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives represents the heads of large globally engaged enterprises in every sector of our economy. We have spoken clearly and often about the importance of good corporate citizenship at home and abroad, and I think it's fair to say that by any objective measure Canadian companies are among the most socially and environmentally responsible operating in developing countries worldwide.

Far from promoting more responsible behaviour by Canadian corporations operating internationally, we fear that Bill C-300 would result in Canadian corporations either choosing not to make beneficial investments in developing countries or losing business to corporations based elsewhere that will not have the same regard for environmental, safety, and human rights standards.

The council's main concerns follow.

The legislation is based on a flawed premise, since it assumes that Canadian companies are not to be trusted in their international operations.

As yet, there is no internationally recognized set of standards against which Canadian practices can be judged.

By suggesting that unilaterally determined Canadian standards should take precedence over the laws and regulations established by sovereign nations, Canada would be engaging in a form of extraterritoriality that it consistently has rejected when attempted by other countries.

On a more practical note, the mere threat of a withdrawal of export financing from Export Development Canada or a loss of access to investment from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board could easily jeopardize projects in developing countries. We know of no other national legislation that would seek to discipline the international activities of its resident corporations in this manner, and thus competitors in other countries would have an unfair advantage over Canadian companies.

The bill purports to screen out vexatious or frivolous claims, and yet it provides no effective mechanism for doing so. Any person can request an investigation, regardless of whether they're personally affected, and without having to supply any credible evidence of inappropriate behaviour by the corporation in question.

The filing of a single complaint sets the process in motion, and the mere fact of an investigation, regardless of its eventual outcome, would likely prejudice the Canadian company. In a bidding situation, a competitor could easily arrange for a complaint to be launched and then lobby the foreign government to exclude the Canadian company from the whole bidding process, on this basis: “Look, they're even being investigated by their own government, so how can you possibly do business with them?”

Undertaking an investigation under the act likely would require the assistance of the government of the developing country, which may or may not be forthcoming. In any event, Canadian ministers responsible would not have ready access to the resources or detailed expertise they would need to easily determine the merits of a complaint. And all of this would lead to unacceptable delays and prejudice to the Canadian company.

Let me be clear on one point. We believe that Canadian companies should always operate in a transparent and ethical manner, both internationally and at home, and we fully support efforts to improve the governance practices of all companies operating in developing countries.

The federal government has been engaged with responsible Canadian companies for some time in an effort to develop sound corporate social responsibility standards and their practical implementation. We should allow these efforts to continue rather than short-circuit them through misguided legislation.

I think it's fair to say that for many years Canada has been seen as a centre of excellence in the mining industry, both in terms of a significant number of Canadian champions competing around the globe and with respect to our ability to provide world-class financing of mining ventures anywhere. In an era when national brand is increasingly important, this legislation is likely to tarnish our well-deserved reputation for good corporate citizenship in the extractive sector. It could also imperil the brand of many other Canadian companies operating in developing countries, beyond those in mining and oil and gas. Therefore, I urge members from all parties to vote against this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, we'll commence. We are now at meeting number 21.

To all the witnesses today, I want to say thank you very much for being here. Some of you have come from close by and some from farther away. We thank all of you.

I'm going to ask you to try to keep your remarks to eight minutes. I realize that some of you have been told a different amount; I'm not going to cut you off, so do the best you can.

I want to get started as quickly as we can because we do have a lot of witnesses today. A few have said that they would be a bit late. We will probably start questions and then go back to them, should that happen to be the case, just to give everyone a chance.

It's good to see Mr. Stewart-Patterson back again. Why don't we just kick off with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives? You have Mr. Dillon along as well, who is the vice-president of regulatory affairs and general counsel. We'll have you start and after that we'll get to questions.

Mr. Stewart-Patterson, the floor is yours, sir.

Mining Industry

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents from London, Ontario, and a number of residents from Regina, Saskatchewan, with respect to the issues of Canadian mining companies.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada that the alleged abuses of human rights and degradation of the environment by Canadian mining companies are a violation of the principles of fundamental justice. The petitioners feel it is the duty of Parliament to hold Canadian companies responsible for their activities when operating in foreign jurisdictions.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to create effective laws with respect to corporate social responsibility and to consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. George, I have great respect for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, but I have to say that your testimony this morning is a lot more negative than other representatives of your organization have given before this committee.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce participated in the Interdepartmental Working Group on Corporate Social Responsibility. One of the working group's conclusions was to create an ombudsman position with investigative powers. I have to say that there is no punitive intent. It is important that that be said. But the Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor position that has just been created is just an empty shell, in my view.

Has the Canadian Chamber of Commerce already done any research in developing countries on companies' social responsibility? From whom do you get your information, apart from the companies themselves? Have you already talked to civil society representatives in some of those countries? I am not talking about NGOs, but about real civil society representatives. For example, representatives from the conference of bishops from the Democratic Republic of Congo came here to see us.

Right at the beginning of your remarks, you said that Bill C-300 “would leave the problem unresolved”. So I gather there is a problem. Can you tell me how you see the problem?

[Shanta Martin]

I don't want to discount the possibility of the CSR counsellor having some positive impact, but my main concern is with the entirely voluntary nature of any activities she engages in with respect to companies saying they'd rather not. The second concern is that even if through that process she has recommendations as to what goes forward, those are entirely voluntary. There are no teeth. There's nothing to back up the recommendations.

I understand there is some concern among civil society in Canada regarding the way in which that counsellor will go forward. What I think is quite interesting is that Bill C-300 is hardly proposing much beyond what is already in play. What it does do is say there will be ramifications if a Canadian company does not respect human rights overseas. Now those ramifications are entirely within the capacity of the state to withhold or to provide, and in that sense it seems to me that it entirely makes sense that Bill C-300 is trying to regulate the extent to which public support will be given to companies when they may not respect human rights. And again, going back to the CSR round table--the ombudsman process that was proposed within the CSR round table, which had the consensus, the agreement of all parties to that round table, including industry--I think that what was proposed and what has since come out in terms of the CSR counsellor are quite different things.

[Karin Lissakers]

Thank you.

Under the extractive industries transparency initiative, for example, which has now been endorsed by the G-8, by the G-20, and has wide support, including from the Canadian government, which is contributing to the trust fund that helps countries with implementation of the EITI, there is a strong recognition of the value of the transparency of payments from companies to governments in resource-producing countries. This is a way to increase the accountability of the government's management of those moneys and to reduce the risk that payments are diverted for self-enrichment and other corrupt purposes. The logic for supporting this transparency is that if the revenues that are generated from the extractive resources are spent for the public benefit by the recipient state and government officials, the business environment will be better, the political environment will be better, and everybody gains--the consumers, the importers, the investors, and the citizens of the resource-rich countries.

I'm surprised.... As I say, the International Accounting Standards Board is working on an accounting standard. The U.S. Senate just considered setting transparency standards. The IFC already has a transparency requirement related to any of its extractive investments, co-investments with companies, and the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, has this transparency requirement, using the IFC and the EITI standard as a reference point. It seems to me, then, that it would be logical to include this provision in Bill C-300, since it moves in the same direction of meeting international best practice and enforcing it when Canadian public moneys are at risk.

[Shanta Martin]

I believe there are two distinct differences between the Canadian counsellor and what is proposed under Bill C-300. One is that the counsellor hasn't actually got, within the scope of what she is undertaking, a requirement to articulate what the guidelines are the company would be required to abide by. The second is that the investigative mechanism that the counsellor has is without any capacity to compel the production of documents or testimony from a company, whereas certainly in relation to what Bill C-300 proposes, due to the relationship and the significant dependence that a lot of Canadian companies have on public support, there would at the very least be a significant basis for a lot of companies to comply with requests from the minister in relation to the production of documents and other testimony.

So where the counsellor has only the capacity, on a voluntary basis, to engage if a company wants to be engaged in a dispute resolution process, the ministers under Bill C-300 would have a fact-finding capacity and would also have the capacity to ensure that there is some follow-up, if they find that the way in which a company has behaved falls short of the guidelines.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm only suggesting that if Bill C-300 is needed two or three years from now, if the CSR counsellor function is not an appropriate function or is not working well, perhaps we would have to take a look at something like Bill C-300. But unless I'm mistaken, from what I heard you say, you have just described the CSR counsellor that the Canadian government has set up as a result of the round table that we had in this country.

[Shanta Martin]

Well, certainly one of the things I mentioned just before was that, as I understand it, Bill C-300 is intended to do away with vexatious and false claims, that there is a requirement of due process in Canada, and that clearly this process that is suggested under Bill C-300 would be subject to those requirements of due process.

Now, if it appears to companies such as Barrick that there is an unfair aspect in terms of NGOs bringing information to the public domain, one way to deal with that is to ensure that there is an appropriate authority within Canada that is tasked with examining these issues, so that the company itself has the opportunity to present its information in a fulsome and clear way. Amnesty International's investigations have found there's often a lack of desire to fully share all of the information that would be necessary to get to the bottom of any concerns the company might have.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I am going to speak to you in French. I hope you can hear me clearly. Can you hear the simultaneous interpretation? Is it working?

Ms. George, I have some questions for you. You are going to participate in the debate today.

I feel personally involved in what you said. You know that, clearly, the public gets worried when they hear about the likelihood of a mine opening in one of our regions. You said in your speech that there were always unhappy groups when there is a plan to open a mine in a given region.

I think it is healthy for people to be able to express their concerns. In my region, there is a potential uranium deposit. Obviously, we are not going to let just anyone come in with big boots, take away the resources and leave everything stripped, causing environmental damage that will have an impact on people's lives, health and environment. I think it is entirely legitimate.

One thing is troubling. Exploration is under provincial jurisdiction and development is under federal jurisdiction. So there is a grey area.

I think there has to be at least a framework, an act, and I would like to hear your opinion on that. Perhaps Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries makes you afraid of certain things for certain reasons. But, as the other witnesses have told us, Canada must have rules, legislation to control those companies, both here and abroad.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I have one final point: that is, the companies assert strongly that somehow Bill C-300 will be used to game them, that NGOs will assert claims, frivolous and otherwise, against the good reputations of these companies. Ms. Martin and Ms. Lissakers, has that been your experience with the national contact point with the OECD and various other entities that currently exist?

I suppose the final point, particularly with respect to the Amnesty International assertions, is that, effectively, your report is being dismissed as hearsay.

Could you, within the last 30 seconds, comment on those two questions?