Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Peter Sinclair]

Well, because they have done the same thing with a number of other mining companies. We spoke to them at length and actually offered for them to meet with our technical advisers to discuss this issue further.

We actually have a number of other pension funds, many European-based pension funds, sovereign pension funds that continue to invest with Barrick. We are actually engaging with a number of them at the moment. That's really very constructive dialogue. They have some concerns. We're willing to discuss them. It's unfortunate the Norwegians have given up that option.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

They also have that right; they're a sovereign nation. They have a pension fund. Their rationale was essentially that there were concerns around the conduct of Barrick in Papua New Guinea—just for the record—and serious environmental concerns.

To Goldcorp now. In terms of the situation on the ground for Goldcorp, there presently are concerns and there has been litigation against Goldcorp in some activities. I want to go back to what I said before. We're not talking about a majority of industry abroad having problems, but there are concerns right now that are being litigated. The one that has come to our attention is in regard to Honduras. There was a fine brought against Goldcorp—I'm going back two years—and I'm just wondering if you can tell me what the case was, what the response was with regard to the Marlin mine and what happened there.

[Dina Aloi]

I'm not sure actually if I fully understand your question, because the Marlin mine is in Guatemala.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, that's in Guatemala. I got my Latin American countries mixed up. Actually, I worked and lived there for six years, so I should know better.

I just wanted to know what the response was by the company to the litigation against the company, and its status.

[Dina Aloi]

Again, I'll refer to a fine that was levied on one of our projects in Honduras that was actually repealed.

To my knowledge, in Guatemala there has been no litigation against our Marlin mine, but in Honduras you're correct. Several years ago, there was an environmental fine placed on the company. We followed through with the local legislation and we paid it. We did, however, appeal it. The government actually did repeal the fine and found that we had not been out of compliance with environmental laws.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In the case of the Marlin mine that you've mentioned--it was in 2007 in Honduras; there was litigation and you paid a fine. You did acknowledge that there were certain things you needed to do in terms of that mine, right? And there were certain things you had to improve, or was there nothing that you had to improve?

[Dina Aloi]

It was prior to my time. My understanding—I've read the document—is that there was a lack of communication on exactly how we were implementing our closure plan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Right.

[Dina Aloi]

A fine was levied when investigators and legislators came to cite how we were implementing our closure. The plan was actually approved by the government and the ministry of environment. That's when they repealed the law.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So there was no fine paid?

[Dina Aloi]

We paid the fine, and then the fine was removed. We went through with normal legislative procedure.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Okay.

I'm asking this because there is this notion that somehow this law would cause more complaints, and that right now there aren't concerns out there. I go back to the fact that we're trying to set rules so that there is a level playing field and actual protection for Canadian corporations.

The problem I'm having is the certainty that we've had from all presenters today that this will cause companies to pull out of Canada--I've been hearing that possibility.... When I asked someone before from the industry if he would pull out if Bill C-300 is passed, he said no--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Quickly, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm just wondering if anyone at the table is assuming that if Bill C-300 is passed they would actually pull operations out of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, please.

[Dina Aloi]

I don't think any company wants to use a veiled threat. However, if we're handcuffed to the degree where we cannot operate, where we cannot purchase new properties because we don't have the time to get them up to our high standard, or we don't have time to sell them if they're part of a larger package, how can we grow and continue to develop? If we cannot joint venture with other companies because we lose financing and cannot function if at any time we go ahead and purchase a different project, I think the board of directors would have to take that into consideration. If Vale Inco and Xstrata, who are operating here in Canada, aren't held to these accounts, they can take over our properties. It's a discussion that's happening in boardrooms across Canada.

Mac, did you want to say something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We are at almost 10 minutes. We'll come back to Mr. Goldring. Maybe if we hurry there might be another round.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Leading on to those concerns...first of all, I would like to say that we heard from a witness earlier this week from Argentina who said about Barrick specifically that she could not say they have ever broken any laws of Argentina. She, speaking as a lawyer, was saying it was because she is not a judge, but she could not specifically say.

However, there were a lot of suggestions throughout the interview of what could be done. The concern there was really that she was seemingly looking to Canada with this bill to reinforce the laws of her own country.

I couldn't quite discern whether it was because the laws of her own country were not complete enough or whether it was that they were not being reinforced or enforced in her own country. The concern is that she was looking at this bill as a vehicle of sorts to be able to reinforce the laws, which is quite a concern because that would put Canada in a position of enforcing laws of other countries and pre-empting other countries' laws, you could say.

Along with that, and the provisos in here of human rights, and the suggestions by human rights...that this would be the laws of the other countries, and that is the way she is reading it. It leads to the suggestion in certain other parts of the world that the person might be reinforcing laws, for example, sharia laws, and what that does to corporations.

So I can certainly see where the mining industry is very concerned about this type of an enactment, which can put corporations in a quandary as to how on earth do we ever deal with projects in other countries when you have this type of legislation that makes you have to adhere to laws that Canada doesn't even subscribe to but you have to subscribe to. So I can see the difficulty in this.

Mr. Peterson, you were in Parliament when I was here--

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

He was in Parliament when I was here the first time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

--and Mr. Chrétien, and both of you...obviously you weren't on the Conservative benches per se. Could you please describe to this committee, are you here representing the paycheque you receive, or are you here representing your true beliefs? Could you somehow project these true beliefs to your colleagues over here and explain the seriousness of this problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Peterson.

[James Peterson]

Mr. Goldring, I am very proud to be here. I must tell you, it's much more formidable being on this side of the table than it used to be sitting there.

But I'm here because our firm has been recognized--

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

But do you personally believe it? That's what I want to know.

[James Peterson]

Very much so. I have absolutely no qualms about what we're saying.

I will tell you where I do have some qualms.

It concerns what Ms. Deschamps and Ms. Lalonde said. True enough, there allegations about horrible things everywhere. But...

if we're going to be the only ones to go after our own Canadian companies, at least we need an impartial tribunal with procedural fairness as a minimum. This is why we think that the process that has been developed on a consensual basis involving civil society, involving the companies, involving host countries--