I would like to conclude by describing two different scenarios. The current economic environment in Canada in our successful mining sector is embodied in the following invitation to mining companies and investors: “Come to Canada, or stay in Canada, because we have developed mineral centres of excellence, and we'll help you obtain financing and provide you with technical support.”
Let's look at scenario A if Bill C-300 is passed. In addition to the invitation that I just mentioned, we'd be saying to them: “However, if you have a CSR problem, or if you have in the past, you could be the subject of complaints to the Government of Canada. If you are named in a complaint, you will not be given an opportunity to remedy or resolve your problems. The government will not work to help you to improve your performance. Instead, they could investigate you for your activities and you would be subject to serious sanctions, including the loss of financing and damage to your reputation.”
Let's look at the alternative, scenario B, one that is currently proposed by the government. In addition to the invitation I mentioned at the beginning of this conclusion, we'd be saying: “The government will help you when CSR difficulties arise by offering mediation and support and possibly by offering capacity-building expertise in the areas of the world that are having difficulties.”
Which scenario is going to result in a stronger and more vibrant industry for Canada? Which scenario is going to achieve higher CSR standards? Which scenario is going to result in more economic activity in Canada and developing countries?
Our respectful submission is that the collaborative approach proposed is the best option. This bill is well intentioned, but in our submission it's unworkable and will do significant harm to Canada's investment climate and Canadian mining companies.
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present today. We'd be happy to take any questions you have.