Mining Sustainability Working Group

Blow is an article from the Vancouver Sun.

It outlines some of the debate that surrounds the bill, particularly around the question on monitoring and investigation activities that would be undertaken by the government in order to ensure that companies are complying with the guidelines.

Sat Jan 16 2010
Byline: Fiona Anderson

As long as Canadian mining companies work in emerging markets, complaints about adverse effects on the local community are going to arise. But how can Canadians be sure that local companies aren’t misbehaving?

MiningWatch Canada is advocating the passage of Bill C-300 — “An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.” The private member’s bill, brought forward by Liberal MP John McKay, passed second reading and was before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when the prime minister recessed Parliament until March. The prorogation order allows reinstatement of private members bills and, if passed, the bill would force the government to create corporate guidelines consistent with Canada’s international commitments on human rights and environmental sustainability. Companies that fail to comply with the guidelines would be ineligible for funding from Export Development Canada.

But the mining industry is against the bill, not because it doesn’t want to comply with the standards, it says, but because the bill doesn’t provide for funding — no private member’s bill can — and the guidelines that need to be followed are too vague. On top of that, three years of roundtable discussions have led to a four-pronged approach that includes developing guidelines and appointing a corporate social responsibility (CSR) counsellor, who was appointed in October.  “The problem with C-300 is it really sets all of that aside,” said Laureen Whyte, vice-president of sustainability and operations at the Association of Mineral Exploration British Columbia.

“It’s not based on the outcomes of those roundtable discussions. It instead offers up a pretty punitive way of investigating complaints, and it frankly doesn’t, and it can’t, provide for the resources that’s needed to do proper investigations.”  The CSR counsellor, on the other hand, has the funds needed to do the necessary investigations, which can be costly.  “It’s really hard from afar to identify what’s really going on, and so you need to have local information that you can rely on,” Whyte said. “You also need to have some ability to assess the factors that are at play. And it takes a huge amount of resources to do that.”  Without the ability to investigate, the situation remains as it is now, a media play, Whyte said.  It’s easy for people to complain that companies are making them sick or poisoning their water, especially to the media, Whyte said.  The CSR counsellor can take those complaints and “create a space for constructive dialogue,” to try to find a resolution.
Read more