The Dominion - corporate social responsibility

Canada Gets Cuddly with Mining Companies

Moira Peters — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:28:38 +0000

Unconditional love for extractive industry costs taxpayers, say C-300 supporters

HALIFAX—Despite the death of Bill C-300, which would have introduced accountability for Canadian mining, oil or gas corporations operating in developing countries, watchdog groups are sounding the alarm louder than ever over what they see as a conflict of interest in the government. Not only is there a refusal to regulate these industries, they say, but government agencies are providing direct and indirect support for their practices.

“They are aiding and abetting, essentially,” said Catherine Coumans.

Coumans is the research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. The group's raison d'etre is to be a watchdog in the extractive sector, drawing attention to human rights and environmental abuses perpetrated by Canadian companies. MiningWatch also lobbies MPs to promote sustainable mining practices and policies, such as Bill C-300, which would have disqualified any corporation implicated in unethical operations from receiving government funds.

In a report commissioned by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in 2007, Canadian companies were singled out as perpetrating almost half of documented misconduct around the world, including causing community conflict, engaging in environmentally unsound practices and violating human rights. The report went unreleased until it was leaked by MiningWatch in 2010.

Bill C-300 gained broad support—from a coalition of NGOs and activists to the Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star,—yet was defeated by six votes in its final reading in the House of Commons. Despite their initial support for the bill, the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP were instrumental in its defeat, as a handful of their members missed the vote, including Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Mining companies and the Conservative government vehemently opposed the bill. They argued that if regulations were imposed on the industry, companies would pack up shop and find headquarters outside Canada. They also said it jeopardizes development projects in the countries of the Global South, as well as jobs in Canada. Industry lobbyists, including former Liberal cabinet minister Don Boudria, met with MPs on the issue nearly 100 times in October 2010 alone.

These corporate interests can't be allowed to trump human rights, says Ian Thomson, Program Coordinator for Corporate Accountability with ecumenical justice group KAIROS.

“Whenever we went to Guatemala, we met with Canadian officials in the embassies and it's very obvious where their loyalties lay,” said Linda Scherzinger, a volunteer with KAIROS. The group is committed to advocating and acting on issues of climate and social justice in Canada and overseas.

The Harper government committed in 2009 to re-focus its aid to Latin America, adding five countries from the region to its list of 20 countries targeted by a $1.5 billion bilateral aid fund. The list included mineral-rich countries such as Colombia, Bolivia and Peru.

In November 2009, CIDA unexpectedly announced that KAIROS would no longer receive funding from the public agency. The sudden move raised eyebrows, especially after freelancer Kim Mackrael obtained through a freedom of information request the department memo responding to KAIROS's funding proposal, and published the story with Canadian Press. The memo read, “RECOMMENDATION—That you sign below to indicate you (not) approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years...” The word “not” was hand written above by an unknown person and was signed by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Oda denied altering the application in front of a parliamentary committee, but has since admitted she edited the document.

In La Libertad, Peru, CIDA is spearheading a $500,000 reforestation project. Coumans says the project sounds good, but if this project is reforesting its mine site, that should be the responsibility of Barrick Gold. Coumans argues that Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill to fix Barrick's environmental impact, especially not under the auspices of “development.”

The La Libertad project is essentially a facade, says Emilie Lemieux, winner of the 2009 Gordon Global Fellowship, an annual award given to a progressive Canadian committed to sustainable international development. In a scathing report based on her experience in the region, she writes, “This project seems to fulfill the basic social needs the company is looking to address, as well as the Canadian embassy’s interest to work in [Corporate Social Responsibility], rather than the needs of the local population.” She goes on to say that CIDA's involvement exists simply to put a good face on Barrick's work, and that locals had no engagement in the projects.

In rhetoric and in cash, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) also backs the Canadian extractive sector abroad. Centerra Gold, a Toronto-based company that operates the Boroo mine in Mongolia, received $270,000 in funding this September as part of a direct investment program that totals $601 million. The company's mine had lain dormant, as months earlier workers picketed the site, demanding higher wages and severance pay. The Mongolian government had also suspended the mine's license, citing, among other things, improper operating procedures.

Centerra also operates the Kumtor mine across the border in Kyrgyzstan. The operation was sharply criticized for being a dangerous work environment after one worker was crushed by a pit wall in 2002. Before that, the mine had been the site of two large chemical spills—the first in 1998 and the second in 2000—that caused four deaths and 2,500 illnesses. In 1998, the company failed to notify residents until a Russian border guard discovered the spill; in 2000 they improved their record and only waited a day to make public the news that 1.5 tonnes of explosive material had spilled near the town.

The Kumtor mine is also the recipient of $35 million from the Canadian Pension Plan investment board and $50 million in political risk insurance from Export Development Canada (EDC). Political risk insurance covers 90 per cent of a company's investment in a “developing” country against events such as government nationalization or political turmoil. The stipulations for receiving the insurance revolve around EDC's corporate social responsibility policies. According to one representative for EDC, “We're not going to support something that the Canadian government doesn't support.”

EDC's support is worth a lot. The Financial Post has estimated that the crown corporation gives the extractive industry $20 billion in subsidies and insurance, including $1.3 billion in political risk insurance.

Despite DFAIT's role in lending support to these companies, it also houses the offices that purport to keep them in check. The office of Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, headed by commissioner Marketa Evans, was created in 2009 to create a partnership between the Canadian extractive industry and those who reside near their projects overseas. The move has been largely panned by watchdog groups as being an ineffective half-measure that does more to serve mining companies than impacted communities. The office has an “avenue of recourse for mining, oil and gas companies who feel they've been unfairly targeted,” said Erica Bach, senior adviser in the office of Corporate Social Responsibility, who lauded the mechanism as being unique worldwide. The office's CSR strategy revolves around encouraging dialogue rather than regulating or imposing sanctions against companies who have been the subjects of complaints. To date, the office has not received any requests to review allegations against any Canadian mining companies.

Even CIDA's Indigenous Peoples Partnership Program (IPPP) is little more than a $10 million, taxpayer-funded lobby group for the mining industry, according to one source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The agency employs Indigenous representatives such as Chief Glenn Nolan and Chief Jerry Asp.

Nolan serves as first vice president of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and on the board of Noront Resources Ltd. Asp is vice president of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association, and made news in 2005 after 35 elders occupied his office in protest of his involvement with the mining companies. The elders demanded that Asp step down, saying he was in a conflict of interest, having simultaneously acted as Indian Act chief and Chief Operations Officer of the Tahltan Nation Development Corporation, which is responsible for bidding on mining contracts for companies such as NovaGold, which operates one of the world's largest gold mines in Alaska with partner company Barrick Gold.

According to CIDA, IPPP exists to encourage the “sustainable development of Indigenous peoples in the [Latin American and Caribbean] region through an exchange of knowledge, experience, expertise, and existing models.” Those Indigenous people who met with Nolan and Asp were not informed of their mining connections, the source said, and were outraged when they learned of their involvement in the sector.

While Bill C-300 may be dead, an alternative bill is lying stagnant on the floor of the House of Commons. Bill C-354 would empower non-Canadian citizens who claim to be affected by Canadian mining companies to sue those companies. While opinion on the bill is mixed, those who supported C-300 are desperate for federal regulation of Canadian-owned mines.

Justin Ling is an activist and a journalist based in Halifax.

Tunnel of Love

Barrick Supported Police Who Carried Out Fiery Evictions in PNG

Moira Peters — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:22:55 +0000

Amnesty report confirms links between cops & Canadian mining company

TORONTO—Amnesty International (AI) recently made waves in human rights circles, publishing a new report focusing on Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold's role in violent forced evictions in the Porgera region of Papua New Guinea (PNG).

The publication marks AI’s first report detailing the human rights abuses occurring near a Canadian mine. Publishing such a report can be risky business; the threat of a lawsuit targeting individual journalists and publishers for reporting on the activities of extractive companies is not one that many NGOs can afford to face, and Barrick is known to take crippling legal action when challenged on its human rights record.

Although AI does not conclude that representatives of Barrick directly ordered the evictions, the international human rights organization does express its concern about the company's continued support for a police unit participating in illegal activities in the region.

The report, titled “Undermining Rights: Forced Evictions and Police Brutality around the Porgera Gold Mine, Papua New Guinea,” examines links between Barrick Gold and a special Mobile Squad of police officers which burned to the ground more than 130 homes in the Porgera region between April and July 2009. The report found Barrick Gold provided food, housing and fuel to the Mobile Squad during the period of the evictions, and continues to do so despite a PNG court ordering the retreat of the police.

The Porgera Joint Venture (PJV) gold mine is located in the Porgera region of Enga, a highland province of PNG. PJV has been in operation since 2006, and continues to be 95 per cent owned and operated by subsidiaries of Canada-based Barrick, the largest mining company in the world. The remaining five per cent is split between the Enga provincial government and select local landowners. Barrick had been exploring expansion of its mine site for two years, but ceased exploration one month before the evictions.

According to the AI report, in 2008 PJV produced 627,000 ounces of gold, worth approximately $US546 million.

Jefferey Simon, a resident and member of the Akali Tange Association—a human rights organization in the Porgera area that was formed in 2004 to document abuses at PJV—explained in an interview that there is a strong history of artisanal mining in the community, which has provided a source of income alongside subsistence agriculture.

When the government of PNG granted PJV exclusive exploitation rights to a large region known as the Special Mining Lease (SML) area, it effectively cut off the community's ability to support itself, according to Simon.

PNG's 1992 Mining Act states that "all land in the State is available...for exploration and mining and the grant of tenements over it." However, the country's constitution recognizes Customary Law, which dictates that all individuals—including unborn generations—have the right to use land and resources for livelihood and traditional activities. In 2000 the National Parliament enacted the Underlying Law Act, mandating the courts to pay greater attention to Customary Law when upholding the law of the country.

Under the pretext of addressing illegal mining activities and the general decline in law and order around PJV, a request was made by the Porgera District Law and Order Committee for a 30-member police unit to patrol the area. Instead, in April 2009, a 200-member elite Mobile Squad unit, typically sent to regions of high conflict and usually armed with assault rifles, arrived within SML, an area with some 10,000 Indigenous inhabitants.

According to AI's report, when police arrived in the area to begin Operation “Ipili,” PJV provided logistical support and conducted frequent briefings.

On April 27, 2009, police encircled houses in the community of Wuangima and proceeded to violently evict families from their homes and set fire to at least 130 houses.

According to the AI report, after refusing to leave his house, one man was locked inside while police set fire to his home. He escaped with the help of neighbours. One woman, while nursing her child, was struck on her shoulder by a police officer with the butt of his rifle.

Those who were away tending their gardens came home to find only the charred remains of their houses and their highly valuable livestock killed by police. Those who had been home met with violent confrontation: witnesses testify that police pointed their weapons at them, threatened and yelled at them to leave their houses. Others reported police officers shot at or near them.

At least three women independently testified to AI about being raped by police officers. AI is strongly pressing for further investigations into these reports.

In a meeting held December 3, 2009, between AI and Barrick Gold, the company insisted that PJV was only one of several parties that supported the April 2009 deployment of police to the area. Barrick denied having prior knowledge of police actions in Wuangima.

Barrick has publicly insisted that the buildings destroyed were nothing more than temporary shelters used by migrants to the area, and that they housed people participating in illegal mining activity.

However, AI's research provided significant evidence to the contrary. Taking lengthy testimonies of residents and religious leaders, examining photographs taken before and during the burnings, and relying on the physical evidence of the charred remains of the houses, AI concluded the buildings destroyed were solidly constructed with wooden frames and traditional woven bamboo walls.

The remains of established gardens and the existence of a church in Wuangima constructed in 2004 by residents provide further evidence that the community was not temporary. PJV surveyed the area in 2007 in the hopes of expanding the mine, and would have known the area was established with permanent homes.

According to the AI report, Barrick and PJV finally acknowledged in their meeting with AI that some of the houses in Wuangima were in fact occupied for quite some time. The company maintained, however, that it had not been in a position to authorize or dictate the activity of the Mobile Squad, and claimed it had no prior knowledge of the evictions.

Barrick Gold, like many other Canadian mining companies, claim they support strong human rights standards, and their operations fully support the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, a non-binding agreement signed by governments, companies, NGOs and observer organizations.

These principles dictate the company must document and report to the appropriate authorities cases where physical force is used by public security, as well as record and report any credible allegation of human rights abuses by public security. In addition, companies should urge an investigation and support action to prevent recurrence of such physical force.

Barrick maintains it did not know the intentions of police. However, according to the AI report, PJV had almost daily communications with police. PJV in fact participated in a police briefing meeting the morning of the evictions. Barrick told AI that PJV employees saw smoke only after the buildings were burning. Photos taken during the raid show PJV employees watching from the mine site.

According to the report, the General Manager of Corporate and Legal for PJV contacted the Commander of the Mobile Squad, but after his being told the evictions were legal there were no further investigations on the part of PJV or Barrick.

Corporate accountability is a large focus within Amnesty International Canada (AIC) for the next several years.

“One of the challenges of researching community concerns that relate to large corporations is the fear of a lawsuit or some form of legal action,” said Ian Heide, the coordinator for Business and Human Rights for AIC. “The complexity of the situation in terms of government responsibility versus corporation responsibility or obligation means that AI needs to be sure of our research before going public."

AI has good reason to be careful. Noir Canada—edited by Alain Denault and the Collectif Ressources d’Afrique and published in French out of Montreal—details the role of Canadian companies operating in Africa with the support of the Canadian government. In that particular case, lawyers for Barrick Gold claimed there were inaccuracies in the book’s detailing of Barrick’s role in the 1996 massacre in Bulyanhulu, Tanzania, where more than 50 small-scale miners were buried alive. Barrick Gold filed a SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against the writers, editors, translators and publishers of Noir Canada in order to block the translation of the book into English. Barrick Gold has also sued The Observer and The Guardian over articles they published about the Bulyanhulu massacre.

Simon explained the importance of the AI report. “Both the company and the state are bonded for development,” he said. “The only way to express ourselves is through media and connecting with international NGOs who can carry out adequate research and produce reliable reports.”

While acknowledging the quick response by AI—the report was researched and released within eight months of the evictions—Jethro Tulin, another resident of Porgera, thinks the report could have gone further. According to Tulin, there is no room for doubt that the company was responsible, but this was not made clear in the report. He maintains that even if AI did not have proof that Barrick was directly responsible for ordering the forced evictions, they could have recorded opinions of witnesses and made stronger recommendations to Barrick.

“AI has a reputation for being fair and impartial,” responded Heide, “so we only name governments and companies when we are certain that what we are saying is accurate and fair.”

Simon and Tulin agree with AI's report in its clear statement of the unanimous demand by people living near Barrick’s Porgera mine to be relocated to areas outside the SML.

AI has called on the Government of PNG to investigate the evictions and ensure that alternative accommodations and adequate compensation are provided for those who have been displaced.

Valerie Croft worked in Guatemala as an International Accompanier in 2008 and is active in issues relating to corporate accountability.

Mines causing environmental devastation in Papua New Guinea

Underground Diplomacy

Moira Peters — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:57:53 +0000

Canada’s transnational mining industry implicated in abuses

TORONTO—Balochistan Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani announced the termination of a mining contract for Barrick Gold’s Reko Diq project on January 5, 2010, following a unanimous decision by the Pakistani province’s cabinet. According to the minister, “They [Barrick and Chile’s Antofagasta, co-owners of the mine project] only have an exploration license, which does not cover extraction,” adding his government would not approve an agreement undermining people’s rights.

Immediately afterwards, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson warned that “multinational corporations will not invest in a country where deals are cancelled.” Canada’s international trade ministry followed suit, pressing Pakistani officials to “fulfill their obligations under a 2006 Pakistani-Canadian-Chilean agreement potentially worth billions of dollars,” according to the Vancouver Sun.

According to the Asia Times, “Critics said the local government’s action [to cancel the mining contract] was politically motivated to appease Baloch nationalists in the desperately poor and insurgency-hit province, who have been demanding the cancellation of the agreement.”

Balochistan, the province in Pakistan bordering Iran and Afghanistan, has been struggling for independence from Pakistan since 1948. The fifth uprising of the Balochistan independence movement was in 2004. More than 8,000 Baloch have been disappeared since then and 26 prominent leaders have been assassinated.

This ongoing independence struggle was overlooked by Canadian and US delegates as they pushed the Pakistani state to force Balochistan’s approval of the Barrick/Antofagasta mine. Meanwhile, in a move that the group American Friends of Balochistan say reveals insensitivity to the region’s politics, Barrick hired a Pakistani army colonel as its public affairs manager and head of security for its Balochistan mine project.

Disregard for political conflict reveals an international diplomacy concerned primarily with profits, and is consistent with the actions of Canada and its corporate ambassadors in situations around the globe where mining profits conflict with human rights.

Despite their human rights record, these corporate ambassadors of the mining sector will again be well-represented at discussions during the G20 summit in Toronto in June. Mining companies Banro, Barrick, Iamgold and Freeport McMoran will attend a parallel conference to the G20 summit, “G20 Business Leaders: Partnering with Africa’s Dynamic Markets,” at Toronto‘s Marriott Downtown Eaton Centre.

Questions about the ties between the mining sector and governement do not end in Balochistan though. Canadian Ambassador to Guatemala James Lambert published an op-ed in support of mining in Guatemala on the same day a survey revealed that 95.5 per cent of the people in San Miguel Ixtahuacan, Guatemala, opposed mining projects in their region.

Six years after that survey and the subsequent establishment of Goldcorp’s Marlin mine in San Miguel, villagers suffer from health issues linked to arsenic levels seven times the maximum limit recommended by the World Bank.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Barrick Gold officials during diplomatic visits to Chile and Tanzania, where Barrick mines have been widely protested for mistreatment of workers, environmental destruction, and for failing to pay Tanzanian taxes and royalties. Since Harper’s visit, a toxic spill killed 43 people and 1,358 livestock, according to the Ward authorities near Barrick’s Tanzanian North Mara mine.

An Amnesty International report published in February 2010 found Indigenous peoples in Colombia are at risk of being exterminated by state forces, right wing paramilitary groups and guerrilla organizations. “Far from creating a legitimate economy, as Liberal MPs have been suggesting in defence of the Colombia free trade agreement, the deal before Parliament would increase the chances that Canadian companies invested in agriculture, mining and resource extraction in sensitive areas will be doing business with murderers, drug traffickers and arms smugglers,” said Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians in a recent press release.

As a consequence of this growing list of allegations, Canada has drawn criticism from around the world, first from environmental, religious and human rights organizations and labour unions, and now increasingly from international institutions such as the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Waste and Products.

The Canadian government has also begun to acknowledge its lack of accountability within the transnational mining industry. The first National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries was organized in 2006, in reaction to a 2005 report from Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (SCFAIT). The report acknowledged Canada does not have laws ensuring Canadian mining companies “conform to human rights standards, including the rights of workers and [I]ndigenous peoples.”

The Roundtables released a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder report approved by the main industry group, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC).

The Harper government took two years to respond to the Roundtables’ recommendations. Its report, “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector,” rejected the recommendations and offered no tools for redressing the documented abuses of Canadian industry abroad.

Instead, the report offered increased subsidies to Canadian mining companies under the CSR banner. The “voluntary approach of CSR” is a strategy advocated by G8 countries as part of the Heiligendamm Dialogue Process, initiated at the 2007 G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. Before this dialogue process, the Commission for Africa (CfA), launched in February 2004 by Tony Blair in the lead up to the G8 in Gleneagles, advocated the same strategies in a 2005 report.

In an analysis of the report, watchdog NGO Corporate Watch said, “The Commission for Africa does concede that ‘oil, diamonds, timber and other high-value commodities all fuel Africa’s conflicts.’ However, [CfA] points the blame at the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] Guidelines on Multinational Companies for failing to provide ‘clear enough guidance on what companies should do in these situations.’...Rather than regulating, or even dismantling, these corporations, the CfA will allow them to continue plundering at will, apparently satisfied by their ‘corporate social responsibility’ policies and promises to be more transparent.”

Recently, members of Canada’s parliament have proposed legislation to hold Canadian transnational resource extraction companies accountable to Canadian law. Liberal MP John McKay introduced private members bill C-300 to the House of Commons February 29, 2009. The bill would withhold government funds, including billions of dollars in Canadian Pension Plan investments and diplomatic support for companies found—following a government investigation—to be abusing human rights. Some contend that this bill—while a positive step forward in holding corporations to account for their crimes—is most valuable in its exposure of the Canadian government’s support for its mining industry abroad.

Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Private member’s bill C-354 aims to codify these international agreements into Canadian law. The International Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Act (IPPHRA), introduced by NDP MP Peter Julian, amends the Federal Courts Act to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate lawsuits based on violations of international law or treaties to which Canada is a party if the violations occur outside Canada.

“The IPPHRA contrasts with Bill C-300 in that C-300 keeps the monitoring of corporate activities out of the criminal or civil courts, in administrative processes controlled by ‘the Ministers,’” said Grahame Russell of Rights Action in an email.

“With respect to reforming Canada’s criminal code so that corporations and their directors could be brought to trial for criminal actions in their corporate activities in ‘developing countries,’” he added, “no one in Canada has taken up this challenge.”

Sakura Saunders is an editor for protestbarrick.net, an all-volunteer news site that networks organizations and community groups around the world against Barrick Gold.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

G20 Mining image

Jalil Rieki