As part of the coordinated effort to reform British Columbia's mining laws, we filed this submission on the Reviewable Projects Regulation Intentions Paper as part of the new B.C. Environmental Assessment Act, along with the Northern Confluence Initiative, Fair Mining Collaborative, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, Wildsight, and the Wilderness Committee.

This presentation was made by Catherine Coumans, Ph.D. at the Canadian Network for Corporate Accountability Symposium Taking Responsibility: Canada, Business, and Human Rights held in Ottawa on April 30, 2019. Canada has a state duty to protect human rights. Since at least 2002, UN bodies have repeatedly and explicitly emphasized that Canada’s duty to protect extends to Canada’s obligation to protect against human rights abuses caused, or contributed to, by Canadian corporations operating overseas. Canadian missions overseas, Embassies and High Commissions, are the face of Canada, the most

This submission is made in support of an investigation and forthcoming report by the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (the Working Group) that examines the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective. Following communications with the Working Group, this submission covers issues related to excess use of force by private mine security and by police who participate in securing mines through memorandums of understanding between mine proponents and police agencies of the states hosting the mines. The sections below follow organizational and informational guidelines provided by the Working Group.

Jubilee Australia's report 'Growing Bougainville's Future: Choices for an island and its people' examines the choice facing the people of Bougainville and asks the question of ‘to mine or not to mine.’ MiningWatch Canada staff member Catherine Coumans contributed the chapter, "Mining and development: Is “good governance” really the cure?"

On May 16, 2018, MiningWatch Canada and OECD Watch issued a media release to draw attention to an attempt by the Government of Canada to cover up its mishandling of a complaint through Canada’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises . The Request for Review in question, titled “ Complaint against the Sakto Group, Ottawa” was filed with Canada’s NCP in January 2016 by the not-for-profit Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF) of Switzerland. The complaint alleges that the Sakto Group, with corporations headquartered in Ottawa, breached disclosure requirements of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, a guide to responsible business conduct that is binding on Canada and other members of the OECD.

Bill C-69 brings both promise and disappointment. Overall, however, it does not fulfil the government’s promise of restoring public confidence, and therefore also cannot fulfil the promise of facilitating good development projects. In some respects, it represents a failure of ambition, where a stronger commitment and stronger leadership are required to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In other respects, it is just a matter of design flaws and limitations of implementation. At this juncture, it may be too late to address the bigger structural problems, but Parliament has the opportunity to fix many of the Bill’s deficiencies.

As part of the OECD Peer Review of the Canadian National Contact Point on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, MiningWatch was asked to submit a general questionnaire, as well as to participate in a review of the Porgera Specific Instance (2011), in which we were a notifier. This questionnaire answers general questions. Under section B. (Specific Instances) we discuss the Porgera case in more detail. Finally, Appendix 1 provides further detail regarding specific concerns related to the Canadian NCPs handling of ten Specific Instance cases.