The document provides background information on Bill C-300, which aimed to impose social responsibility standards on Canadian mining companies operating abroad. It summarizes the key events, including an advisory group report recommending CSR measures in 2007, and the bill's proposal in 2009 requiring compliance for companies receiving government funding. While initially supported, industry lobbying and the new Conservative government led to the bill's defeat. The document outlines the various stakeholders who supported the bill, including opposition parties, civil society groups, and witnesses who testified on human/environmental abuses.

1. PSCI 3801A - Environmental Politics
Policy Research Essay (Part I) - 2016/02/23
Ludovica Chiappini #101028674
Word-Count: 2048 words (footnotes and bibliography excluded)
Title: Building a Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian extractive sector (Bill C-300):
the analysis of a failed initiative.
Research Question: Why did the Bill C-300 on corporate social accountability for Canadian
mining activities in developing countries fail despite the optimistic premises of the Advisory
Group Report in 2007 and the general support for it?
Thesis Statement: The failure of the Bill C-300 lies on the economic threats felt by the Canadian
mining industries and the new-elected Conservative Government that encouraged them to exercise
their privileged political power through an awe-inspiring lobbying effort.
The issue at stake
Canada is renowned for being a mining superpower, meaning that almost 75%1 of world’s
extractive companies have their home in the North American country. Despite being a leader in
this sector, Canada did not play a driving role in imposing a corporate social responsibility
approach to its corporations abroad. The rationale of this theoretical concept is that companies
should be responsible for their impact on societies and the environment while performing their
1Drohan, M. (2010). Regulating Canadian mining companies abroad: The 10-year search for solution. Centre for
International Policy Studies.(Policy Brief NO. 7).
http://www.cips-cepi.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/CIPS_PolicyBrief_Drohan_Jan2010-1.pdf

2. activities2. As a consequence of the shared negligence between Canadian Government and mining
industries3, several critiques arose from environmental, human rights organizations, civil society
and international institutions. Bill C-300 aimed that Canadian mining corporations operating in
developing countries and receiving the financial support of the Canadian federal government
would have been subjected to a withdrawal of funding if their environmental and human rights
performance violated international standards. The legislation initiative was defeated by 140 to 134.
Even though it had the initial support of three parties with a majority of votes, the Liberals, NDP
and Bloc Québécois, twenty-five members of those parties chose not to attend the vote after the
pressing lobbying effort of business.
The background of Bill C-300 and its genesis
In June 2005 a parliamentary report issued by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade4 recalled the authority of the federal Government to institute regulatory
measures that would have stimulated the Canadian mining companies to act in a responsible
manner, respecting the environment and local communities. The answer of the Canadian
Government occurred the following year by organizing National Roundtables on Corporate Social
Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Sector in developing countries. Also, an Advisory
Group formed by the representatives of the extractive industry, civil society and academics was
established to summarize the discussions and draft provisions for the Government. In 2007, it
submitted a consensus report referring to some recommendations of the 2005 parliamentary
2Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Editorial Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on Corporate Social
Responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499-513.
3 CorpWatch. (2007). Barrick’sDirty Secrets: Community worldwide respond to Gold Mining’s Impacts (Rep.).
4Patry, B. (2005). Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
“Fourteenth Report:Mining in Developing Countries and Corporate Social Responsibility” in SessionalPapers (Rep.
No. No 8510-381-179).

3. document and embracing the discourse of sustainable development that was routinely incorporated
into environmental legislation and globally accepted as the most effective approach.
The Advisory Group Report included several measures to develop the Canadian corporate social
responsibility (CSR) framework based on the existing international standards, constant multi-
stakeholder consultations, accountability mechanisms to collect complaints concerning the
detrimental activities of Canadian mining industries and resolve the disputes5.
The Mining Association of Canada and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
publicly voiced their support for the CSR Framework6. Nevertheless, in 2008, the Conservative
Government in power backed away from the results achieved in the previous years by the Liberals
denying to implement the recommendations. The mining associations also reconsidered their
positions. Thus, there was a change of directions and several civil groups and opponent parties
began to organize strategies to obstruct the government decision. It was the birth of the Bill C-300.
The Bill C-300: key sponsors and their fight for the approval
Bill C-300 was a private member’s bill proposed by the opponent Liberal Party leader, MP John
Mckay in February 2009. Mckay hoped that this legislative initiative would have solved the serious
deficit of Canadian regulation concerning the social responsibilities of its mining industries abroad.
The purpose of the Act, set out in section 3, was to ensure that the extractive corporations which
5 For further details, Advisory Group Report. (March 2007). National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing Countries (Rep.). http://www.pdac.ca/docs/default-
source/public-affairs/csr-national-roundtables-advisory-group-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6
6Mining Association of Canada. (2007, March 29). “Groundbreaking Report on Mining, Oil and Gas Companies
Released: Civil Society and Industry Representatives Agree on Good Overseas Practices”. Retrieved from
http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/fr/node/3122

4. were receiving support from the Government of Canada would have acted in line with international
environmental best practices and human rights standards7.
The Bill C-300 proposed accountable guidelines for Canadian mining companies in developing
countries. It provided for mechanisms to receive and solve complaints about the Canadian
extractive sector from individuals damaged by its activities. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade would have been in charge of the entire process. In particular, the pivotal
provision was that financing supports for Canadian extractive companies through Export
development of Canada (ECD)8 would have been highly dependent on the attitude of mining
industries to be in compliance with the proposed standards. This was the most controversial aspect
and the primary reason why the Bill did not become a formal legislation.
The main proponent actors involved in the process were the Liberal party, the New Liberal Party
and the Bloc Québécois that expressed solid support for the Bill during the discussions in the
House of Commons9.
Moreover, several key sponsors from civil society, academics, environmental and human rights
organizations, both national and international, took part to the campaign supporting the Bill. They
mainly organized their action through committee hearings in the House of Commons, letters to
Members of Parliament, media coverage and panel discussions. They generally emphasized the
need of the mandatory provisions of the Bill in order to allow Canada becoming a leader in
corporate social responsibility and having what it takes to respect the environment and human
7Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, House of Commons of
Canada, H.R. Bill C-300 (2009). http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/402/Private/C-300/C-300_1/C-300_1.PDF
8 an arm’s length government agency that helps Canadian companies financing their international business
opportunities.
9 The sum of their votes would have allowed the passage ofthe Bill C-300 into law.

5. rights10.
Firstly, the hearings in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade began
in October 2009 and twenty-five witnesses spoke in favor of the Bill11. Namely, Mining Watch
Canada and other eight representative members of the Canadian Network on Corporate
Accountability (CNCA) based their testimonies on detailed reports12. Human rights organizations
such as Amnesty International Canada, Human Rights Watch and other international NGOs played
an important role during the hearings supporting their testimony on extensive data concerning
human and environmental abuses by Canadian mining companies. Also, some international
government’s figures stood out for the Bill: Romina Picolotti, the former Environment Minister
from Argentina accused publicly the Canada’s Barrick’s Gold Corporation for having threatened
her during the ministerial activity. Furthermore, citizens and global civil society organizations used
the strategy of direct letters to Members of Parliament’s offices13 to express their hope for the
success of the Bill. Finally, media coverage and panel discussions held across Canada14 tried to
enhance public and policy-makers’ awareness on the issue.
To sum up, the passage of the Bill C-300 into law was strongly endorsed by the opposition and
third parties, civil societies organizations, mainly Mining Watch Canada, the Canadian Network
10 Tahir, M. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Sector.Bill C-300: What went
wrong? University of Toronto.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/33552/3/Tahir_Mariam_201211_LLM_thesis.pdf
11 MiningWatch Canada. (2010, November 15). “Bill C-300 a High Water Mark for Mining and Government
Accountability”. Retrieved from http://miningwatch.ca/blog/2010/11/16/bill-c-300-high-water-mark-mining-and-
government-accountability.
12 CNCA unites environmental and human rights NGOs, faith groups,labor unions,and research and solidarity groups
across Canada. For further information and details on the report see: Janda, R. for Canadian Network on Corporate
Accountability. (2009). “Bill C-300: Sound and Measured Reinforcement for CSR. Retrieved from http://cnca-
rcrce.ca/bill-c‐300-sound-and-measured-reinforcement-for-csr/
13 In the days before the final vote a letter (http://miningwatch.ca/blog/2010/10/27/letter-39-latin-american-human-
rights-organizations-supporting-bill-c-300 ) came from Latin America that was signed by 39 organizations in support
of the Bill.
14 For example, the International Bar Association panelon extractives and the lack of judicial remedy in Vancouver.

6. on Corporate Accountability and key national and international players. They developed their
strategies through publicly lobbying effort seeking for support to intimidate the opponents.
However, their evidence-based and transparent strategies were not enough.
Key opponents and their privileged lobbying power
The Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper, the members of Mining Association of
Canada and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC)15 were undoubtedly
the enemies of the Bill C-300. Their general arguments were that the Bill C-300 would have
produced capital mobility from Canada due to its stringent provisions; Canadian companies would
have been in a competitive disadvantage in the international market through different CSR
standards and the severe sanctions related to the withdrawal of institutional funding in case of
noncompliance with the established standards. Essentially, the Bill would have led relevant
economic threats for Government and Mining industries, affecting all Canada. Nevertheless, they
held to demonstrate their shared sentiment with Bill’s sponsors concerning corporate
accountability and improvements of CSR performance but they considered that the voluntary
measures proposed by the Government would have been more effective in reaching these goals.
Indeed, one month later the introduction of the private Bill, the federal Government launched its
counterpoint releasing the CSR strategy for international extractive sector16. In contrast to Bill C-
300, parties subjected to the complaint could decide not to cooperate without consequences to the
violation of the guidelines and the withdrawal of government financing was not part of the
15 a national trade association in the extractive sector.
16 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2009). “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector”.
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-strat-rse-
2009.aspx?lang=eng

7. discussion. The Government stance to build the Canadian Corporate Social Responsibility was
extremely light compared to the provisions of the Bill.
Several testimonies were unleashed in the House of Commons to prove evidence of negative
impacts of Bill C-300. The response to the Bill of Jim McArdle17, Senior Vice-President of ECD,
is explicative: according to Bill C- 300, EDC would have withdrawn all its support for the project
if the company would not have respected the CSR guidelines. However, since companies would
have always looked for secure funding, they would have sought financial support other than EDC
and the national borders. This would have proved a source of embarrassment for the Government
unable to solve the problem of irresponsible behavior.
On the other side, the industries started to lobby after the Bill passed in the second reading due to
the increasing threats. The Mining Association of Canada and the PDAC testified against the Bill
during the parliamentary committee of Foreign Affairs and International Development in October
2009 and they also made public statements18. The campaign became fierce in spring 2010. PDAC
and Mining Association revealed their efforts against the Bill through publicly lobbying strategies
during the annual International Mining Convention held in Toronto, stating that they were
opposing the Bill and not the CSR strategies. PDAC handed out anti Bill-C300 posters, organized
17 Canada, House of Commons, Export Development Canada to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Development. (2009). EDC’s Response to Bill C-300 (J. McArdle, Author) [H.R. Bill].
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=41781
26#Int-2914913
18 Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. (2009). Bill C-300 Position Statement. Retrieved from
http://www.pdac.ca/pdf-viewer?doc=/docs/default-source/publications---news-activities/090812-bill-c-300-position-
statement.pdf.In addition, Barrick Gold Corporation, Kinross Gold Corporation, & Goldcorp Inc. (2009). Submission
to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on Bill C-300. Retrieved from
http://www.barrick.com/investors/news/newsdetails/2009/BarrickGoldSetsOutPositiononBillC-
300andProvidesFacts1121285/default.aspx

8. a panel on the Bill, realized a press conference and launched a website to spread its message.
Furthermore, the Mining Association of Canada and PDAC exercised their privileged political
power through private lobbying pressure on the Members of the Parliament. Here they won the
battle19: on October 27, 2010, Bill C-300 was definitely defeated by 6 votes of difference in the
House of Commons. The Conservative party whipped its MPs to oppose the Bill and twenty-five
members of the sponsor parties did not attend the vote.
The failure of the Bill C-300 and warrant considerations on the table
The research essay adopted a political economic approach focusing on the way economic interests
have shaped the decision on the Bill. The primary interpretation of the event reasonably leads to
conclude that the failure of the Bill C-300 lies on the nature of the economic threats that the
Canadian extractive sector would have faced not only for its profitability but for its survival.
Indeed, the possibility of lacking public financial support for their projects encouraged mining
industries to actively react against the mandatory provisions of the Bill and exercise their
privileged political power to influence the decision. Bill C-300 brought on the table serious threats
for the corporations’ sustenance thus, they could not be accommodating as they were in the release
of the Advisory Group Report in 2007.
Nevertheless, the fact that they initially accepted to seat at the multi-stakeholder consultations and
publically voiced their support for the measures identifies their need to gain environmental
legitimacy as well. In that context, they used the strategy of embracing the discourse of sustainable
19 Canadian Barrick Gold Corporation and other mining companies such as Vale Canada, Gold Corp, Kinross and
IAMGOLD, increased the number of their lobbyists to influence the failure of the Bill. It is reported that they met
overall 50 MPs.

9. development that allowed them to move from being part of the problem to be part of the solution
and increase the public legitimacy that they lost due to their detrimental actions. Further evidence
of their “legitimacy-seeking” was that they act through public lobbying strategies that were not
decisive for them to influence the failure of the Bill. Specifying their adverse stance on the Bill
but not in the pursuit of corporate social responsibility, they were protecting their corporate image.
These fluctuations of business’ behavior concerning the Bill C-300 lead to some considerations
that should be addressed in future analyses.
Although the mining interests were predominant in influencing the political decision, the
companies needed to justify their actions to avoid other consistent damages to their public
legitimacy. Does this aspect show the lack of business inherent political power and its dependence
on other ideas outside its control? Is it possible to think legitimacy as the Achilles’ heel of business
power in the future?
In addition, the case of the Bill C-300’s failure points out another important observation that
deserves attention. Canada was one of the international players that supported the
conceptualization of sustainable development in the field of environmental policy. The 2005 report
and 2007 national Round Tables are the evidence of the integration of the sustainable development
discourse in the environmental policy-making process. Nevertheless, the Government’s CSR
strategy in 2009, the argument against the Bill concerning the competitive disadvantage that the
Canadian mining corporations would have faced in the international trade and the idea that less
regulatory measures would have been more effective, demonstrate that the sustainable
development approach did not bring changes in the practice of environmental regulations in

10. Canada. The failure of the legislative initiative shows that the sustainable development discourse
was integrated only in a symbolic manner and that neo-liberalism was the predominant attitude
that impacted government regulatory actions20.
Hence, considering the Canada’s enhanced CSR strategy launched in 2014, does the failure of
the Bill C-300 open a new era in which the sustainable development attitude would influence the
environmental politics or does the political initiative is a further evidence of the rhetorical use of
this discourse?
Bibliography
 Advisory Group Report. (March 2007). National Roundtables on Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Sector in Developing Countries
(Rep.). http://www.pdac.ca/docs/default-source/public-affairs/csr-national-roundtables-
advisory-group-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6
 Barrick Gold Corporation, Kinross Gold Corporation, & Goldcorp Inc. (2009).
Submission to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Development on Bill C-300. Retrieved from
http://www.barrick.com/investors/news/newsdetails/2009/BarrickGoldSetsOutPositionon
BillC-300andProvidesFacts1121285/default.aspx
 Canada, House of Commons, Export Development Canada to the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Development. (2009). EDC’s Response to Bill C-300 (J.
McArdle, Author) [H.R. Bill].
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=
40&Ses=2&DocId=4178126#Int-2914913
 Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries
Act, House of Commons of Canada, H.R. Bill C-300 (2009).
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/402/Private/C-300/C-300_1/C-300_1.PDF
 Drohan, M. (2010). Regulating Canadian mining companies abroad: The 10-year search
for solution. Centre for International Policy Studies. (Policy Brief NO. 7).
20 Neoliberalism emphasizes the idea of free-market and moderate state regulation for trade and investments across
international borders.

11. http://www.cips-
cepi.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/CIPS_PolicyBrief_Drohan_Jan2010-1.pdf
 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2009). “Building the Canadian
Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian
International Extractive Sector”. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-
accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-strat-rse-2009.aspx?lang=eng
 Janda, R. (2010). “An act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of
Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries [Bill C-300]: Anatomy of a Failed
Initiative”. McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy,
6(2). Retrieved from https://www.mcgill.ca/jsdlp/files/jsdlp/6_2_1_janda_0.pdf.
 Janda, R. for Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. (2009). “Bill C-300:
Sound and Measured Reinforcement for CSR. Retrieved from http://cnca-rcrce.ca/bill-c‐
300-sound-and-measured-reinforcement-for-csr/
 Macdonald, D. (2007). Business and environmental politics in Canada. Peterborough,
Ont.: Broadview Press.
 Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Sustainable Development: A New(ish) Idea for a New Century?
Political Studies, 48(2), 370-387.
 Mining Association of Canada. (2007, March 29). “Groundbreaking Report on Mining,
Oil and Gas Companies Released: Civil Society and Industry Representatives Agree on
Good Overseas Practices”. Retrieved from http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/fr/node/3122
 MiningWatch Canada. (2010, November 15). “Bill C-300 a High Water Mark for Mining
and Government Accountability”. Retrieved from
http://miningwatch.ca/blog/2010/11/16/bill-c-300-high-water-mark-mining-and-
government-accountability.
 Patry, B. (2005). Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, “Fourteenth Report: Mining in Developing Countries and
Corporate Social Responsibility” in Sessional Papers (Rep. No. No 8510-381-179).
 Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. (2009). Bill C-300 Position
Statement. Retrieved from http://www.pdac.ca/pdf-viewer?doc=/docs/default-
source/publications---news-activities/090812-bill-c-300-position-statement.pdf.
 Tahir, M. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Canadian Extractive Sector. Bill
C-300: What went wrong? University of Toronto.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/33552/3/Tahir_Mariam_201211_LLM_t
hesis.pdf