Canada’s National Contact Point Final Statement - Imperial Metals Corporation and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

08-05-2020

Summary

1. On December 23, 2016, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) (hereinafter referred to as “the Notifier”), located in Juneau, Alaska, United States, submitted a Request for Review to Canada’s National Contact Point (NCP) concerning the respect of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (“the Guidelines”) by Imperial Metals Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Imperial Metals” or “the Company”) regarding the Red Chris Mine in British Columbia. Since March 2019, Newcrest Mining Limited acquired 70% of and now is involved in the operations of the Red Chris Mine. Therefore, although the RfR was directed at Imperial Metals only, the NCP extends the recommendations in this Final Statements to Newcrest Mining Limited.
2. In the Request for Review (RfR), the Notifier alleged that the Company failed to conduct due diligence with respect to the potential environmental and human rights impacts of the mine operations, especially as they relate to downstream effects on Alaskan ecosystems and fisheries. Other allegations include failure to engage and disclose information to Alaskan stakeholders. SEACC asked the NCP to facilitate a dialogue between itself and the Company for the purpose of resolving these issues.
3. The NCP’s initial assessment concluded that the issues of disclosure and stakeholder engagement, but not environmental and human rights due diligence, merited further examination and offered mediation on these two issues. An explanation of the NCPs decision is provided in paragraph 27 of this document. The parties met for a one-day mediation session November 19, 2018, at the offices of the Consulate General of Canada in Seattle, United States.
4. While the mediation did not result in a mutually agreeable solution between the parties per se, the process established direct lines of communication between the two parties and created an opportunity for the Notifier to express their concerns to the Company by way of a trained professional mediator. The NCP recognizes that the Company showed good will and transparency during the process and committed to initiating actions to address SEACC’s concerns. In the NCP’s view, this process has raised an important and useful discussion on the OECD Guidelines and expectations of a Company’s due diligence with respect to stakeholder consultations and engagement, as well as the issue of representation, notably by civil society organizations when the purported concerned communities or groups are not party to the RfR.
5. The NCP acknowledges the constructive participation of both parties and makes a series of recommendations to both Company and the Notifier as detailed below, with the intent to further the implementation of the Guidelines.
6. The NCP also acknowledges and regrets the delays incurred throughout the specific instance process, due to extenuating circumstances. The NCP thanks the parties for the patience and cooperation demonstrated over the course of the last three years.

NCP Recommendations and Request

To Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited

7. Recommendation 1: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited put in place a  stakeholder consultation strategy that includes a process to identify communities that could potentially be affected by Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited’s activities and ensure those communities are adequately consulted and informed over the life of the project. In this regard, the NCP invites Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited to draw upon the OECD Due Diligence for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector. In line with the OECD Guidelines and Due Diligence Guidance, the NCP takes this opportunity to encourage Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited not to limit the identification of affected stakeholders to what is required legislatively. In this instance, this includes anticipating and including stakeholders that stand to be directly and/or indirectly affected by the mine’s activities over the life of the mine.
8. Recommendation 2: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited communicate publicly about efforts related to the recommendation above and include information on its ongoing stakeholder consultation processes and outcomes in accordance with Chapter VI, paragraphs 2A and 2B of the OECD Guidelines.
9. Recommendation 3: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited provide a written response to the technical questions posed in SEACC’s correspondence of March 3, 2019 and provide a copy to the NCP by May 30, 2020.

To SEACC

10. Recommendation 1: If SEACC has a stakeholder engagement strategy, the NCP recommends it includes language clarifying how the organization will identify concerned communities to inform, consult and/or involve them in the submission of any future complaints to a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that their respective interests and objectives are clearly identified, communicated appropriately and are material to the complaint mechanism.
11. The NCP also takes this opportunity to remind SEACC that offering good offices after the initial assessment should not be construed as confirmation of non-observance of the Guidelines by the Company. Rather, it implies the NCP has assessed that its offer of good offices through facilitating an exchange between the parties, discussing the issues and expectations of the Guidelines with the enterprises in question, and developing meaningful recommendations on enterprise conduct, would support or encourage the resolution of the issues.

Parties to this Specific Instance

12. The Request for Review was submitted by SEACC, an Alaskan non-profit corporation headquartered in Juneau, Alaska, USA. SEACC is a member-based organization including Alaskans who participate in the commercial, recreational and subsistence uses of fisheries and wildlife in Southeast Alaska. It is dedicated to the conservation of natural resources, including watersheds and fisheries, in the region.
13. The request was focussed on Imperial Metals Corporation’s Red Chris Mine. Imperial Metals Corporation is registered and headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Its subsidiary, Red Chris Development Company Ltd. manages and operates the Red Chris Mine. Imperial Metals owns assets in Canada (BC) and, at the time of the receipt of the RfR, it owned assets in Nevada, United States. In March 2019, the Company entered into a joint venture with Newcrest Mining Limited, an Australian Company. Newcrest Mining acquired a 70% stake with the remaining 30% retained by Imperials Metals. The NCP determined that, because Imperials Metals was a Canadian multinational company and that the RfR deals with activities occurring in Canada, it had a mandate concerning this specific instance.

The Red Chris Mine

14. The mine is an open pit conventional copper and gold mine located 80 km (50 miles) south of Dease Lake, British Columbia, and approximately 300 km (186 miles) from the Alaskan border. The permitting process began in 2004 with an environmental assessment application both provincially and federally. The Red Chris BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) Certificate (M05-02) was issued in August 2005 and amended on February 24, 2012, and August 19, 2016. A certificate extension was obtained on July 9, 2010. Federal approval for the Red Chris project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) was received in May 2006. A third party subsequently challenged the Federal approval, however, a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, on January 21, 2010, upheld the Federal approval, which allowed mine permitting and development to proceed. Since 2009, the Mine Review Committee, created by the Province of B.C., oversees the ongoing permitting processes and includes Alaskan state and Federal American government representation. Commissioning began in the fourth quarter of 2014, and commercial production was initiated by July 1, 2015.
15. The mine is within the Iskut and Stikine transboundary watersheds on the Todagin Plateau between Ealue and Kluea Lakes and drained by White Rock Canyon Creek which flows into Coyote Creek and the Iskut River to the northwest. The Iskut River flows into the Stikine River near the US/Canada border.

Issues Raised in the Request for Review and OECD Guidelines Provisions Cited

16. The Notifier alleged that Imperial Metals had not and continues to not observe the OECD Guidelines during the development and operation of the Red Chris Mine. SEACC alleged that the Company failed to conduct due diligence with respect to the environmental and human rights impacts, especially as they relate to downstream impacts on Alaskan ecosystems and fisheries. According to the RfR, the Notifier’s concerns arise from the following: a) alleged potential risk of acid rock drainage and metal leaching, notably aluminum, cadmium and selenium, from the mine tailings dam into the Stikine River transboundary watershed used by Alaskan communities for salmon fishing and recreation; and b) alleged risk of an environmental disaster from potential failure of the tailings dam, based on the experience of a failed dam, of an alleged similar design, at the Company’s Mount Polley mine in 2014.
17. The Notifier made nine (9) specific allegations that can be summarized as follows:
    • Failure to account for certain factors in the design of the tailings dam;
    • Failure to complete a risk assessment for a potential landslide and providing risks analysis for dam breach inundation scenarios;
    • Lack of demonstrated commitment to avoid and minimize human rights related risks regarding clean water and customary uses of natural resources;
    • Failure to engage with and disclose information to Southeast Alaska tribal representatives and other Alaskan communities; and,
    • Failure to properly assess contaminant concentrations in local creeks and to adequately manage and control runoff water and sediments during the construction and operation of the mine;

    The Notifier cited the following paragraphs of the OECD Guidelines:

    Chapter II – General Policies

    Paragraph A.10: Carry out risk-based due diligence, for example by incorporating it into their enterprise risk management systems, to identify, prevent and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts (…) and account for how these impacts are addressed. The nature and extent of due diligence depend on the circumstances of a particular situation.

    Chapter IV - Human Rights

    Paragraph 1: Respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.

    Paragraph 2: Within the context of their own activities, avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur.

    Paragraph 3: Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts. 

    Paragraph 5: Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts.

    Paragraph 6: Provide for or co-operate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts.

    Chapter VI – Environment

    Paragraph 1.A: Establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise, including...collection and evaluation of adequate and timely information regarding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of their activities;

    Paragraph 2.A: Provide the public and workers with adequate, measurable and verifiable (where applicable) and timely information on the potential environmental, health and safety impacts of the activities of the enterprise, which could include reporting on progress in improving environmental performance;

    Paragraph 2.B: Engage in adequate and timely communication and consultation with the communities directly affected by the environmental, health and safety policies of the enterprise and by their implementation.

18. The NCP also found the Guidelines’ Chapter III on Disclosure to be of relevance.
19. The RfR described eight (8) specific remedies sought from the Company as summarized below:
• Adequate due diligence including disclosure of steps to prevent and mitigate the foreseeable environmental and human rights impacts;
• Preparation and disclosure of an adaptive management plan, baseline water quality data and a risk analysis regarding the tailings dam; and,
• Identification of a funding source and dispute resolution and damage payment for compensation of losses from mine closure and potential emergencies for harmed downstream Alaskan interests.
20. SEACC sought assistance from the Canadian NCP to encourage the Company’s adherence to the OECD Guidelines and facilitate a dialogue between representatives of SEACC and the Company to address their concerns.

The Company’s Position

21. The Company’s position as presented in its written submission to the NCP is summarized as follows:
    • The Company’s activities have at all times been in accordance with the OECD Guidelines and the Company rejects all the Notifier’s allegations;
    • The Red Chris Tailings Impoundment Area was built and is operated in accordance with the Canadian Dam Association’s Dam Safety Guidelines and the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia;
    • The three ultimate dams that will confine the tailings are not of the same design as the failed Mount Polley dam;
    • Technical studies and reports document the risk analysis done for the design of the tailing dams, the Kluea Lake Landslide, the dam break inundation scenario and contaminant concentrations in water bodies;
    • There are (Canadian) communities much closer than Alaskan communities are and they have been included in the development of the mine’s Emergency and Preparedness and Response Plan; and,
    • Through the Impact, Benefit and Co-Management Agreement (IBCA) negotiated with the local B.C. Tahltan Nation, the Company has demonstrated a commitment to avoiding and minimizing environmental and human rights risks for the Tahltan traditional territory, and therefore Alaskan users are likewise protected.

The NCP’s Initial Assessment

22. It is important to note that an NCP Initial Assessment is not a determination on whether or not the corporate behaviour or actions in question were consistent with observance of the OECD Guidelines, although the NCP can make such a determination at its discretion during an NCP process. The Initial Assessment allows concluding whether or not an NCP-led dialogue between parties could be useful to resolve disputes related to the issues.
23. As per NCP procedures, the NCP reviewed all the information presented in the submission from SEACC, the information submitted by the Company, consulted relevant experts within the Government of Canada as needed and conducted an initial assessment using the criteria listed in the NCP Procedures Guide and the Guidelines’ Procedural Guidance as follows:
    • the identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter;
    • whether the issues are material and substantiated;
    • whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance;
    • the relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings;
    • how similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings;
    • whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines.
24. To operate with full transparency, the NCP’s goal was to share, among the parties, the information received from parties. Procedures also indicate, however, that in order to facilitate the resolution of the issues raised, the NCP can take appropriate steps to protect sensitive business and other information. Thus, to be able to balance transparency and confidentiality, the NCP procedures require seeking the party’s agreement to share with the other party, some or all of the information that it may provide to the NCP. Imperial Metals provided a comprehensive response to the specific allegations and consented to sharing it in full with the Notifier. The Canadian NCP reviewed all materials presented by SEACC and the Company and considered the issues raised to be material to the Guidelines.
25. Regarding the allegations on environmental due diligence: the mine was subject to an extensive environmental assessment process as part of required regulatory approvals by both federal and provincial governments. The regulatory review of potential negative impacts and the design mitigation measures for such impacts is a component of environmental assessment processes, as required by law. The NCP considers that all potential negative impacts were examined in both processes and that mitigation measures were identified where needed. It is important to clarify that the NCP does not review decisions of other governmental regulatory agencies.
26. Regarding the allegations on human rights due diligence: the Red Chris Mine is in co-management with the Tahltan Nation as per the IBCA agreement. The NCP is of the view that the human rights related interests of the Tahltan Nation are taken into account in the project.
27. Based on the above, the NCP concluded that the issues of environmental and human rights due diligence highlighted by the Notifier would not benefit from an NCP-facilitated dialogue between the parties.
28. Regarding the allegations on disclosure and stakeholder engagement, the OECD Guidelines (Chapter II - General Policies, paragraph 14 and Chapter III –Disclosure, paragraph 3) encourage corporations to engage with relevant stakeholders in order to provide meaningful opportunities for their views to be taken into account. While both Alaskan state and US federal authorities were consulted and the Tahltan Nation have an agreement with the Company, the NCP did not receive information to indicate that the Company consulted or communicated with Alaskan communities located in the Stikine River watershed, or disclosed information to them, or that this is ongoing. Considering the OECD Due Diligence for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector affirms that due diligence including communication with communities by the Company should be continuous throughout the life of the project, the NCP believed that there would be value in dialogue between the Company and the Notifier. The goal being to discuss stakeholder engagement and disclosure of information on the project, identifying a way forward, an action plan or solutions to the concerns raised.

Mediation

29. The NCP offered mediation to the parties on March 19, 2018, with a two-week deadline for response. The Company provided a positive response a day past the NCP deadline. SEACC missed the deadline and upon follow up from the NCP accepted the offer of mediation on condition that it be conducted via video or teleconference as the organization did not have the funds to travel to participate in a face-to-face mediation. The NCP indicated to SEACC that it could not provide funding to cover SEACC’s travel expenses to and from the mediation. It, however, committed to exploring options, which would involve closer proximity to parties, remote video conferencing, and consulting parties on modalities and logistics of the mediation to maximise participation and opportunities for success.
30. Unfortunately, there was a time lag between the NCP’s initial assessment and commencement of the mediation process. This was a result of the NCP having to undergo a peer review, changes in human resources at the NCP secretariat and challenges in securing a suitable mediator. Following an enquiry from SEACC, the NCP provided an update to SEACC on the reasons for the delay.
31. Following extensive correspondence between the NCP and the parties in deciding on a location conducive to both parties for the mediation, there was an agreement to hold the mediation at the offices of the Consulate General of Canada in Seattle, Washington, United States.
32. The mediation took place November 19, 2018. While the parties did not reach an agreement on the issues raised by the Notifier, the NCP was encouraged by an informal agreement between the parties to initiate a process of information sharing, notably from the Company to SEACC on specific scientific questions raised in the RfR.
33. In the NCP’s view, this process has raised an important and useful discussion on the OECD Guidelines and expectations of a Company’s due diligence with respect to stakeholder consultations and engagement. It also raised the issue of representation, notably by civil society organizations when concerned communities or groups for which they claim to speak are not party to the RfR. SEACC, in its capacity as an environmental advocacy organization, took the opportunity to submit a Request for Review to the NCP. However, in this particular instance, some of the demands made by SEACC of the Company necessitated identification of specific groups and/or communities whose interests SEACC represents. For example, SEACC demanded the “development of a mechanism for dispute resolution and damage payment for downstream Alaskan interests that have been or may be harmed by the activities” of the Company.
34. While SEACC, in their RfR, did not purport to represent any communities in particular, it became evident during the mediation process that the communities whose interests were allegedly at stake, were neither fully aware nor adequately consulted by SEACC on its decision to submit the RfR to the Canadian NCP. The NCP deems this to have compromised the success of the mediation to a large extent as it became apparent that purportedly concerned stakeholders and/or their legitimate representatives were not present at the mediation table and, in whose absence, decisions, actions and agreements reached could be rendered illegitimate and/or irrelevant.
35. With the lines of communication established through the mediation, the NCP encourages Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited to continue its open and transparent exchange of information with SEACC and keep the NCP apprised of its outreach efforts. Based on its procedures, the NCP makes the following recommendations on the issues raised in the RfR and the outcome of the mediation:

    To Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited

    1. Recommendation 1: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited review or consider putting in place a comprehensive stakeholder consultation strategy that includes a process to identify communities that could potentially be affected by Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited’s activities. Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited should also ensure those identified communities are adequately consulted and informed over the life of the project. In this regard, the NCP invites Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited to draw the OECD Due Diligence for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector. In line with the OECD Guidelines and Due Diligence Guidance, the NCP takes this opportunity to encourage Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited not to limit the identification of affected stakeholders to what is required legislatively. In this instance, this includes anticipating and including stakeholders that stand to be directly and/or indirectly affected by the mine’s activities over the life of the mine.
    2. Recommendation 2: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals//Newcrest Mining Limited communicate publicly about efforts related to the recommendation above and include information on its stakeholder consultation processes and outcomes in accordance with Chapter VI, paragraphs 2A and 2B of the OECD Guidelines.
    3. Recommendation 3: The NCP recommends that Imperial Metals//Newcrest Mining Limited provide a written response to the technical questions posed in SEACC’s correspondence of March 3, 2019, and provide a copy to the NCP by May 30, 2020 (note that the response was received for review by the NCP on 30 January 2020).

    To SEACC

    4. Recommendation 1: If SEACC has a stakeholder engagement strategy, the NCP recommends it includes language clarifying how the organization will identify concerned communities to inform, consult and/or involve them in the submission of any future complaints to a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that their respective interests and objectives are clearly identified, communicated appropriately and are material to the complaint mechanism.
    5. The NCP also takes this opportunity to remind SEACC that offering good offices after the initial assessment should not be construed as confirmation of non-observance of the Guidelines by the Company. Rather, it implies the NCP has assessed that its offer of good offices through facilitating an exchange between the parties, discussing the issues and expectations of the Guidelines with the enterprises in question, and developing meaningful recommendations on enterprise conduct, would support or encourage the resolution of the issues.

Follow up

36. The NCP will issue a follow-up statement to this Final Statement approximately six (6) months following the publication of this Final Statement, and would prefer to do so with new information from the Parties. In particular, the NCP will seek to obtain a progress report from Imperial Metals/Newcrest Mining Limited on its efforts to review/consider putting in place a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy. This progress report will inform the NCP’s follow-up report.
37. With the publication of this Final Statement, the NCP considers its decision final and will seek follow-up on the recommendations published in this Final Statement in 6 months from the date of publication closed.

Annex A: Key Timelines

• 23 December 2016: NCP receives Request for Review (RfR) from Notifier
• 9 January 2017: NCP receives consent from Notifier to transmit RfR to Company
• 11 January 2017: NCP advises Company of RfR
• 1 March 2017 : Company provides response to RfR
• 22 March 2017: Company provides consent to transmit its submission to Notifier
• 17 May 2017: NCP receives comments from Notifier on Company’s response
• 24 May 2017: NCP sends Notifier’s comments to Company
• 31 May 2017: NCP receives correspondence from B.C. Government
• 14 June 2017: NCP corresponds with Company
• 11 January 2018: Draft Initial Assessment shared with both parties to the Specific Instance
• 25 January 2018: NCP receives comments from both parties on the draft Initial Assessment
• 26 January 2018 : NCP shares comments received with respective parties
• 20 March 2018: NCP Chair sends both parties a letter and final version of the Initial Assessment with the offer of mediation
• 20 March 2018: Company accepts offer of mediation
• 5 April 2018: Notifier accepts offer of mediation
• 11 April 2018: NCP informs both parties of next steps with regards to mediation
• 15 May 2018: NCP advises of interim staffing change
• 01 August 2018: NCP advises parties of the selection of the mediator, proposes dates and location (28-29 August, 2020, Vancouver, B.C.)
• 23 August 2018: NCP communicates new proposed dates and location,19-20 November 2018 at Consulate General of Canada in Seattle, Washington, USA, further to feedback from received from Notifier;
  Notifier confirms availability for proposed arrangements
• 10 September 2018: NCP advises Company of new staffing appointment
• 24 September 2018: Company confirms its availability for the proposed arrangements for mediation
• 26 September 2018: NCP advises Notifier of new staffing appointment and confirms arrangements for mediation
• 29 October 2018: NCP communicates logistics for mediation with both parties
• 19 November 2019: Mediation is conducted; although a mutual agreement is not reached, parties agree to an exchange of information
• Mediator allows further period for exchange of information
• 26 November 2018: Company follows up with mediator
• 03 March 2019: Notifier corresponds with Company, mediator and B.C. Government officials
• 15 April 2019: NCP advises parties in writing that the mediation phase is concluding and initiates drafting of the Final Statement
• 09 September 2019: NCP provides an update explaining the delay in sharing the draft Final Statement
• 05 December 2019: NCP shares draft Final Statement with the parties for comment
• 16 December 2019: Notifier provides comments
• 23 December 2019: NCP follows up with Company for a response
• 17 January 2020: NCP grants Company an extension to respond
• 30 January 2020: Company provides NCP with follow up document requested in the draft Final Statement for vetting (response to Notifier correspondence of March 2018)
• 14 February 2020: NCP advises Notifier of the extension granted to Company
• 11 March 2020: NCP provides Company with feedback on requested follow up documents
• 29 April 2020: NCP shares Final Statement with both parties

Annex B: OECD Guidelines and the NCP Process

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are recommendations addressed by governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from adhering countries. They provide voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct (human rights, labour, environment, disclosure, corruption…) in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognized standards.

National Contact Points (NCPs) are a voluntary, non-judicial dialogue facilitation mechanism. Established through countries’ adherence to the OECD Investment Declaration, they are mandated to: (a) promote the adoption of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on responsible business conduct by companies, as guiding principles in their day-to-day operations, and (b) facilitate dialogue between companies and affected parties, when specific issues related to a Company’s operations fall within the scope of the Guidelines. The process to be followed by the Canadian NCP in dealing with issues that arise relating to the implementation of the Guidelines in specific cases is prescribed in the Procedural Guidance to the OECD Guidelines (section C, page 72 of the 2011 edition) and further explained in the Canadian NCP Procedures Guide.

Following the receipt of a request for review, the NCP conducts an initial assessment to review the issues raised. In doing so and in determining whether to offer its good offices to the parties in the form or mediation or facilitated dialogue, the NCP takes into account a number of factors, as outlined in paragraph 25, page 83 of the 2011 edition of the Guidelines.

If the NCP establishes that a facilitated dialogue could potentially address the issues raised, the NCP can offer to the Company and those making the claim to participate in a facilitated dialogue or mediation on a voluntary and good faith basis. The objective of a dialogue is for parties to establish a better understanding of the issues and identify a path forward and/or solutions to the concerns identified in the submission to the NCP. The Canadian NCP is not required by the OECD to render a finding of “breach” to the Guidelines, but it can do so, at its sole and entire discretion. It is not the role of the Canadian NCP to provide the remedy. The NCP offers a neutral forum for a facilitated dialogue or mediation, for parties to find solutions together, when there is reason to believe that such dialogue can help parties find mutually agreeable solutions, while advancing the implementation of the OECD Guidelines by companies.

Whether the NCP offers its good offices to the parties or not, and whether there is any agreement or not between the parties, the Procedures require the NCP to make the results of its proceedings publicly available by publishing a final statement on its web site.