http://united-church.ca/news/2006/0913.shtm

Bula explains that Canadians must remember that Canada is a world leader
in mineral exploration and mining. In many nations around the globe,
these extractive industries are the public face of Canada.

"If Canadian companies do not respect human rights, if they contaminate
local ecosystems, if they do not consult with local communities, they
make a mockery of Canada's affirmed commitment to democracy, human
rights, and ecological sustainability," says Bula.

She notes, however, that Canadian corporations operating abroad receive
funding, consular, and insurance support from the Canadian government,
and the Government of Canada benefits from the corporate taxes these
companies pay in Canada.

"For these reasons, the government must assume its responsibility to
ensure that Canadian corporations operating abroad do not violate human
rights, unfairly exploit human labour, or endanger the health of local
ecosystems," says Bula.

Really, really, really not wanting this to be in any way about promoting my Denomination. I've only used this source because it came to my attention. This is an issue that I have thought a lot about over the years. What do people think? Is this something that should be important to us, or is this my socialism showing? This is NOT a non-issue, before someone says that, in the sense that we know well of several Canadian corporations whose behaviour in other nations is less than stellar. It does happen, and is happening. But is this kind of response an appropriate one?

The devil is in the details. ;)

I think it's a good idea on the surface (ignoring the church issue), but it must be implemented carefully. Not to supplant decent local regulations just because they aren't up to our standards, for one. Imposing our standards and expense structures on other nations because we presume to know what's best for them is an old game. We have much expertise and capital to offer for both our benefit without needing to be overly controlling of another nation's policy.

It will have to be baby-steps combined with international work otherwise Canadian companies will be pushed out and the end result can be worse than if a reasonable approach were taken in the first place. We could claim the high ground by having no role in the 'damage' (very subjective) but that would also mean we didn't take part in improvement when we could have. The best is the enemy of the good in this one. Of course, that means that if the process were actually moving forward there wouldn't be much of a role for groups that bring no relevant expertise to the table, but are accustomed to considering themselves expert critics. So sad.

It reminds me of countries where the abrupt end to child labour caused huge dislocations and crippling waves of poverty. Despite the ultimate noble goal, careful implementation is key.

I once consulted with an international aid group who said their worst enemies were Canadian reformers who pushed reform relentlessly onto other countries, while those countries were trying to make systemic changes from within--slower but with less resentment among the popultion and more local acceptance.