Unearthing Canadian veins of greed

On Jan. 13, 2025, Mali took a bold step in reclaiming control over its natural resources, as the government began seizing $245 million CAD worth of gold stocks from Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold. The seizure is part of a wider dispute over Barrick’s refusal to pay its dues under Mali’s newly passed mining codes, which seek to address decades of unequal agreements that have left African states with minimal stakes in their own resources. A quick search reveals that this is not the first time Barrick has been called out—among other controversies, Mali had previously demanded about $500 million USD in unpaid taxes from Barrick, a sum that points to the company’s failure to meet its obligations.

This issue stretches far beyond Mali and forms part of a larger, predatory pattern. Nearly half of the world’s mining companies are based in Canada, and they are leaving a trail of devastation.

In Ecuador, Indigenous women have been sounding the alarm that a proposed free trade agreement between the Canadian and Ecuadorian governments could pave the way for even more human rights and environmental abuses by Canadian mining companies.

In Honduras, two workers fled their village after forces tied to the now-closed Canadian mining giant Gold Corp murdered their uncle, an environmental activist, in what they believed was a targeted killing.

When they sought refuge in Canada, officials told them to lie about their story and present it as an escape from drug traffickers instead of revealing the truth—that their uncle’s death was a direct consequence of Canada’s mining interests. These are just two of countless examples of how Canada’s global footprint is built on exploitation, all while the country turns a blind eye to the damage caused in its name.

Even within Canada, the government has allowed corporations to exploit the country’s land and mistreat its Indigenous communities. This is especially troubling because the mining industry does have the potential to be more ethical through measures like resource management, community engagement, and stringent environmental protections. Our dependence on mining industries, particularly for technology, is undeniably problematic.

However, change is possible even within our global capitalist economy. Ethical mining must address historical injustices by securing community consent, investing in long-term benefits for local populations, and ensuring transparency in supply chains. While the extractive industry has caused significant harm, it’s possible to envision a future where it is compatible with both environmental and social well-being. The challenge lies in shifting the focus away from corporate interests and toward a model that prioritizes people and the planet.

The mining giant Glencore stands in stark contrast to this vision of ethical mining. After years of investigations, the Swiss Office of the Attorney General found the company guilty of “inadequate organization” due to corrupt mining deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, specifically around its dealings with Israeli businessman Dan Gertler. Glencore’s involvement in bribery and illegal practices resulted in significant losses for the Congolese people, with billions of dollars in potential earnings from resources like copper and cobalt being siphoned off. Glencore has paid fines, but the penalty barely scratches the surface compared to the wealth generated by exploiting these resources. Even after the United States government sanctioned Gertler for his role in this corruption, Glencore continues to pay him tens of thousands of dollars as royalty payments from mines acquired through these corrupt deals. Undeterred by these controversies, Glencore is expanding its operations in Canada, acquiring four massive coal mines in British Columbia. Glencore’s takeover of B.C. mines raises concerns about ongoing selenium pollution in the Elk River Valley, which has long been toxic to fish. Reports highlight that the government has failed to impose strong conditions on Glencore to halt the pollution and cover the massive cleanup costs. Advocates fear the company’s vague commitments to environmental remediation will fall far short of addressing the long-term environmental devastation in B.C.

Canadian mining companies dominate the global extractive industry not because of their technical expertise or ethical leadership, but because Canada has deliberately positioned itself as a regulatory bastion for mining corporations. With 47 per cent of the world’s public mining companies listed on Canadian stock exchanges, the country provides an ultra-permissive legal, financial, and diplomatic environment that enables these companies to operate with near-total impunity. Even mining corporations not physically based in Canada register as Canadian companies because the country offers a system designed to protect corporate interests over human rights and environmental accountability.

Alain Deneault, philosopher, researcher and professor at Université de Moncton, explained in an interview with The Tribune that the mining companies benefit from Canada’s lax disclosure requirements, which allow them to engage in speculative resource claims, inflating their market value without stringent verification.

“Canadian mining companies can speculate on potential resources rather than just proven reserves, creating opportunities for market manipulation,” Deneault said.

Beyond financial benefits, Canada’s diplomatic network acts as an unofficial lobby for mining corporations.

“A whole network of Canadian diplomats are actively working to represent the interests of mining companies in the countries where they operate,” Deneault said. “This pressure forces governments to lower tariffs, invest in infrastructure that supports mining, and even expel people from their land.”

The result is a global empire of extraction, where Canadian mining companies can pollute, displace, and exploit with minimal consequences, knowing that the legal, financial, and diplomatic frameworks of their home country will work in their favour.

At Barrick Gold’s North Mara mine in Tanzania, violence, forced displacement, and human rights abuses have become routine. The Canadian mining giant has operated the mine through subsidiaries since 2006.

According to MiningWatch Canada, which has been documenting abuses at North Mara since 2014, the situation on the ground is dire.

“Conflicts happen weekly around the mine,” Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator for MiningWatch said in an interview with //The Tribune//. “These result in arbitrary arrests, severe beatings—some leading to death—as well as people being shot, maimed, or killed. And these are not just people accused of entering waste rock piles for residual gold. Even innocent bystanders, including schoolchildren, have been targeted.”

Forced evictions have been taking place since the mine’s inception. The Kuria people, Indigenous to the region, traditionally rely on cattle herding and small-scale gold mining for their livelihoods. But when gold was discovered in their lands, Barrick moved in to claim it.

“As is so common all over the world, whenever small-scale gold mining starts, governments and mining companies notice and go, ‘There’s money to be made there,’” Coumans explained. “And within no time at all, the small-scale miners are forced off their land, and large-scale mining companies take over, often with government support.”

The most recent wave of forced evictions, between 2022 and 2023, displaced 5,000 families—tens of thousands of people.

“When I say forcibly evicted, [...] people had no choice. These evictions were accompanied by violence, intimidation, and coercion,” Coumans said. “These families lost not just land, but generational wealth—something passed from parents to children. Now, it’s gone.”

Canada’s legal framework does not just fail to hold mining companies accountable—it actively protects them. When Canadian corporations commit abuses abroad, victims seeking justice are often blocked by legal loopholes that allow these companies to evade responsibility and shift cases to foreign jurisdictions where legal systems are weaker or more easily influenced. Canadian law makes it very difficult to sue companies domestically as it empowers corporations to argue that cases should be heard in the countries where alleged abuses took place.

“It’s really dire. So many people are being harmed by Canadian mining companies overseas, and we have no place in Canada for them to have their cases heard,” Coumans said.

In December 2023, an Ontario judge ruled that a lawsuit against Barrick Gold, filed on behalf of 32 Tanzanian plaintiffs, would not be heard in Canada. Instead, the case—alleging severe human rights abuses at Barrick’s North Mara mine—was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, with the judge determining it should be heard in Tanzania.

“This is a major setback for the plaintiffs and raises serious concerns about whether Canadian courts will ever hold Canadian mining companies accountable for overseas abuses,” Coumans said.

The case, which centred on allegations of excessive use of force by mine security, was never even debated on its merits. Instead, Barrick managed to argue that, despite being headquartered in Canada, it was not sufficiently “present” in the country to warrant a trial in Canadian courts.

The ruling reinforces an already troubling reality.

“It will create a chill on new cases being brought forward against Canadian mining companies for harm they are alleged to have done overseas,” Coumans warned.

As Deneault puts it, “You are told to go seek justice in Tanzania, Mali, or other countries where the legal system has already been compromised—often by the very corporations you are fighting.”

This system exposes a fundamental truth about Canada’s governance.

“If Canada were a true democracy—which I do not believe it is—it would establish an independent commission to investigate the actions of its mining companies abroad,” Deneault said.

Such a commission, with the power to compel corporate testimony and enforce reparations, would be a necessary first step toward accountability.

As early as 2006, McGill has partnered with mining giants like Barrick, Rio Tinto, Vale, and Agnico Eagle, providing them with academic research that benefits their bottom lines rather than helping the people who bear the brunt of their harmful practices. As of Dec. 31, 2024, McGill continues to hold investments in Barrick Gold Corp., owning 211,755 shares through segregated accounts and pooled funds. The university also collaborates with the destructive corporation through its Geomechanics & EMERG Labs.

By accepting funding and collaborating with corporations like Barrick Gold, McGill legitimizes an industry that continues to exploit vulnerable communities and destroy the environment. It is not just a matter of questionable investments—it is a matter of responsibility.

McGill is not alone in this hypocrisy.

“I don’t know a single major Canadian university that does not have a mining company funding something,” said Coumans. “Either a program, an office, or sometimes an entire building.”

Mining corporations strategically fund faculties related to their operations—not just in engineering and resource extraction, but also in fields like international relations, shaping the political narratives that protect their interests.

Universities justify these partnerships by claiming financial necessity, arguing that student fees and government funding are insufficient.

“They are very willing to take that funding and not look too hard at the track record of the companies that are offering the money,” Coumans explained.

The result is a system in which institutions of higher learning, which should be sites of critical inquiry and ethical leadership, become complicit in whitewashing corporate crimes.

“If you name any major ethical issue in the world today, you will find academics working to justify or enable it—whether through engineering, policy research, or even outright propaganda,” Deneault said. “Universities today present themselves as the brainpower of multinational corporations. The great challenge for them is to free themselves from financial power and reclaim their role as spaces of critical inquiry rather than corporate training grounds.”

The time has come for McGill to face its reckoning. It must divest from blood-stained industries, address its complicity, and start fostering an academic environment that does not simply serve the interests of multinational corporations, but prioritizes the well-being of the communities they have harmed. The university cannot claim to champion justice while benefiting from industries that commit atrocities.

McGill’s continued entanglement with the mining industry is not just a financial issue—it is a moral failure.

*Quotes from Alain Deneault were translated from French.