Author: Peter Mantas

Canadian DPA? Cross-country consultations begin

Government of Canada Launches Consultations

More than two years ago, in the context of its procurement modernization initiative designed to ensure that it was doing business with ethical suppliers, the Government of Canada introduced a government-wide “Integrity Regime”. The Government is now seeking to review whether its objectives have been achieved. On September 25, 2017, it launched a consultation to seek stakeholders’ views on its “Integrity Regime” and took the opportunity to seek the public’s opinion on a potential deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regime as well. The Government has published a Discussion paper entitled “Expanding Canada’s Toolkit to Address Corporate Wrongdoing: the Deferred Prosecution Agreement Stream Discussion Guide in relation to the consultation process. Stakeholders may provide their responses and comments until November 17, 2017.

DPA Regime

A DPA regime is like a diversion program that provides an alternative to criminal proceedings. Instead of going to trial, the prosecutor can make an offer to the accused to hold off on criminal charges, while the person enters into a program designed to rehabilitate them. If the accused does not comply with the terms of the agreement, the prosecution is resumed. In Canada, diversion programs are currently made available to individuals only. A DPA regime is a diversion program made available to corporations. It is often – but not always – available only for specific offences related to economic crimes.

Continue reading »

Des APS canadiens? Les consultations débutent

Le gouvernement canadien lance des consultations

Il y a plus de deux ans, le gouvernement canadien présentait son nouveau « régime d’intégrité ». Par ce régime, le gouvernement cherche à s’assurer qu’il fait affaire avec des fournisseurs dont le comportement est conforme à l’éthique. Dans le but de déterminer s’il a atteint ses objectifs, le 25 septembre 2017, le gouvernement lançait une consultation afin de recueillir les vues du public et des divers acteurs du milieu concernant son « régime d’intégrité ». Il en profitait pour lancer en même temps une consultation sur la possibilité d’instaurer un régime juridique permettant de  conclure, au Canada, des accords de poursuite suspendue (APS). Le « Guide de discussions » intitulé « Élargir la trousse d’outils du Canada afin d’éliminer les actes répréhensibles des entreprises : Guide de discussion sur le volet des accords de poursuite suspendue » permet d’orienter le débat. Les personnes qui désirent fournir leurs commentaires dans le contexte de cette consultation peuvent le faire jusqu’au 17 novembre 2017.

Régime juridique permettant de conclure des APS

Les APS constituent en quelque sorte l’équivalent d’un programme de déjudiciarisation. Un programme de déjudiciarisation est un programme permettant aux individus d’éviter de faire l’objet de poursuites criminelles. Dans certaines circonstances, plutôt que d’intenter un procès, le poursuivant peut offrir à l’accusé de suspendre les accusations afin de lui permettre de suivre un programme de réhabilitation. Si l’accusé ne se soumet pas aux règles qu’on lui impose dans ce contexte, la poursuite criminelle est rétablie. Au Canada, de tels programmes de déjudiciarisation sont offerts aux individus seulement. Les APS sont l’équivalent d’un programme de déjudiciarisation, mais pour les entreprises. Les APS s’appliquent normalement seulement aux crimes de nature économique, bien que cela ne soit pas toujours le cas.

Continue reading »

President Trump and Congress Water Down Anti-Corruption Rules for U.S. Mining Companies


On February 14, 2017, President Trump signed into law a joint resolution of Congress to repeal a critical anti-corruption rule for oil, gas and mining companies. The law was introduced by the House on January 30, 2017. It quickly moved to the Senate, where it was passed with the support of the Republicans and opposition of the Democrats.

The rule is referred to as the “Cardin-Lugar regulations” and was enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in accordance with the Cardin-Lugar amendment of 2010.  The amendment, prompted by the 2008 financial crisis and high prevalence of corruption in developing countries, directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a rule requiring oil, gas and mining companies listed on the U.S. stock exchange to disclose how much they paid to hosting foreign governments (above a certain threshold).  The purpose of this amendment was to curb bribery and otherwise illicit payments made to governments in return for specific natural resource extraction projects.

The rule itself took a decade to finalize, and, up until the U.S. government’s recent decision to overturn it, was set to take effect next year. As the rule stood, it would require U.S. listed mining companies to file an annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, outlining the type and total amount of payments made to foreign governments (and the U.S. federal government) with respect to extractive projects. With the decision to repeal the Commission’s rule, there is therefore no indication that U.S.-listed companies will be subject to a reporting regime in the near future. That is, until the Securities and Exchange Commission creates a new rule. While the Cardin-Lugar regulations have been overturned, the Cardin-Lugar amendment has not been. This means that U.S.-listed companies will likely still be subject to reporting requirements at some point in time, as the Cardin-Lugar amendment requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue disclosure rules on extractive companies. However when this rule will be enacted, is yet to be determined. Given the length of time associated with enacting the original rule, it is unlikely that a new reporting regime will be established any time soon. In the meantime, U.S.-listed companies will be required to continue to track their payments, pursuant to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , however, they will not be required to make this information public.

It is unlikely that other countries who have adopted legislation consistent with the Cardin-Lugar regulations will follow the U.S. government’s new direction in this field. The regulations have received widespread support from the world’s major extractive companies, and many companies have a reporting regime. It has led to the creation of a global standard of transparency in the extractive industry, with numerous countries including Canada, the UK and the EU, enacting similar legislation to help combat corruption and to increase accountability in corporate governance.

Canada continues to be one of the countries supporting transparency requirements in the extractive industry. The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act  for example came into force in June 2015 and contains broad reporting obligations for oil, gas and mining companies. The reporting obligations go even further than the Cardin-Lugar provision, to include not only entities included on Canadian stock exchanges, but also certain private companies.

A concern for Canadian and foreign companies who will maintain their reporting regimes is whether the repeal of the Cardin-Lugar regulations will place U.S.-listed companies operating in mining extraction areas at an advantage compared to companies subject to rigorous transparency requirements. Particularly for projects in developing countries such as Africa, where there is a problem with corruption and where succumbing to bribery could lead to the award of mining rights and subsequent contracts. While the Cardin-Lugar rule would not have ended corruption, it was expected to put pressure on those giving bribes and those receiving them, as they would be aware that they would have to report any payments made to government. With the repeal, there is the possibility that U.S.-listed companies could feel more inclined to engage with corrupt governments and be under less pressure to decline a bribe, which could put them ahead of competitors from Canada, the UK, the EU and elsewhere. Whether or not this will in fact cause such a shift in the thinking and conduct of U.S.-listed companies during their dealings with foreign governments is of course undetermined. However, there remains a concern for mining companies subject to these types of reporting regulations, when operating and competing against American companies in these areas.

Mining companies listed on both U.S. and foreign exchanges will still be subject to transparency requirements. While the U.S. may not have reporting requirements, U.S.-listed companies operating in Canada, UK and EU will still be required to comply with applicable transparency legislation. Therefore, if a company has reason to believe and is concerned that an American competitor is committing bribery or corruption, it should consider further investigation. The suspect company may be subject to other transparency requirements and anti-corruption legislation.

In conclusion, although the repeal of the Cardin-Lugar regulations signals that Canadian, UK and EU companies will have tougher reporting guidelines compared to their US neighbours, the playing field may have just become more complex, rather than uneven.

Join us at the Symposium on White Collar Crime


Canadian companies are under more pressure to demonstrate business integrity and to comply with increasingly complex regulatory and criminal law requirements and laws.  If you are a business lawyer, civil litigator, criminal lawyer, or in-house counsel, this is your opportunity to stay on top of the latest legal developments and enforcement trends in order to advise and represent your clients properly on their business integrity.

Hear Fasken Martineau’s Norm Keith and Huy Do, as well as other prosecutors, defense lawyers and regulators of white collar crime on what you and your clients need to know in today’s legal and regulatory landscape.

>>Register now!<<

Managing Local and International Criminal Law Risk for Mining Companies

Despite internal safe guards and the best efforts of mining companies and their executives, criminal investigations can arise in relation to operations at home or abroad.  How a company responds to a criminal investigation or to possible internal criminal misconduct, can have a serious legal and reputational impact, particularly since changes to Canadian law have made it easier for prosecutors to convict corporations and their officers of criminal wrongdoing.  Today at Fasken Martineau’s PDAC 2016 seminar, Peter Mantas and Norm Keith of Fasken Martineau and Sandy Boucher of Grant Thornton discussed how proactive a mining company should be during the critical period after suspected criminal wrongdoing is discovered.

Continue reading »