The Canadian government’s decision earlier this year to permanently shutter the Office of the Canadian Ombudsman for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) has ignited a firestorm of criticism from international human rights advocates and legal experts. By eliminating the independent body tasked with investigating overseas human rights abuses by Canadian companies—particularly in the high-impact mining, oil, and gas sectors—the administration of Prime Minister Mark Carney has signaled a shift toward relying on the National Contact Point (NCP), an older, non-binding mechanism that observers argue lacks the investigative authority to hold multinational corporations accountable.
This consolidation of oversight functions, which the government describes as a "streamlining" effort, has left dozens of pending human rights complaints in a state of limbo. For victims of alleged corporate negligence, the move is being interpreted as a retreat from Canada’s international obligations to monitor the ethical conduct of its domestic firms abroad.
A Chronology of a Disappearing Watchdog
The collapse of Canada’s primary accountability mechanism was not an overnight event but rather the culmination of a protracted period of administrative neglect. The CORE was designed to serve as a specialized agency capable of conducting independent, fact-finding investigations into complaints regarding Canadian businesses operating internationally.
The decline began shortly after Mark Carney assumed the role of Prime Minister. During the first two months of his tenure, the ombudsperson position became vacant. Despite the accumulation of mounting complaints from communities affected by Canadian industrial activities, the government failed to appoint a successor. For more than a year, the office remained effectively paralyzed, unable to initiate new probes or conclude ongoing ones. By June 2026, the government formally declared the office ineffective, citing its inability to produce results during the vacancy period, and subsequently moved to dissolve it entirely.
The Limitations of the National Contact Point
The government’s decision to transition all responsibilities to the National Contact Point (NCP) has been met with skepticism due to the office’s historical performance. The NCP operates under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These guidelines represent a set of non-binding recommendations for responsible business conduct.
Data regarding the Canadian NCP’s effectiveness over the past 26 years paints a stark picture. Since 2000, only three out of 33 submitted cases have resulted in a formal joint agreement between the complaining party and the company. In many instances, the process ends without a substantive resolution, often stalling during mediation or failing to produce meaningful redress for affected parties.
Unlike the ombudsperson office, which was envisioned as an investigative body with the potential for independent fact-finding, the NCP functions primarily as a mediator. It lacks the mandate to compel evidence, subpoena witnesses, or issue findings of fact that could hold companies legally or morally accountable for environmental or human rights harms.
Voices from the Frontlines: The Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo
The human toll of this administrative shift is best illustrated by the experience of John Namegabe Bugabo, a human rights defender based in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Bugabo has spent years seeking justice for 129 individuals from the villages of Mege and Bandayi who claim they were forcibly evicted to facilitate the expansion of the Kibali gold mine, a project 45% owned by the Canadian firm Barrick Mining Corp.
Bugabo’s ordeal with the Canadian system highlights the systemic hurdles facing complainants. After an initial complaint to the NCP in 2022 yielded no tangible results, he turned to CORE, hoping for a more robust intervention. When the government shuttered CORE in June 2026, Bugabo and other complainants were sent an email offering them two options: move their file back to the NCP or drop the matter entirely.
"It was a baffling email," Bugabo noted. "After years of waiting, to be told the office is gone and to go back to the same process that failed us before—it is deeply frustrating." His case, which alleges the destruction of homes, schools, and essential infrastructure by security forces, remains a point of contention. While Barrick Mining denies involvement in the resettlements—attributing the actions to the DRC government—the lack of an independent Canadian investigation leaves the impacted communities without a forum to verify these claims or seek restitution.
Structural Conflicts and Institutional Bias
The core of the criticism against the Canadian NCP lies in its structural placement within the government. Currently housed under the Trade Strategy Bureau at Global Affairs Canada, the office is tasked with promoting Canadian trade interests while simultaneously policing the conduct of those same traders.
This positioning has been a subject of concern for years. A 2019 peer review conducted by representatives from the OECD Secretariat and NCPs from Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom explicitly identified this placement as a factor that creates a perceived—and perhaps actual—lack of impartiality. Experts argue that the NCP’s location within a department dedicated to trade promotion creates an inherent conflict of interest, as the office may be disincentivized from aggressively investigating companies that are viewed as strategic economic assets.
The case of Sakto Corp., an Ottawa-based real estate firm, serves as a textbook example of these tensions. When the Swiss NGO Bruno Manser Fonds filed a complaint against Sakto in 2016 alleging links to illicit logging and corruption in Malaysia, the NCP process was marked by acrimonious disputes. The complaint ultimately collapsed after allegations of political interference and "aggressive communications" from both parties. An external assessment by OECD Watch later concluded that the Canadian NCP failed to maintain transparency and equity, further damaging its reputation among international NGOs.
Broader Implications for Global Mining
Canada holds a unique position in the global economy, as it serves as the home base for approximately 50% of the world’s publicly traded mining and mineral exploration companies. Because of this dominance, Canada’s regulatory environment sets a de facto standard for the entire sector.
Advocates like Catherine Coumans, research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, argue that the elimination of CORE essentially grants these companies a "free pass." By removing the threat of an independent, fact-based investigation, the government has reduced the pressure on corporations to improve their social and environmental performance.
"What this means is business as usual," Coumans stated. "Canadian mining companies operating overseas will no longer have to worry about being held to account in Canada. There is no longer a mechanism to verify if harm has occurred, let alone to provide a path to remedy."
The Call for Reform
The international community is watching the ongoing peer review of the Canadian NCP closely. As part of the OECD’s periodic assessment process, this review will examine how the office has handled complaints since 2019. However, many believe that technical adjustments to the NCP will be insufficient.
Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, an advocacy director at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), argues that the Canadian model is fundamentally broken compared to more effective counterparts, such as the Netherlands. The Dutch NCP is often cited as a global gold standard because it utilizes independent experts—not government bureaucrats—to handle disputes.
As Canada moves forward, the pressure to reinstate a body with real investigative teeth remains high. For human rights defenders like Bugabo, the stakes are not merely bureaucratic; they involve the survival of their communities and the preservation of their lands. "It is important for these offices to be strong," Bugabo said. "If the companies know that the problem will be taken at hand, they will be forced to prevent the wrongdoing in the first place."
With the current government maintaining that the "streamlined" NCP is sufficient, the divide between Ottawa’s policy goals and the demands of international civil society continues to widen. As the Canadian mining industry continues its global expansion, the lack of a credible, independent accountability mechanism may pose significant reputational and operational risks for both the government and the firms that operate under its jurisdiction. The path forward remains uncertain, but for those seeking justice for alleged abuses, the current status quo offers little hope for meaningful change.
