“Canada is back.”

It stated that should the company wish to access future support of this type, it would need to submit a Request for Review to the NCP, or show the Government of Canada it had engaged in good-faith dialogue with the complainant.15 Ironically, the day the NCP released its statement on China Gold, the company participated in a trade mission to Indonesia and China organized by the provincial governmen [...] The NCP justified the delay by referring to the “time needed to obtain translations, to conduct legal research on the status of the Company, undertake appropriate outreach, and allow for fulsome responses and engagement by all Parties.”25  In a draft initial statement that it sent to the complainants, the NCP recognized that their allegations were partially substantiated and merited further invest [...] On August 19, 2011, the NCP indicated that the “issues raised merit further examination” while emphasizing that this initial assessment “should not be construed as a judgment of whether or not the corporate behaviour or actions in question were consistent with observance of the OECD Guidelines and should not be equated with a determination on the merits of the issues raised in the submission.”38 A [...] Rio Tinto holds a majority interest in Turquoise Hill and manages the project.46 MiningWatch Canada and UK-based Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) supported the complaint.47 On April 15, 2010 the Canadian NCP took the lead on the complaint with the agreement of OT Watch.48 OT Watch. [...] The statement was remarkable in a number of ways.52 The Canadian NCP determined that the company’s environmental assessments were “complete and of a high quality.”53 This finding contradicts credible information provided by the complainants, such as the Mongolian government’s recommendation that the company undertake additional studies regarding water use.54 It is also at odds with the position of