In a recent story we reported that Mr. Jason Quigley, formerly of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, was now employed by Hunter Dickinson Inc. (HDI), and raised concerns that there might be an appearance that this employment relationship would assist Taseko Mines Ltd., a company connected with HDI, in getting government approvals for its controversial New Prosperity Mine.
We received a letter from HDI yesterday objecting strongly to the post, and suggesting that we should have done more to confirm our facts.
We thank HDI for taking the time to reply to our post. While we are comfortable with most of the content in our original post, their letter:
- identifies an error that we would like to correct; and
- confirms that at least some of the measures that we asked about in our original post are in place.
Why HDI is not a parent company
After having reviewed the letter we are of the view that we mis-reported one piece of information in our original post. We said that HDI was a parent company of Taseko Mines Ltd. This was based on:
- literature from both HDI and Taseko that lists Taseko as an “HDI Company”, including a statement on Taseko’s website that HDI “acquired” Taseko in 1991; and
- the ongoing extremely high level of HDI staff and board involvement in Taseko’s management. The President and CEO, and Board Chair, of Taseko are both on HDI’s board, and HDI staff and board members play prominent management roles in Taseko.
However, according to HDI, it is not actually a “parent company”. Parent company generally refers to a company in which one company owns a majority of the shares in another company. While Taseko’s statements on its website would suggest that this was the case in 1991, Taseko is a publicly traded company, and we accept HDI at its word that it does not have a controlling interest in Taseko.
Indeed, HDI apparently strives not to own mining companies in this way. An HDI google ad explains the business model:
Hunter Dickinson has an exceptional track record for acquiring high-quality mineral properties and advancing them through the discovery and delineation of resources, detailed project engineering, mine permitting, construction and operations. These mineral properties are held by public and private companies affiliated with Hunter Dickinson as wholly-owned interests, joint ventures and project investments. … Behind every HD company is a multi-disciplinary team of Hunter Dickinson Services Inc. professionals with an exceptional breadth and caliber of experience.
It was therefore inaccurate, from a legal perspective, to refer to HDI as a parent company of Taseko. However, the fact remains that the two companies are very closely connected, and HDI staff continue to exercise a high level of control over Taseko and its operations. We feel that our questions about the optics of a senior government official going to work for HDI at a time when Taseko is seeking key government approvals are still valid.
Measures are in place
In our original letter we did not state that Mr. Quigley was involved in any way in attempting to influence the government’s handling of Taseko’s New Prosperity Mine. Indeed, we explicitly stated:
We are not suggesting that Mr. Quigley is actually using his past connections to the government to move New Prosperity forward; indeed, we do not know how or if the new VP of Regulatory and Stakeholder Affairs is involved in Taseko’s regulatory process for New Prosperity. But we do think that there is reason to be concerned and we think it behooves HDI to disclose the limitations it has surely put on Quigley’s scope of work.
HDI’s letter does in fact disclose, at least in general terms, the limits of Mr. Quigley’s employment in relation to Taseko and the New Prosperity Mine.
Mr. Quigley is employed only by HDSI [Hunter Dickinson Services Inc.] and, during the period of his employment with HDSI, he has not provided any services to Taseko or in relation to the [New Prosperity] Project. Mr. Quigley will not provide any services to Taseko, or any services to any other entity in relation to the Project, during the one-year period following the termination of his public employment, consistent with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. …
Mr. Quigley and the CEAA discussed and agreed on the post-employment restrictions that would apply to Mr. Quigley before he joined HDSI. HDSI was made aware of, and has respected, the agreed restrictions.
HDI suggests that we were remiss for not checking with CEAA to determine what restrictions had been applied to Mr. Quigley’s employment. In actual fact we did confirm with CEAA that Mr. Quigley’s position was sufficiently senior to merit special treatment under the Values and Ethics Code, and attempted to request a copy of any agreement about restrictions on Mr. Quigley’s employment, but had not received a call back at the time of our original post on October 11th, 2011.
Just today, October 19th, we received the following statement from CEAA, which characterizes the “limitations” on Mr. Quigley’s current employment slightly differently:
Further to our telephone conversation, I can confirm the following with respect to Mr. Jason Quigley, formerly Regional Director of the Pacific and Yukon office of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
- The Government of Canada has a Values and Ethics Code for all Public Service employees, which sets out the public service values as well as conflict of interest and post-employment measures.
- The President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency advises all executives who leave the Agency of their responsibilities under the Code. This advice was provided to Mr. Quigley.
Thanks to HDI for providing assurances that Mr. Quigley will not be carrying on any work related to Taseko (at least during his first year of employment).
One further point
One of the issues that seems to have most upset HDI is our reference, in the title and the post, to a “revolving door”, which they took to cast dispersions on HDI and Mr. Quigley personally. The problems associated with the “revolving door” between industry and government have been well documented in the U.S. public policy debate and to some extent in BC.
To be clear: we did not intend to imply that Mr. Quigley himself was repeatedly moving from government to industry and back again, or that HDI had somehow acted inappropriately by hiring Mr. Quigley away from CEAA, provided that adequate safeguards are in place.
Rather, our point was and is that there are troubling public policy implications, and issues of appearance, that need to be addressed in a transparent and credible way whenever senior government staff move to industry, or vice-versa.
