Bill S-14 (Historical)

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act

This enactment amends the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act to
(a) increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official;
(b) eliminate the facilitation payments exception to that offence;
(c) create a new offence relating to books and records and the bribing of a foreign public official or the hiding of that bribery; and
(d) establish nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the Act.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

moved that Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to begin debate at second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act.

On February 5, our government announced further steps to combat corruption and bribery by tabling amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, or the CFPOA.

Canada has long played a prominent role on the international stage in combatting corruption. Bill S-14 signals our commitment to further deter and prevent Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-14 are intended to ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade. They also signal our commitment and our expectation that other countries do the same.

The CFPOA has been in force since 1999 and was first introduced to implement our international obligations under the OECD anti-bribery convention and two more anti-corruption conventions through the OAS and the UN.

In essence, the CFPOA makes it a crime in Canada to bribe a foreign public official to gain a business advantage abroad. It also makes it possible to prosecute a conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit such a bribery. It covers aiding and abetting the commission of bribery, an intention in common to commit bribery and counselling others to commit bribery.

Laundering property and the proceeds of crime, including the proceeds of bribery offences, as well as the possession of property and proceeds, are already offences under the Criminal Code. The new offences being created in the CFPOA would also be captured by these Criminal Code provisions once they were in force.

The six proposed amendments included in Bill S-14 are intended to answer the call for enhanced vigilance. They demonstrate a comprehensive approach to fighting bribery and signal our government's strong and unwavering commitment to that fight. I will explain each of these in turn.

The first amendment, the introduction of nationality jurisdiction, would allow us to prosecute Canadians or Canadian companies on the basis of their nationality, regardless of where the bribery takes place in the world. Currently, we can only do so after providing a substantial link between the offence and Canadian territory.

The second amendment would provide exclusive authority to the RCMP to lay charges under the act. This would ensure that a uniform approach is taken across Canada and would raise awareness of Canadian businesses regarding the RCMP's primary role in the CFPOA investigations.

The third amendment, the elimination of the words “for profit” from the definition of “business”, would ensure that bribery applies to all, not just those paid by businesses that make a profit.

The fourth amendment would increase the maximum jail term to 14 years. It is currently punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment and unlimited fines. The possibility of unlimited fines will remain as it is.

The fifth amendment creates a new books and records offence specific to foreign bribery. International anti-corruption treaties to which Canada is a party require that measures be put in place to ensure that individuals and companies do not “cook the books”. The penalties for the new offence would mirror those of the foreign bribery offence; that is, a maximum of 14 years of imprisonment and unlimited fines.

The sixth and final amendment would eliminate the facilitation payments exception. Currently, the act states that payments made “to expedite or secure the performance by a foreign public official of any act of a routine nature” do not constitute bribes for the purposes of the CFPOA. The CFPOA also provides for an inclusive list of acts of a routine nature.

For the benefit of all members, a facilitation payment is a payment made to a foreign public official to do something that he or she is already obligated to do, such as deliver the mail on time. Conversely, payments that are made to receive a business advantage constitute bribes, which are already illegal under the CFPOA. As a result of the elimination of the facilitation payments defence, this would not create a competitive disadvantage for Canadian companies in international markets. Bribes are illegal under the legislation of every OECD country.

In order to ensure a level playing field for all businesses, Bill S-14 provides for the delay of the coming into force of the elimination of the facilitation payments exception to allow Canadian companies to adjust their own practices and internal policies, if they have not already done so, to ban the use of facilitation payments in their day-to-day operations. This time to adjust is all the more important given that some other countries continue to allow facilitation payments.

With Bill S-14, our government has taken a proactive role in raising awareness of its zero-tolerance position, and we are taking a proactive role in raising awareness of the risks of engaging in corruption abroad.

It is incumbent upon us to appreciate this bill for what it is: that being a clear message that Canada means business and that our government's top priority is securing jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Corruption does the opposite. Corruption erodes economic growth and long-term prosperity. Corruption fosters an environment conducive to allowing other crimes to flourish.

Foreign bribery undermines economic prosperity by corroding the rule of law that is the basis of market freedom. The global fight against foreign bribery is intended to create a level playing field for all international businesses. The bill provides us with a strong tool for creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to play by the rules and for Canadian businesses to succeed. Canadian companies can compete with the best and win fairly. Recent cases right here in Canada demonstrate the need for continued vigilance and the importance of effective enforcement.

Our government remains committed to combatting foreign corruption and has already developed and implemented an array of regulatory and legislative tools with which to do so. A number of federal departments, agencies and crown corporations play key roles in Canada's fight against foreign bribery. They work in close co-operation in Canada's two-pronged approach to foreign bribery: enforcement and prevention.

In January 2008, the RCMP established its international anti-corruption unit, which is dedicated to enforcing and raising awareness about the CFPOA. Comprising two teams, strategically located in Ottawa, Canada's capital, and Calgary, a major nucleus for industry, trade and finance and a hub for Canada's extractive industries, it has complemented enforcement efforts with substantial awareness-raising and training.

In addition, the legal framework that established the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in 2006 further enhances prosecutorial discretion in Canada. Since its establishment, the PPSC has also created a position in Ottawa for the purpose of advising the two RCMP teams on ongoing investigations.

To date, under the CFPOA, there have been three convictions, and two cases are pending. There are 35 ongoing investigations. The penalties are increasing substantially with each new conviction. This is good news for Canada. With the adoption of these new amendments, we can expect to hear even better news.

In early 2012, during the development phase to identify new ways for Canada to enhance its fight against foreign bribery, the government hosted the “Canadian Workshop: New Ideas for Canada's Fight against Foreign Bribery”. This was a means to consult with experts from Canadian businesses, law firms, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations on the issue of foreign bribery.

The workshop was held in Ottawa and provided an opportunity for discussions between government officials and key stakeholders on concrete steps that could be taken to improve the enforcement of the CFPOA, and to further encourage Canadian companies to prevent bribery before it happens and to detect it when it occurs.

Over 30 participants engaged in discussions on a number of foreign bribery related themes, including possibly amending the CFPOA, recognizing and resisting bribery solicitations, discouraging facilitation payments, voluntary disclosure, books and records offences, awareness raising, messaging to small and medium-sized enterprises, sectorial initiatives and education and training.

The Government of Canada continues to consider the views and ideas that were presented at the workshop, which was intended to be the first step toward increasing engagement and co-operation with key stakeholders on foreign bribery and corruption in the months and years to come. The results of that consultation are reflected in the bill.

These consultations complement the awareness-raising endeavours undertaken by the RCMP, which I mentioned earlier. Additional examples of the RCMP's participation in anti-corruption awareness programs and training include expanding its training of RCMP liaison officers before they depart for overseas assignments to include the issues of foreign bribery and the CFPOA.

The international anti-corruption unit has also established contacts for the Department of Justice's international systems group to ensure that priority is given to requests for mutual legal assistance in corruption matters. The RCMP has also made a number of presentations to external stakeholders, including presentations to local universities, non-governmental organizations, banks, trade commissioners, law firms, government partners, the Canadian Institute of Mining and numerous Canadian and international associations, experts and professionals.

As we can see from an enforcement perspective, we are on solid ground. As mentioned earlier, a number of federal departments, agencies and crown corporations play key roles in Canada's fight against foreign bribery. They work in close co-operation in Canada's two-pronged approach to foreign bribery: in enforcement and in prevention.

Another of these key departments is Public Works and Government Services Canada. Members will recall that effective July 11, 2012, PWGSC extended the list of offences that render companies and individuals ineligible to bid on contracts to include the bribing of a foreign public official under the CFPOA. This further demonstrates the government's zero tolerance position and is evidence of the variety of legislative, regulatory and policy instruments used in Canada's whole of government approach to combatting corruption.

From a prevention perspective, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade also engages in training and outreach. Information and training on the act and on Canada's international obligations to prevent and combat corruption are provided to heads of mission, trade commissioners and political officers.

In March 2010, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade adopted the policy and procedure for reporting allegations of bribery abroad by Canadians or Canadian companies. These provide guidance to Canadian missions on the steps that must be taken when allegations arise that a Canadian company or individual has bribed a Canadian public official, or other bribery related offences.

Canada is a trading nation. Our economy and future prosperity depend upon expanding our trade ties with the world. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said on February 5, Canada is committed to the implementation of our international obligations on anti corruption.

These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

It is now up to the House to demonstrate our commitment to combatting corruption. Canada is committed to strengthening its fight against corruption, and this bill is a reflection of that commitment. Bribery is not the Canadian way of doing business. We need to make this crystal clear today.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the principle of the legislation. We want to see it go to committee to be studied.

However, I want to start off my question by noting the irony of this. It is coming from the Senate. If we look at who is in the Senate and the list of people who serve on international corporations and so on, there are some who right now are having some challenges with respect to tax havens. It is a little rich that the government is depending on the Senate to bring this bill forward. I will leave the irony to everyone who is looking at it.

Canada is a laggard when it comes to transparency. In fact, Transparency International ranked Canada the worst of all G7 nations in 2011. I know that one of the Conservative members is shaking his head. He should, because Canada is the worst in terms of transparency, not according to the NDP but according to Transparency International.

My question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will the government go further than this? The G8 is coming up and we need to strengthen the EITI, which Prime Minister Cameron is pushing.

Will we actually sign on to go further than this, which is basically what happens when people get caught, and have full disclosure of Canadian extractives when they are doing business abroad?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I understand that the NDP has a long-standing distrust and dislike of the Canadian extractive industry, which employs hundreds and thousands of Canadians and generates billions of dollars for the Canadian economy. It is a shame, because it is one of the great industries of Canada and makes Canada a global player in the world.

He mentioned transparency, so I would like to tell him about what Transparency International Canada has said about the bill we are here to discuss today. It said that Transparency International Canada is delighted that the federal government is moving to strengthen the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in accordance with Canada’s international obligations, and it encourages the government to ensure that “the RCMP has the necessary resources necessary to enforce the CFPOA” effectively.

The Hon. John Manley, a former deputy Prime Minister of Canada, said that good corporate citizenship at home and abroad is essential to Canada’s economic success and that these latest measures aimed at eliminating corruption and bribery will strengthen Canada’s already strong reputation for good governance and ethical business practices.

Ian Pearce, the Chief Executive Officer of Xstrata Nickel, one of those great Canadian companies the NDP does not want to support and does not think Canadians should be employed by, said that as a Canadian-based company with operations and projects around the world, it applauds the government’s efforts to combat corruption and bribery. It said that as part of the Xstrata Group, it is committed to the highest standards of personal and professional ethical behaviour and has a policy of zero tolerance towards any form of bribery or fraud.

These are some of the quotes people are making about this very important piece of legislation. I hope that my hon. colleague takes the time to read the legislation, and I look forward to debating it with him at committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the representative of the NDP, we basically agree with the bill and think it is a good idea. It is a welcomed initiative, and we hope that it sees its way into committee sooner rather than later and does not die the death of prorogation.

I am a little concerned. As the Globe and Mail has rightly said, Canada has ranked the worst in the G7 nations in fighting bribery. In fact, over the last period of time the Americans have had 227 prosecutions, the Germans have had 135 and we have had two. I would hope that this legislation would enhance the enthusiasm of the government for prosecutions. As the parliamentary secretary has rightly said, Canadians are fed up with reading about Canadian companies in their national media.

It is curious to me that while this legislation is welcomed legislation and will be supported by, it looks like, all the parties in the House, later on today my Bill C-474, the sunshine bill, which is a bill that would supply evidence for a prosecution, will be spoken against by the Government of Canada.

Why would the government on the one hand enhance its legislative ability and yet simultaneously make it more difficult for prosecutions to succeed?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the support of the member's party and other parties to move this bill as quickly as possible to the foreign affairs committee. As a member of that committee, I give my commitment that we will do everything in our power to move it through as quickly as possible. I agree with the member that this is important legislation.

It is interesting that the member points out that there have been three or four convictions so far under the current legislation. This was legislation that was introduced by his government. To the extent that there were things missing from that legislation, he perhaps may want to talk to some of his colleagues about that. However, his former colleague, the Hon. John Manley, has praised this bill. He said it is the right thing to do and has praised this government for moving quickly.

The OECD pointed out some of these issues to the Canadian government just two years ago. This bill was brought forward immediately to address those issues.

I think we will see more prosecutions, but I also believe that Canadian companies are very ethical. Generally speaking, Canadian companies are of the highest ethical standards in the world, and that is probably why we do not see more of these kinds of prosecutions.

With respect to the member's bill, we will be debating it later today. I will be speaking on it and look forward to talking about it at that time.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of global corruption is receiving significant attention both at home and abroad. I agree that the amendments before us today send a strong message that Canadian companies can compete fairly and that we expect other countries to do the same.

Can the hon. member tell us how recent uprisings in the Middle East and north Africa have made these measures so timely?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for her question. I think everyone should know what a hard-working member of Parliament she is. She is always bringing issues of importance to her constituents before the House.

The member is right. There have been incidents with the Arab Spring where corrupt regimes have been overthrown by democratic forces, which have brought to light several cases of foreign companies involved in bribery in those countries. Canada is no exception. Several of those cases are now before the courts. I will not comment on them specifically, but the legislation we are here to discuss today would make that whole regime tighter and result in better prosecutions and better prevention of these things happening in the future.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to object to the way the member refers to the bill with “our government”. I would remind him that the bill is from the other chamber, and the other chamber should be non-partisan. We see how much trouble it is in already because it is so partisan.

If it is a priority of the government that is sitting here and not the other place, how come it took five years to bring the bill forward?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member was here prior to the last election, but perhaps she does not know that the reason that bill died on the order paper was because there was an election. Her party voted against the government, which forced the election. That is the easy answer.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bernard Trottier]

I would remind members to try to keep their questions and their answers to a reasonable length so that we can move forward.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14. As I do with all of the bills that come from the Senate, I have to start by talking a bit about parliamentary democracy, particularly with respect to this legislation.

We are seeing this disturbing trend where bills come to his place that originate in the Senate. I do not know what those members over there were thinking when they were first elected, particularly those who started with the Reform Party, but we have never seen so many pieces of legislation. Was that Preston Manning's vision of what the Senate would become? Over 58 senators have been appointed by the present Prime Minister and they were not appointed on the basis of merit but rather on who they knew. We see what is unravelling there now.

The originators of this piece of legislation are in that place. This legislation is about corruption with companies that some of the people over there have some problems with. There is a conflict of interest here. If members across the way cannot see this, then they should open their eyes. How could they not have caught this? They could not even see the fact that a bill that deals with corruption with companies should not start in the Senate where people are still sitting on boards of corporations. It is called a conflict of interest, and that whole place is a conflict of interest it seems these days.

This does need to be pointed out to Canadians as they watch the crisis in Parliament and in the Senate. Senators who have been appointed to that place sit with elected members from this place in caucus every Wednesday, and they share all their information and wisdom. They are seen as legitimate players in terms of what happens in our parliamentary democracy. That is a shame, and it obviously should be changed. This legislation should be dealt with through sober eyes and with clean hands. I am sorry, but there is a problem when people who sit on the boards of corporations are the originators of this legislation. I cannot believe the Conservatives could not see that; although these days there is a bit of a fog over there as to principles and ethics. Everyone knows about that.

Bill S-14 is overdue. Canada ranks dead last when it comes to transparency. The government talked a good game in 2006. I just heard the parliamentary secretary's rationale of “could not get it done”. That reminded me of the previous government that was going to do all sorts of things on climate change and so on, but it just could not get it done. The Conservative government has been in power since 2006, and Canada is ranked dead last in the G7 when it comes to transparency.

However, now it comes forward at the last minute. We will be embarrassed at the G8 if we do not get in line with what other G7 countries want to do, and that is to have full disclosure with Canadian companies, particularly the extractive companies, when it comes to doing business abroad. The bill would not deal with that. The bill is the bare minimum when it comes to looking at corruption and how Canadian companies do business abroad, which is basically after they are caught.

We need to go much further than this. We need to look at the initiatives taken south of the border. We need to think about what we are going to see when the G7 comes up. British Prime Minister Cameron is going to talk about taxes, transparency and trade. Under transparency, he is going to put on the table the EITI principles, which Canada has been called out on. Right now, Russia and Canada are the two countries in the G8 that are being called out for not doing enough. We have to change that because it involves our good name.

I will not bite on the parliamentary secretary's notion that the NDP is against all mining, gas and oil. Many of us have worked in those sectors. We represent constituents who work in those sectors. I am not sure if he has been there, but the parliamentary secretary should go to northern Ontario and he would understand that. Alas, I will not bite on that. It has no credibility, as is often the case with the parliamentary secretary.

We need to understand that if we do not do more, if this is all the government has to offer in terms of Canada crawling out from last place in transparency, then we have failed. Not only will we have failed in terms of our reputation abroad, but we will have failed Canadian companies. Let me spend a couple of minutes speaking on that.

Right now the mining sector is ready to fully embrace the principles of disclosure. It is stunning that the government has not actually met the industry's wish to have that happen. Why is it doing that? It is because the world has changed and these guys are living in the past. The Conservatives think they can go with the old rules and everything will be fine, that people sit around the table and say, “We have to catch up with this because if we don't it's going to catch up to us”.

The world is passing us by. Industry is passing us by. Industry actually wants to embrace full disclosure of all transactions with foreign countries and companies that they are doing business with overseas. It is really bizarre for me to see that the government is so far in the past and that we have every other country in the G7 passing us by. Canada used to be the leader in the area of international law transparency. We are dead last right now.

Bill S-14 would create new offences for those who are concealing records. Fine. It would make sure the notion of the exception for so-called facilitation payments would be dealt with. SNC Lavalin could tell us a lot about that; obviously, that is something it got caught in. Should we have dealt with that a long time ago? Absolutely. Is it going far enough? Absolutely not. It is a question of whether the government actually believes in corporate social responsibility. That is what it is about.

What the government fails to do, sadly, is to understand that the rest of the world is moving ahead. If it is going to be stuck in the past, it is at the cost of Canada's reputation, and actually at the cost of Canadian businesses, because no country will want to have a company coming in that is not up to the highest standard. Those are the old days, where they could say they were going to open up an operation in a country and they would have to do certain things because it is a cultural thing there, the way they do business, and just pretend it is okay. Those days are gone, and the government had better wake up to that because the future is about full transparency. It is about full daylight. It is not just about bringing in provisions like this bill, which was something that should have been done decades ago; it is about actually going much further.

When we look at Canada's footprint in the world, we should be leaders. Canada's footprint, particularly in the extractive industry, in mining, and gas and oil to some extent as well, is massive. As members probably know, we have the largest footprint when it comes to concentration of investment, and just look at the Toronto Stock Exchange. That is something we have to pay particular attention to. If we are not careful and we are not bringing in full transparency and requirements for industry when doing business abroad, it could affect investment, in the short and the long run, frankly.

We will see other countries passing us by. Also, if countries that are wanting to get into this field see Canada as living in the past and not being brought up to the standards that many in the international community have embraced, then that will affect investment and jobs. It will mean that instead of being seen as a leader in this area, Canada will continue to be seen as a laggard.

It is interesting that the government did not add more teeth to this legislation earlier. I say that because we had some very fulsome debates on the idea of corporate social responsibility. I know my colleague from the Liberal Party will recall that. At the time, the government was so consumed with shutting down any further requirements for industry when doing their business abroad that it forgot to look at what was happening around the world. At the time it was just about “kill that bill”, and it was successful in doing so. What it forgot to do was to look around and notice the world was changing. Even countries that are often criticized, like China, is doing a lot to change the way it is doing business abroad.

I find it rather simplistic, at best, that the government decided it would only bring forward this legislation after being in power since 2006, that it would come from the Senate, which is the definition of irony, I guess, and that it would not understand that we have to do more in this area.

When some of us travel abroad, we talk to people in government and on the ground and ask, “What are your feelings about what is happening in terms of Canada's participation in your country?” The one thing many people say is that they would like more enforcement in terms of transparency. They say that because they actually want us there, there is no question about it. By and large, Canadian companies have a good reputation; the parliamentary secretary and I agree on this. However, people want us to go further and embrace the norms and standards that the rest of the world has now embraced.

I think of places I have been to like the Congo. There was a recent study by Kofi Annan, in which he identified the problem now in the continent of Africa, where there is massive investment. The problem is that the people who are responsible for, so to speak, stewardship of the land and people who live on the land, are not seeing the benefits. Essentially, it is because money is being sucked out of the continent. It is going elsewhere and they are not seeing the benefits. That social contract that is absolutely critical when investing anywhere in Canada, but especially overseas, is being disrupted. People are not seeing the benefits of having an enterprise in their communities and many now are fighting against it. Clearly, we have to get our house in order. Clearly, we have to do more than what is being offered in this bill. As I said at the beginning, New Democrats will support this bill in principle and study it in committee.

One has to ask oneself if the government actually understands what is happening in the world today. I would argue it does not. There are, as I said before, umbrella groups that represent mining saying they are ready and absolutely on board with full transparency and strengthening the EITI principles. They tell government to get on board and get going and they get silence, at best, from government. One has to wonder what world it is living in.

If we look at what is happening around the world, the world has changed significantly. We see developing emerging economies with more capacity to develop their own resources. We see that the BRIC countries are obviously playing a more significant role than even five or six years ago. Instead of trying to do the minimum, Canada should be doing a lot more because what it means for both our reputation and ability to do business are absolutely connected.

I will give the example of China. Many people have talked over the years about how much China is involved in the development of oil and gas and mining overseas. In fact, there was an issue on the west coast of Canada with a Chinese mining company. It understands now that it cannot go in and do whatever it wants. It has to substantively change its business model, ensure there is no corruption and that it adheres to some basic norms. That is a big change because it knows that at some point the host country will no longer welcome it if there is seen to be, and there is, a lack of transparency.

Internationally, Canada has the responsibility to engage in responsible commerce. I will tell the government to look at what it has done to date. It decided that it would fight to the end on strengthening corporate social responsibility and it brought in a counsellor on the issue. Everyone who has studied the operations of that office will note that it is like the integrity commissioner. There is a person at that office, but there is not a lot going on. The lights are on, yes, but I am wondering if anyone is home.

The question for the government is if this is all it has and this is its vision. Canadians want more, that is clear, that is within our values, but on the business side they want to see that there are clear rules. Two things businesses want are consistent rules and fair rules. Right now they are looking at government and there is a fog. I say that because there is this line that the Conservatives use over and over again, that they are for trade and New Democrats are against trade, they are for business and New Democrats are against business.

[An hon. member]

It is black and white.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It is black and white. As if anyone believes that. I hope Conservatives do not believe it themselves because it is such a simplistic analysis of the world that it really defies credibility.

It is kind of like someone saying, “This simple world you live in is based on only two things: you are for investment and you are for jobs, and that is it. There is nothing else.” The fact is if they are for jobs, they have to be for corporate social responsibility. If they are for investment, they have to have clear and transparent rules. That is where we come in.

That is our job, to provide the sound framework for business to do its work, here and overseas, and for investment to make sure that we are providing the clear rules that everyone can get behind, so there is fairness for investment. Investors do not like instability, and when the rules are changing on a regular basis, as we have seen with the government on temporary foreign workers, they do not like that. Right now, business is very angry with the government, because it went from opening everything up for temporary foreign workers to throwing all this red tape at it. I am sure the Conservatives are hearing from business in their ridings, because they have swung from one end to the other, seemingly for business, and it does not make sense.

When I look at the approach that the government is taking on this bill, it reminds me of someone trying to clean up a mess afterwards, and not looking at preventing a crisis. The fact is that everyone was aware of what was going on in places like Libya. We had Canadian companies doing business abroad in Burma; I remember one of the first files I dealt with when was I elected had to do with what was going on in Burma. We pushed hard for the government to bring in the special economic action rules against Burma. The government finally did, but it did not go back to deal with the present investment in Burma. Companies were still operating in Burma after the government brought in the special economic action measures. It is indicative of the government that it is constantly behind; it is like it is constantly living in the past and not dealing with the future.

In reading the actual bill, no one can argue that the people who are behind this are trying to plug loopholes by eliminating the exceptions previously available, and adding national jurisdiction, which will remove the uncertainty that business is concerned about.

I think we will hear about the offences at committee. We have to start with something, and we can look at that. There is a question that charities have about delivering humanitarian aid, and that is a question we will have to deal with at committee.

If we look at the approach that the government started off with, it was, “How do we deal with our reputation abroad? How do we deal with the fact that there are these loopholes?” That was a fair place to start. I do agree with the parliamentary secretary on the need to give the RCMP the tools they need to enforce legislation. That was not the case before, and I see some positive movement with that.

However, we also have to look at the other side. If we only do this and do not do anything else, have we actually dealt with the core issue? The core issue, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is about transparency and looking to the future, not living in the past.

This bill simply recognizes something that has been around for far too long, but the government will not have actually brought us into the present-day environment of business and international relations unless it goes further, embracing full transparency and, when we go to the G8, ensuring that we get behind the initiatives of full transparency in the extractive industries. If we do not do that, we will continue to live in the past.

The NDP will push for future legislation that will actually make this something seen as a minimum, and for us to actually get on, like the rest of the world has, with full disclosure, full sunlight as my colleague from the Liberal Party has suggested, and see that Canada can be proud of its record on the international stage. That will be good for Canadians, it will be good for investment and will be good all around.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the commitment of his party to support this legislation and get it to committee. It is important to Canada and to our government. I know that he will help move it through committee as quickly as possible.

I hate to burst his bubble, though. He mentioned transparency. I have to remind hon. members of the quote from the chair and president of Transparency International. I think that is exactly what he is talking about. She said that Transparency International is delighted that the federal government is moving to strengthen the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in accordance with Canada's international obligations and encourages the government to ensure that the RCMP have the resources necessary to enforce the CFPOA effectively.

He also mentioned Canada's reputation with respect to corruption and other things, and transparency. I wonder if he is aware that yesterday GlobeScan released its report showing that Canada is actually the second most favourably reviewed country in the world by citizens of the world, up quite significantly from a number of years ago when the Liberal Party, for example, was in power. Canada's status in the world, people's view of Canada in the world, is actually going up, not down. Perhaps he could comment on that.

Also, I should just point out he said that Canada was behind. The amendments that are being discussed today are not in place in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the world's largest economies.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in its 2001 report, which is not that long ago, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all G7 countries--I know that hurts the parliamentary secretary's image of his government, but there it is--with respect to international bribery. In fact, quoting from the report, there is little or no enforcement and there is a problem in terms of legislation.

We are glad that the government is finally getting on board with what everyone else has been doing; providing better legislation, but also enforcement. We can have all the rules in the world but if we do not enforce them, we are going to find ourselves having a bit of a problem, in terms of legitimacy.

Finally, I find it interesting. The government talks about dealing with these issues. When it comes to the Canada Revenue Agency, what does it do? It cuts capacity. It does the same with the RCMP. It defies credibility for the government to say that it is serious about these issues when it is cutting the enforcement side. It still is living in the past when it comes to consensus in improving our disclosure of Canadian companies doing all of their work abroad.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we might title this day “corruption day on the Hill”. After all, for the first hour or so, we are going to be talking about Bill S-14, a bill on bribery and corruption. I dare say question period will have something to do with the other place, which might have something to do with bribery and corruption. Then we will go back to debating this bill, which is clearly about bribery and corruption. Then we will be on to debating my sunshine bill, which is also about bribery and corruption. I would say that this is corruption day on the Hill.

I take note of the irony, as has my colleague, but there is also a double irony going on here. The government's position is that it wants us to support Bill S-14, which we both agree is a good idea. However, when it comes to actually generating evidence that would support prosecutions under Bill S-14 the government does not want Bill C-474 to pass or to see the light of day.

It is great to say that we have all this great law, but it is utterly useless if in fact we cannot generate the evidence.

I am quoting from what the parliamentary secretary seems to be fond of quoting from:

Transparency International, a group that monitors global corruption, put Canada in the lowest category of countries with “little or no enforcement” when it comes to applying bribery standards.

And also:

By contrast, the United States has prosecuted more than 200 companies and individuals, many of them “a veritable who’s who of the corporate world”.

My question is very simple. What is the use of Bill S-14 if in fact Bill C-474 does not pass and if in fact there are no resources available to the RCMP?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is having a real problem keeping up with current trends, and that is not new to anyone who has watched what has happened in the Senate. As a footnote to that, the member mentioned the irony of this bill coming from the Senate when it has had allegations of bribery and corruption. For the Conservatives to come here with a bill to deal with corruption, maybe they should have started at home. I do not mean in Canada; I mean in their party.

The member is talking about something that is very important. He is right that we will be debating later this afternoon the Cardin-Lugar elements of the Dodd-Frank's legislation in the United States, which has been challenging all of us to do more when it comes to transparency for, in the case, Canadian companies doing business abroad. No longer is it acceptable for any country to allow its companies to operate overseas and not abide by the same rules they abide by in their own country. It is very simple. It is called consistency and ethics.

I think every country in the G7 has stood behind it. It will be interesting to see what happens in the G8 meetings and whether Canada is going to embrace this or not. This afternoon we will find out what the point of view of the government is on this sunshine bill. To date, it sounds like it will be against it.

Industry wants to see this happen. Why is the government being a laggard on this?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about corruption and bribery. It looks like this will be a discussion that we will have all day. We will have this discussion before question period, during question period, after question period and, I dare say, this is not a conversation that will go to go away any time soon.

As I said in my previous interventions, we generally support this bill. The various aspects of the legislation are actually pretty good ideas. We hope the bill will go to committee sooner rather than later, that it will not suffer the fates of a potential prorogation and that we will have an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would enable better prosecution of companies that find themselves in difficult situations with respect to allegations of corruption and bribery.

Canadians are thoroughly fed up with reading about their companies being involved in allegations and convictions of bribery.

I bring to the attention of my colleagues several recent instances. Regrettably we have about one of Canada's premier companies, SNC-Lavalin, which has been banned from bidding on contracts with the World Bank for the next 10 years because of convictions regarding bribery and corruption. Not only has it lost its reputation, it has had to fire a number of its senior executives. It has had to undergo the humiliation of being investigated by the RCMP and other international police forces. Its stock has been hammered, which always gets the attention of shareholders. Niko Resources was fined $9.5 million for bribing a former energy minister also in Bangladesh. Griffiths Energy International was fined $10.3 million for bribing the wife of Chad's former ambassador to Canada.

I do not care to carry on with this laundry list, but these are very difficult times for some of Canada's premier industries and they know they have a problem. As the member for Ottawa Centre indicated, they are actually asking for enforceable transparency initiatives and those transparency initiatives hopefully would go to help this.

Not only is the reputation of the individual company hammered, not only is its stock hammered, but the industry itself is hammered. The vast majority of companies that wish to operate by internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility are also getting hammered and they have difficulties getting out their message that they operate ethically, transparently and in a corporately social responsible fashion. Therefore, the company is being hammered, the stock is being hammered, the industry is being hammered and, in addition, we have our national reputation being hammered.

The parliamentary secretary pulled out some quote and talked about how our nation still had a good reputation and things of that nature. That is not due to anything that the Conservatives have done, but I think he is living in a bit of a la-la land because we actually have had a reputational decline and that is very difficult to recover. Those who conduct these surveys have noted that the loss of reputation is very difficult to reverse. The government has made some efforts. This is one of the efforts.

The government has tried to repair the reputation in the extractive sector with the corporate social responsibility counsellor. After four years, and I do not know how many millions of dollars, two cases or three cases gives the appearance of doing something without actually having done anything at all. I do not know if the government has actually taken our decline in reputation seriously. This damage to our reputation is a serious issue.

The Globe and Mail published an article stating that Canada was at the lowest category of countries with little or no enforcement when it came to not initiating new measures, but applying the bribery standards set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The issue is not the absence of legislation but the application of the legislation.

I am perfectly prepared to admit that this is complicated law to apply. It requires a lot of resources and we all know these resources are being stretched. Nevertheless, it seems that other nations take it far more seriously than we do.

By contrast, the U.S. has prosecuted more than 200 companies and individuals, many of them “a veritable who’s who of the corporate world”, according to Peter Dent, a partner at Deloitte Touche who sits on the board of Transparency International Canada. Then it goes on to list a number of cases, including Backfire Exploration Ltd. in Mexico, Niko Resources in Bangladesh, Nazir Karigar in India.

The numbers tell the tale. There have been 227 cases prosecuted in the United States, 135 in Germany, 35 in Switzerland, 24 in France and in Italy and the United Kingdom 18 and 17 respectively. We have two. Yet we are the nation with the greatest number of companies operating in the world in the extractive sector. We have the greatest number of companies and the best stock exchange in the world. This is where the world comes to do mining right. We have the best geologist, lawyers, financing and accounting. We have it all here and yet apparently we have no corruption whatsoever. There have been two cases prosecuted in the last number of years.

I would like the government to accompany its initiative, which is a good initiative, with real resources and the support of the sunshine bill, Bill C-474. It would provide the evidence base for the prosecutions under this initiative by the government. Bill C-474 would require each company, 180 days after its fiscal year ends, to file with the government statement with respect to each project and what payments were made to facilitate that project. Therefore, within 180 days, the governments, shareholders and NGOs would know. Obviously, management would already know because that information would be readily available to it. Then a light would be shed on that.

If I am a police officer contemplating a prosecution against a company that has “allegations” against it, the first thing I would do is look at the record of filings for company X, Y or Z to determine if it filed the previous year or the year before and what it had listed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have a full 10 minutes after question period to conclude his remarks.

The House resumed from May 24 consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last had this motion before it the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood had nine minutes remaining for his comments.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge for that enthusiastic applause and possibly one or two others as well. However, I would be surprised if the member for Cambridge and others actually remembered what I was talking about two weeks ago when question period interrupted the profundities of my speech.

Let me say that we support Bill S-14. We think it is a good bill insofar as it goes. Regrettably, we do not think it goes very far. The thrust of my speech was to link Bill S-14 with Bill C-474, the sunshine bill sponsored by me, which would actually be the evidence base for Bill S-14. Bill S-14 becomes far stronger if one brings in the evidence. As such, one would actually succeed in getting prosecutions.

In my previous remarks I talked about how aggressive the Americans are with respect to prosecutions in corruption. The numbers are something in the order of, for the same period of time, 277 prosecutions in the United States for corruption whereas in Canada we only had two. In this respect, the Americans are world leaders and not only world leaders in terms of the aggressiveness with which they prosecute companies that engage in corrupt activities. They do not shy away from prosecuting some of the most recognized companies in the world that trade on U.S. stock exchanges. Therefore, not only is their prosecution aggressive but their legislative agenda is also aggressive.

They have passed the Cardin-Lugar amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which basically states that if mining or extractive companies secure a concession they would have to disclose to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who they have paid, how much they paid, when they paid it, the frequency of the payments, the currency of the payments, and all other considerations in securing that concession. My sunshine bill, Bill C-474, mirrors that legislation. It is something that both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron want to achieve at the next G8.

I had summarized all of this and talked about the decline in Canada's reputation and went on to discuss the incongruity of the government's position to, on the one hand, support S-14, which we think is a good idea, and to be opposed to the sunshine bill, Bill C-474, on the other.

My newest seatmate as of today, my colleague from Mount Royal, would say that there is a seeming incongruity with the government's position in supporting Bill S-14. It says that it wants to combat corruption, yet by opposing Bill C-474 it is saying that accountability is not important. I cannot reconcile the disparity easily. Perhaps it lies in the simple fact that Bill C-474 is not a Conservative bill. It is a bill that the parliamentary secretary and other Conservatives have claimed would overburden Canada's extractive sector, leaving our companies at a competitive disadvantage and so forth, when this was in fact contradicted by witnesses at the foreign affairs committee.

I have to take note that a number of mining companies and mining associations have come out and said that they not only support Bill S-14 but they certainly support the principles and indeed the mandatory aspects of Bill C-474. Some Canadian companies have enthusiastically taken up the issue of corporate accountability. Business leaders, such as the president of the Mining Association of Canada, Pierre Gratton, believes that corporate transparency mechanisms are not only the right thing to do but they are also good for business.

All of the investors agree. The last thing that investors want is to be embarrassed as they see their investments decline in value on the front pages of The Globe and Mail. Therefore, industry is on side with Bill C-474. It is certainly on side for Bill S-14. Most responsible extractive companies are on side with the EITI initiative. These are good insofar as they go.

Canada as a nation supports the EITI transparency international initiative, but it has not joined. The Government of Canada has declined to join the EITI, which is quite regrettable because we are the country that is of foremost importance with respect to the extractive sector.

Business, in this instance, is actually ahead of the government in terms of a desire to impose a mandatory regime upon itself. Not only is it a good thing to do, it is good for business. Joe Ringwald of Selwyn Resources said that it is important to become a leader in this and to gain reputational advantage. He also said that Canada has become a laggard on this issue.

Industry has generally taken a favourable tone to this legislation and a number of players want transparency, particularly with many of the projects where there is money going to foreign governments and sometimes more money going to foreign governments than to shareholders. The idea of financial transparency has both public and private sector support. As I say, the industry is certainly on side. The NGOs, as might be expected, are on side. Civil society is on side. I would dare say the public is on side. The only issue that we appear to have here is that the government does not want to legislate in this area.

It is going to be a very difficult issue at a difficult time for the Prime Minister when he goes to Great Britain for the G8. Clearly, Prime Minister Cameron wants a clear, mandatory statement with respect to legislation on the extractive sector. He wants other issues agreed on as well, as does President Obama, who is highly supportive of the Cardin-Lugar amendment. They are binding their own companies to this initiative.

Starting September 1, any company that trades on the U.S. stock exchange will be bound by this legislative initiative. The irony is that if we want to find out about a major gold company, Barrick, for example, including who they pay and what they pay for their concessions around the world to foreign governments, including the foreign government of Canada, we will have to go to the New York Stock Exchange to the Securities and Exchange Commission and look at the published reports to see what and who got paid. It seems to me that Canada as a nation, given its position as the number one mining country in the world, should be a little bit ahead of the curve, instead of behind it.

Internationally, the Prime Minister is going to have to do some tap dancing in Northern Ireland, and explain to his colleagues at the G8 why Canada is not supportive of the sunshine bill.

I see that my time is just about finished. I would like to say in conclusion that the incongruity of the government's position in presenting Bill S-14, which is a good bill, but not supporting Bill C-474 is something that the Prime Minister is going to have some difficulties explaining when he meets with his colleagues this month in Northern Ireland.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the other day, I was at a school in the north end of Winnipeg, the Garden City Collegiate, where I met with a number of students. It was interesting how the area of discussion was regarding, among other things, the sunshine bill, of which I know the member is the sponsor. I was provided with a couple of petitions. This is coming from young people. If I may, I would just read very briefly the two major points on them. In essence, they say:

—petitioners request that the House of Commons legislate that the standards for Canadian Mining Companies operating outside of Canada be the same as the standards they must reach operating inside of Canada. This would include....

They then go on to list off some things. Another petition states:

—petitioners request that the House of Commons legislate standards for the identification of the source of these minerals (tin, tungsten, tantalum (coltan) and gold), in much the same way that diamonds are now regulated....

The point is that we have a group of young students going to school in Winnipeg's north end and they have caught on to a very important issue, which the member has been talking a great deal about.

I wonder if he might want to provide some comment in terms of the type of support that he believes is out there for the government to take action today in dealing with this very important issue?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember well a telephone interview I did with one of the students from that collegiate. She phoned me about six weeks ago to talk about it. What I noticed is that these kids are pretty darn sharp. She asked me very pointed questions with respect to the sunshine bill and I hope I answered her questions well, but this is not an isolated example.

I have done a number of interviews and met with quite a number of students across the country at both the high school and university levels. This is a broadly-supported bill. Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are keenly interested in knowing that the companies their parents work for are acting in an ethical fashion. It is of great importance.

My colleague made reference to the fact that I had been promoting this bill for a while, but I go back to another bill that I was also promoting on corporate social responsibility. It is interesting what we have learned in the four years or so that I have been on this file. One thing companies now tell me is that when they do interviews with prospective employees, whether it is for their law, accounting or communications departments, just name a department, they get to choose the best and brightest because these are the premier companies in our nation.

The kids reverse the interview. They ask the people doing the interviews what the company's corporate social responsibility program is because they do not want to just shill for a company that does not have a serious corporate social responsibility program. The kids at this high school in North Winnipeg are highly reflective of my experience over the number of years I have been on this file.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill deserves to be studied in greater depth.

Does the Liberal member believe that the committee should determine whether the facilitation payments rule should come into force at the pleasure of the cabinet, as is currently the case, or whether the decision should rest with Parliament?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. My quick reaction is that the facilitation payments should come into effect upon the passage of the legislation. They should not be left to the cabinet regulatory environment. Facilitation is a facilitation is a facilitation, and some people would call it a bribe. If, in fact, it is not legislatively mandated, the working of the regulation might work to be counterproductive to the intention of the bill. As I say, the intention of the bill is good. Unfortunately, all it does is bring us up to the regulatory environment of others. Since we are the lead nation in mining activity, we would rather hope we are ahead of the curve.

Karin Lissakers, former president of Revenue Watch, stated publicly that Canada was out of step with other countries on upping its game. If facilitation needs to be legislated, let us legislate it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question with regard to the whole issue of social corporate responsibility and how important it is for the government to play a leading international role. To what degree does the member feel Canada is playing second fiddle, possibly even third fiddle, to other nations in the world on this issue?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately our track record on this file is not as robust as one would like.

In 2011, the Prime Minister was invited to sign a transparency initiative, which was a robust transparency initiative by his colleagues in the G8, and he declined to do so. As a consequence, there was no statement that came out of the G8 which would have, at that point, moved the Cardin-Lugar amendment up everyone else's legislative agenda.

Here we are two years later. It is the same issue. It is even more important now. We have had a series of embarrassing incidents for Canada.

I do not know about other members, but I do not particularly feel good about seeing Canadian companies engaged in bribery and other kinds of scandals.

The government has had two years to kind of catch up to the rest. To this point, it has not done anything except for Bill S-14. I do not want to be entirely negative here. There have been some discretionary educational initiatives that the government has tried to put forward.

Sometimes we just have to bring the hammer down and the government has thus far declined to do that. The United States has brought the hammer down. The U.K. is in the process of bringing the hammer down. The EU has brought the hammer down. Australia is in the process. When we put all that together, what we have is, in effect, 85% of the extractive sector that will have a robust legislative environment if in fact we join in.

It is hypocritical on our part to say that those countries that are subject to a lot of corruption should clean up their act, if in fact we have legislative holes in ours. Right now Canada is the big hole in the fence. We need to rectify that. It can be rectified in this chamber and quite quickly. The only way, in my judgment, that is done is not only in passing Bill S-14, but in passing Bill C-474 as well.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to this very important initiative. With recent events around the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa, it is clear that the fight against global corruption is as timely today as it has ever been. Indeed, developments in our own courts highlight that combatting foreign bribery is significant to Canada. Bill S-14 is an expression of our government's commitment to doing exactly that. I will be using my time today to address the inclusion of the facilitation payments amendment.

Before I continue with my speech, I need to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I would also like to update the House on the three convictions that have already been made under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, which Bill S-14 seeks to amend. While these recent court decisions are evidence of the effectiveness of Canada's anti-corruption laws and a reminder that corruption is not a Canadian way of doing business, we have been asked to do more, and so we will.

First, I wish to note and thank members of the other place for their support of the bill. Indeed, Liberal Senator David Smith agreed that adopting the measures of Bill S-14 would send an important signal to the international community that we took our commitments seriously and would act on them.

I also wish to thank my colleagues for providing the detailed background on the CFPOA and the six amendments that would answer the call for heightened diligence. Taken together, they certainly demonstrate a broad approach to fighting unethical business practices.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has clearly stated, our government is committed to positioning Canada as a reliable supplier of the resources emerging markets need to grow. Canadian companies can compete with the best in this environment and will win fairly. These amendments would ensure that Canadian companies would continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

I wish to remind my colleagues that a facilitation payment is a “grease payment”, paid to foreign public officials to do something that he or she is already obliged to do, such as deliver mail on time. It is specifically not supposed to allow the person paying to gain a business advantage in any way. Otherwise, the payment would be a bribe and it would be a crime to make the payment.

We have heard some concern that the elimination of the facilitation payments defence may create a competitive disadvantage for Canadian companies with international markets, given that legislation in other countries still contain the facilitation payments defence.

Let me be clear. Those who make facilitation payments are not allowed to receive any kind of business or competitive advantage from their payment. Payments that are made to receive a business advantage are bribes and these payments are already illegal under the CFPOA. They are also illegal under the legislation of every OECD country.

It is also important for hon. members to note that there is good reason to delay the coming into force of the elimination of facilitation payments exception. Canadian companies will need time to adjust their own practices and internal policies, if they have not already done so, to prohibit the use of facilitation payments in their habitual operations. This time to adjust is all the more important given that some other countries continue to allow facilitation payments.

We on this side of the House have been clear that our priority is to create the conditions for Canadian businesses to succeed in the pursuit of our aggressive pro-trade agenda. I reiterate our position that corruption does the opposite. It hinders economic growth and long-term prosperity. It fosters an environment conducive to allowing other crimes to flourish. We expect our companies to abide by the laws of the countries they operate in, as well as to act in accordance with Canadian laws and ethical standards and practices.

For Canadian companies operating in developing countries, this legislation is even more important. As the minister noted before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on February 28:

It is not just about values and ethics. It is also about ensuring that we see meaningful development in developing economies. It is important that we see meaningful development and that this development benefits the people. Corruption, particularly in developing economies, is a real problem. It is basically tapping money that could otherwise go toward the public good, to the benefit of the people in these countries, so it is not just an ethical question but also very much a development question.

Foreign bribery weakens economic prosperity by corroding the rule of law that is the basis for market freedom.

Bill S-14 provides us with a robust tool for creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to play by the rules and for Canadian companies to be successful across the globe. It involves encouraging responsible and ethical conduct. It involves positioning our country as a reliable supplier of the resources that emerging markets need to grow.

As I mentioned at the outset, I would now like to use some of my time to provide the House with some details on the three convictions that have already been made under the CFPOA. These convictions highlight just how seriously our government takes its commitment to prosecute those involved in foreign corruption and bribery. I would like my colleagues to keep in mind that there are also two cases pending, as well as 35 ongoing investigations.

As others have noted, penalties are increasing substantially with each new conviction, and the adoption of these amendments means that those engaging in corruption will be penalized even more severely.

Griffiths Energy International Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, pleaded guilty on January 22, 2013, to a charge under the CFPOA related to securing an oil and gas contract in Chad. Griffiths will pay a total penalty of $10.35 million.

Similarly, Niko Resources, another Calgary-based company, entered a guilty plea on June 24, 2011, for one count of bribery. The company admitted that through its subsidiary Niko Bangladesh, in May 2005, it provided the use of a vehicle valued at $190,984 to AKM Mosharraf Hossain, then the Bangladeshi state minister for energy and mineral resources, in order to influence the minister in his dealings with Niko Bangladesh. In June 2005, Niko Resources Ltd. paid travel and accommodation expenses for the same minister to travel from Bangladesh to Calgary to attend the GO Expo oil and gas exposition, and paid approximately $5,000 for the minister to travel to New York and Chicago to visit his family

As a result of the conviction, Niko Resources Ltd. was fined $9.5 million and placed under a probation order, which puts the company under the court's supervision for three years to ensure that audits are completed on the company's compliance with the CFPOA. The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service has placed a hold on providing services to Niko during the period of court supervision.

Finally, Hydro Kleen Group, based in Red Deer, Alberta, entered a guilty plea on January 10, 2005, to one count of bribery and was ordered to pay a fine of $25,000. Along with its president and an employee, the company had been charged with two counts of bribing a U.S. immigration officer who worked at the Calgary International Airport. The charges against the director and the officer of the company were stayed. The U.S. immigration officer pleaded guilty on July 2002 to accepting secret commissions. He received a six-month sentence and was subsequently deported to the United States.

In closing, I wish to address the importance of the timely passage of Bill S-14. This is signature legislation that has given Canada good marks with domestic stakeholders and at the OECD working group on bribery in 2013. We have invested a lot of credibility in Bill S-14.

We are due to report back to the OECD in the near future regarding the adoption of the bill, and further delays would have implications that go beyond the scrutiny of the OECD. Regardless of the merits of recent domestic developments, Canada would be criticized on the domestic and international stages for not meeting our commitments. I think this alone speaks to the importance of passing the bill at second reading today, and I urge my hon. colleagues to lend it their full support.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his interesting comments. It is true that the bill deserves additional debate. The next step will be to send it to committee, and the House has the NDP’s support to do so.

For many years now, or at least since the Conservative government has been in power, no one in Canada has been convicted of taking a bribe or paying a bribe to a foreign company, as set out in the bill.

What changed the government's mind? Can we really believe that it is going to go forward and attempt to do away with this practice? Apart from the bill itself, does the government really intend to do that? Over the past five years, we seem to have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding what the government wants.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech the three recent convictions that have been processed under this act.

I want to state that the OECD had some concerns about our legislation, and so we are bringing this bill forward, to tighten that up a little bit more. There are a number of things we propose to amend that would help to increase times and make sure that the RCMP is directly responsible for looking into and creating charges.

I know that this is timely, and even though we have probably not processed many in the past, as we move ahead, we look forward to being tougher on these individuals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as was illustrated earlier, there is a wide belief that in fact there is unethical, unacceptable behaviour that takes place within the corporate world, and at a great cost to many communities in certain areas of the world.

There is an expectation that Canada would play a stronger leadership role in ensuring we are doing what we can. My colleague talked about the sunshine bill earlier, which is an important private member's bill that would have gone a long way in dealing with this issue in a clear fashion.

Can the member indicate to what degree the government is genuinely open to receiving amendments to the legislation that would enable it to be stronger legislation going forward?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at fighting foreign bribery, I think Canadians recognize that Canadian companies around the world do a great job. Are there some bad actors? Yes, there certainly is from time to time. However, in any opportunity I have had to speak with ambassadors around the world, they look to Canada for leadership and they look for help, whether it is with their own legislation in developing countries or on how they can tighten legislation that may affect them.

I would say to the hon. member that this is something that will strengthen what has already been in place for a certain amount of time. We realize that there are probably some gaps there that we could fill, which is why we are looking at moving forward with that.

I have a couple of quotes that talk about support for the bill.

Ian Pearce, the chief executive officer of Xstrata Nickel, said, “As a Canadian-based company with operations and projects around the world, we applaud the government's efforts to combat corruption and bribery. As part of the Xstrata Group, we have a commitment to the highest standards of personal and professional ethical behaviour, and we have a policy of zero tolerance towards any form of bribery or fraud”.

I also have a quote from a former Liberal cabinet minister, John Manley, regarding the amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, he said, “Good corporate citizenship at home and abroad is essential to Canada's economic success. These latest measures aimed at eliminating corruption and bribery, will strengthen Canada's already strong reputation for good governance and ethical business practices”.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to get up after my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook is filling big shoes, but it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill S-14. On February 5, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced our government's efforts in taking further steps to combat corruption and bribery.

Through the introduction of Bill S-14, which includes a number of amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, we are redoubling our fight against bribery and corruption, strengthening Canada's anti-corruption laws and placing Canada at the leading edge of countries taking robust action against corruption, action that will benefit Canadian companies at home and abroad.

The Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, CFPOA, is not new. In fact, Canada has had anti-corruption legislation in place since 1999. We passed it primarily in response to the OECD's anti-bribery convention. It is a good law that has already produced several convictions. However, we have identified a number of ways in which we can make it better. These can be found in the six amendments proposed in the fighting foreign corruption act.

Others before me have briefly explained each of these amendments, so I would like to focus particularly on that which proposes to clarify the scope of the CFPOA. This specific but important amendment, the elimination of the words “for profit” from the definition of business, would clarify that the scope of the CFPOA is not limited to bribes paid by for-profit enterprises or in the course of profitable business. Eliminating the words “for profit” from the definition of business ensures that the net is cast as widely as possible. By removing the for profit requirement from the definition of business, we expand the scope of the CFPOA.

We believe this will translate into two advantages in our fight against corruption. First, we wish to seize the opportunity to target those who pay bribes on behalf of companies that may or may not earn a profit during a given year. Second, we would also target organizations whose main purpose is not for profit as well as those whose main purpose is to generate a profit. In other words, we would treat all organizations the same way in the context of foreign bribery. Whether or not an entity is capable of generating revenue and earning a profit, and whether an entity conducts business in anticipation of profit, they would receive the same treatment under the CFPOA.

With respect to the first scenario, a company not earning a profit on a given year, a gap currently exists in the legislation. This gap does not support enforcement or prosecution. A company may try to escape the application of the law by conducting their business in a manner to establish that no profit is reflected in their books. This might be accomplished by way of strategic planning and the application of appropriate accounting methodologies. There is no reason that clever accounting should make the payment of bribes legal.

Our amendment would go a long way to ensuring the act applies to all questionable activities related to bribes, by ensuring that all business activities are captured regardless of the anticipation of profit from those specific activities.

With respect to the second scenario, an entity's reason for being is either profit or not for profit. All entities should be treated in the same manner. The fight against corruption cannot be won if we make exceptions for certain organizations and not for others. If we continue with unequal treatment, we do nothing more than shift the focus of bribery transactions to the not-for-profit sector.

In addition, if we close only the gap for the for-profit sector, we would have a realistic expectation that the number of newly created not-for-profit entities would increase. Why? They would increase in order to escape detection. In other words, we would continue to have an enforcement issue in our fight against corruption and it would simply shift to the not-for-profit sector. The focus would be on determining whether the not-for-profit entities are really that: not for profit. We do not have the resources for this, nor should we. We can be more fair, more strategic and more cost-effective if we simply treat everyone the same.

We have a realistic expectation that by closing these two gaps by simply deleting the words “for profit” from the definition of “business”, we would facilitate enforcement and prosecution. After all, timely and responsive enforcement can enhance investigations and facilitate successful prosecution. In the end this is what we want: to successfully prosecute those involved in the corruption of foreign public officials.

Our government's top priority is to secure jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. It involves pursuing an aggressive trade agenda and creating the conditions for Canadian companies and businesses to succeed. However, our government expects Canadian companies to play by the rules and compete fairly. As such, the legislation that is before us signals our commitment to fighting corruption and bribery.

These amendments would further deter and prevent Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials and would reinforce Canada's good name. These amendments would help ensure that Canadian companies continued to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

I want to read a few statements in support of this bill.

Ian Pearce, chief executive officer of Xstrata Nickel, said that as a Canadian-based company with operations and projects around the world, they applaud the government's efforts to combat corruption and bribery. He said that as part of the Xstrata group, the are committed to the highest standards of personal and professional ethical behaviour, and have a policy of zero tolerance toward any form of bribery or fraud.

Janet Keeping, chair and president of Transparency International Canada, said that Transparency International Canada is delighted that the federal government is moving to strengthen the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in accordance with Canada's international obligations and encourages the government to ensure that the RCMP have the resources necessary to enforce the CFPOA effectively. She said that legal changes of the kind proposed are only as good as the government's commitment to making the law meaningful on the ground.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, the Hon. John Manley, former Liberal MP, said, regarding amendments to the Corruption of Public Officials Act, that good corporate citizenship at home and abroad is essential to Canada's economic success. He said that these latest measures, aimed at eliminating corruption and bribery, will strengthen Canada's already strong reputation for good governance and ethical business practices.

We have this bill before us and as I said earlier, from time to time we review many pieces of legislation in this House. At some point all legislation needs to be reviewed because, while it may be good at one point, circumstances change, and there are people out there who lay awake at night looking for loopholes and thinking of ways to skirt the system.

I certainly urge all my colleagues on all sides of the House to support this bill. If I happened to have a bunch of people from my riding here tonight, I would certainly want them to see all parties in this place stand to support this bill at the end of the night.

I would be happy to take any questions.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment, the rule on facilitation payments is applicable at the cabinet's pleasure.

Does the member agree that the committee should determine whether cabinet or Parliament should decide?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the question.

We discuss many issues in this House and there are decisions that are made by governments, made first by cabinets through discussion. Some decisions are made at committee and recommendations come back to this House in committee reports. This is a bill that ended up before the whole House, and rightly so. We all have a chance to speak to it and debate it. Who cannot support something that provides balance?

As I said in my speech, not-for-profit and for-profit organizations were being treated basically in two different manners. It does not matter what we deal with in this place, we should always look for balance and equity at all levels, and this bill goes a long way toward that.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though we are in favour of the principle underlying this bill, I have some questions.

I have a specific question for the member who just spoke about paragraph 5(1)(b) of Bill S-14, which says that a permanent resident who commits an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act outside Canada is not deemed to have committed that offence if the person does not return to Canada. That could last for years, and on the day the person returns, he or she could face certain charges under the act.

I would like my colleague to state whether a Canadian resident would receive the same treatment as a permanent resident. In the United Kingdom, care was taken to place limits on this provision. Bill S-14 is different from what is found in other countries.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I totally understand the member's question. I think he may be looking for a needle in a haystack.

The bottom line is that if that individual he speaks of comes back here, whether the individual is a permanent resident or a citizen of Canada, the expectation would be that the individual would be treated the same way under the law.

If the member has concerns about a loophole, he certainly should bring it to our attention and it could be looked at.

Those are the only comments I can make on that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I thank my colleague for his interesting observations, but would like to ask him a question.

Knowing as we do that the government has made significant cuts to the RCMP, where will the funds come from to finance this bill?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is always so much “gravy”, as we like to call it, in government.

In our term, over the last seven years, this government has eliminated or decreased 150 taxes. I do not know whether the member is trying to imply that because it may be tough to find the money to enforce this, we should let bribery go on. I do not believe that is the way we should deal with it, and neither does this government.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It is always a pleasure to be in a full house. Everyone has flocked to the House of Commons to hear my speech tonight.

This bill is a start. Obviously, New Democrats recommend that the bill go to committee so it can be analyzed, witnesses can be brought in, some of the points ironed out, and hopefully make the bill stronger.

There are four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act contained in the bill. It increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. It eliminates the exception for so-called facilitation payments where a foreign official is paid to expedite the execution of his or her responsibilities. It creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to conceal bribery of a foreign official. It establishes a national jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

One of the issues the committee might want to look at is how this would affect various groups and NGOs overseas that are trying to function in a country in which corruption is everywhere. We have seen films in which people are trying to advance through checkpoints and through no fault of their own, they have to pay bribes at illegal roadblocks or whatever, in order to deliver the aid. This bill would certainly tighten up the reaction to that corruption. I am wondering how we would address that situation. Obviously, a strong message would have to be sent to the government of that particular country. I am sure the committee will be looking at that.

There are a couple of points I want to emphasize. One is that we have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. This bill complements legislative efforts by NDP MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices. We acknowledge that the lack of enforcement in Canada with respect to bribery can be considered, to an extent, a national embarrassment. We are pleased that the government is finally responding to this problem. It took a long time, but at least we are on the right track.

Most Canadians want our companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada. Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards for international business. In other words, why would we allow an official of a Canadian multinational to act differently in another country than we would allow here? That is what this bill is trying to enforce. We need to enforce loophole-free regulations that will create a level playing field for all companies while ensuring environmental, labour, and human rights protection of which we can all be proud in this country.

We have certain values and standards in this country when we deal with each other. We need to ensure that when we are doing business in other countries, we apply the same values and standards. That is one of the points this bill is driving at.

In a report released in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. I say this is disgraceful. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation.

Since then, the government has started trying to address this national embarrassment. However, since 1999, there have only been three convictions, two of them in the past two years. When I read that, I was surprised. It seems that we should be in first place with regard to corruption and our fight against corruption.

By eliminating the facilitation payments exception, the bill will bring Canada’s practices in line with 36 of the 39 other OECD countries. That is a good idea.

However, while the rest of the bill comes into effect on royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments will come into effect at an unknown later date, as cabinet wishes.

I am wondering about this point and I hope we will discuss the bill’s mechanism in more detail in committee.

In the United States, the rule on accounting records is already used in civil matters by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Canada has no equivalent regulatory authority, but there is a similar rule in criminal law.

I would also like to point out that the bill is of particular importance for the mining industry, where the NDP has been and is still an ardent defender of accountability. I can cite, for instance, Bill C-323 from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which seeks to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of international obligations in Canadian courts.

Furthermore, I can cite Bill C-486 from the member for Ottawa Centre, I think, which requires companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence.

The political elite that benefits from corruption, particularly in countries and industries where corruption is rife, is made up primarily of men, which is interesting. At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection.

We support this bill and we believe that it must be sent to committee to facilitate discussion, as I just mentioned.

The bill will amend the definition of the term “business” to include the non-profit organizations I mentioned earlier. At committee stage, members will have to study the impact of this provision on charitable organizations and humanitarian relief agencies, which can sometimes be required to make a payment to accelerate the provision of essential aid or to actually obtain aid, something that I also mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The committee should also determine the impact of making these activities indictable offences that are subject to imprisonment of up to 14 years, because it is a threshold over which conditional discharges, absolute discharges and conditional sentences become impossible. Therefore, the committee really must determine whether 14 years of imprisonment is the right direction to take.

I am going to stop here, and I look forward to all the questions.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

Once again, why is this bill even necessary, given the large number of mining and oil and gas industries in Canada that are involved in operations abroad? Why did it take 14 years to introduce this legislation, and why is it coming from the Senate?

We want to support the bill so that it is referred to committee and can be discussed at greater length and in more detail, particularly with regard to changes such as generally accepted accounting principles.

Once again, why is this bill, which is essential to ensure fairness in that industry, coming from the Senate?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In the seven years that I have been here, I have noticed that the large multinational corporations in Canada put a great deal of pressure on the various levels of government to avoid having any legislation, because it is not to their advantage. That is why I am pleased that there is finally a bill that really deals with this issue.

In Canada, we have always had rules, and we still do. Rules exist. Multinational corporations do not follow the rules willingly, but since these rules exist, they comply with them. Corporations in other countries do not have to follow rules, because there are none.

It is therefore up to us to impose rules on our corporations, so that they will comply with them.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

I want to ask him whether he shares my view on this government's way of doing things. Personally, I do not quite share my colleague's optimism when he says that the government has taken some positive action. I think that the government is reacting rather than being proactive.

Let me explain. We are aware of the incident involving SNC-Lavalin in Libya. Three Alberta companies were also recently involved in wrongdoings or offences abroad. I think the government took a “marketing” approach, as it always does. That is how I describe its behaviour. In the end, the government reacts because the media has reported on these incidents. However, as my colleague so clearly explained, this is already well known, because Canadian mining and gas companies have done bad things and violated various laws.

Why did the government not react and, more importantly, why did it not take action sooner? Why did it wait until it no longer had any choice because the media had a hold of certain stories?

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this issue.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's question, and I very much enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in the good old days.

I think the member should put the question to the other side of the House. I do not understand the reason for this delayed response. In my opinion, this is not a proactive government. It takes action in response to scandals and pressures instead of taking an appropriate and fair moral stance to try to prevent the problems that arise in the world.

That is what a social democratic government would do.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I feel a bit sick as I rise in the House to debate a bill that has come from the Senate.

I will echo my colleague’s remarks by saying that the government has no reason to be proud of itself right now. It did not even act; it was the Senate that did so. If the Senate had not decided to introduce this bill, would the government have adopted measures such as these? I very much doubt it.

The bill comes from an unelected and undemocratic chamber, and, as we know, that chamber has been in the headlines in recent weeks as a result of corruption-related scandals. In my view, it is ironic to talk about corruption when the bill comes from the Senate. Some senators are currently under investigation by the RCMP, but that is another matter.

The bill stems from the report published by Transparency International, which ranked the Canadian mining and oil and gas industries second and third among sectors in which acts of corruption are most likely to be committed. This is rather important for a country such as Canada, which has between 75% and 80% of all global mining exploration and extraction companies. If that industry ranks second or third for acts of corruption, and Canada has approximately 80% of all those companies, that means the bill is crucial for Canada.

Canada has more extraction companies than any other country in the world. It often makes the headlines as a result of acts of corruption, human rights violations and breaches of environmental standards. Consequently, I think it is essential for us to take action. I am pleased to rise in the House to say that the NDP will support the bill so that it is referred to committee.

It is important to note that, in its report, Transparency International ranked Canada last among the G7 countries in combating corruption. It is important to say that. The government needs to realize that it is time to take action. Since 1999, there have been only three convictions under acts passed to combat corruption. It is true that the legislation was in force, but it was barely complied with and barely enforced. This bill is therefore extremely important. It is time for the government to open its eyes and do something to combat corruption.

The Conservatives themselves have fallen victim to scandals, and it is time to act. If they want to show their good faith, let them act today.

The NDP has always supported corporate social responsibility. For example, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster introduced Bill C-323, which would permit persons who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of Canada's international obligations. My colleague from Ottawa Centre also introduced Bill C-486, which requires companies using minerals originating in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, a highly unstable region that has suffered many conflicts, to exercise due diligence and comply with OECD standards respecting conflict minerals.

The bill will support all the New Democratic Party's initiatives to ensure that Canada's private and public sector representatives comply with Canadian legislation. The criteria that Canada is required to meet must also be met by Canada's international representatives.

Consider, for example, the recent events in Bangladesh, where the death toll is unfortunately rising every day and now stands at more than 1,000. That event has shed light on the problems of businesses operating internationally, whether they come from Canada or any other country. Deficiencies in the enforcement of anti-corruption legislation in Canada are extremely numerous. Non-governmental organizations single us out in reports and criticize our international activities, and I hope that all members of Parliament are as embarrassed about that as I am.

As I know from speaking to many of them, Canadians want our businesses to represent Canada in a respectable, transparent and responsible manner and to have clear, coherent international business standards. It is important for Parliament to let those companies do business but also to provide them with a clear, coherent framework so they know what to expect when they do business internationally.

Enforcing loophole-free regulations will therefore level the playing field for all companies, while protecting the environment, employment and human rights, something that we can be proud of. For example, the bill will bring Canada's rules and criteria in line with those of 36 of the 39 OECD member countries. It was time that happened. Our standards and practices had not been consistent with those of the majority of OECD member countries since 1999. This bill will help harmonize regulations.

However, the payment rules will come into force only when cabinet wishes. This part of the bill should come in for particular scrutiny when examined in committee. Cabinet should not be responsible for deciding when an act comes into force. If this bill is passed by Parliament, it should come into force immediately.

Environmental and labour standards, for example, are not always effective in developing countries. They often vary with the freedom of expression and demands of the local populations. It is therefore difficult for populations to call for government accountability when revenues are low. If we as Canadians want to invest in other countries, we must set an example. Accountability is important.

Canada's international leadership is vastly undermined by all the Canadian companies involved in corruption scandals. I could name several in South America, Asia and Papua New Guinea. It is time to take action and restore Canada's international image.

The addition of a national jurisdiction based on the nationality of businesses is also very important. This standard is recognized in international law. Businesses that have their headquarters and operations in a country are considered as having the nationality of that country. This therefore obviates the need for investigators to establish connections or find evidence of the offence committed in Canada. An offence may have been committed entirely outside the country, hence the importance of creating this nationality jurisdiction, which will enable investigators to bring people who commit crimes to justice.

It is therefore very important for Canada to ensure that Canadian businesses abide by international standards and respect human rights and that they not be corrupt.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, on her excellent speech.

To me, one thing is missing from this bill that could become law in the future. When we talk about corruption, we are also talking about working conditions. For example, we can talk about attracting businesses here by promising the working conditions we have in Canada, by telling these people that they can do what they want, that it is no problem, that enough workers are available and they can go ahead with their plans.

The hon. member spoke very eloquently about human rights, but there is also the matter of labour rights. There is a great deal of corruption. This may need to be defined. Nonetheless, this corruption might exist when we are attracting businesses. Canadian businesses that represent Canada abroad accept working conditions that would never be tolerated in Canada.

I think that allowing businesses to exploit a situation outside the country under the Canadian banner and under lesser working conditions constitutes corruption, and it would be unacceptable here.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer my colleague's question.

I would say that it is important to distinguish between the violation of international standards and corruption, which is also a violation of international standards. No country will say that corruption is legal.

However, it is important to know that Canadian companies try to have clear and coherent standards. The government is wrong when it claims that these companies are more likely to comply with Canadian standards because they are abroad.

On the contrary, creating nationality jurisdiction is key. A Canadian company that has its assets in Canada is subject to Canadian law even if it operates in another country.

For example, I am a Canadian citizen, but that does not mean that I will no longer be subject to Canadian laws when in another country. In fact, the definition of a number of crimes has been changed in the Criminal Code in order to ensure that people who commit crimes abroad can be found guilty in Canada.

Therefore, it is very important to ensure that Canadian companies respect human rights, no matter where in the world they operate.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that with this bill the government is trying to capitalize on events in the news without really thinking about what should be done to remedy the situation.

Remedying a situation requires human and financial resources. However, the government is making cuts in all areas that deal with corruption.

How can this government achieve excellent outcomes if it is making cuts everywhere? I am thinking of the Canada Revenue Agency, for example.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have put our finger on another problem.

As I said in my speech on witness protection, the government has passed legislation in Parliament, and that makes sense, since that is why members are elected and serve in Parliament. The Conservatives passed a bill so they could look good, which is their trademark, but this legislation has to be implemented.

I think the Conservatives may have partly forgotten the role of government. Indeed, its role is to pass bills. However, it is also to provide resources for the stakeholders on the ground and to implement these bills.

As I said, it is all well and good to pass a bill that will ensure that corruption is punished more severely, but the people on the ground still have to get the resources they need to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and convicted for their crimes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of International Cooperation.

It is my pleasure to rise this evening to participate in the debate on the fighting foreign corruption act. In my view, Bill S-14 is signature legislation. Since its introduction on February 5, the proposed changes have given Canada good marks both from domestic stakeholders and from the OECD working group on bribery.

These positive comments from groups such as Transparency International were given with the strong caveat that proposed amendments be adopted. Canada has invested a lot of credibility in getting this bill tabled, and we are to report back to the OECD in the near future regarding its adoption.

As others have stated before me, the issue of foreign corruption is as timely as it has ever been, and our government remains committed to seeing this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. It is my hope that this commitment is shared by all opposition parties and members of the House.

The OECD has just published on its website the report that Canada submitted to the organization's working group on bribery, as well as the working group's own summary and conclusion. As part of the OECD's peer review mechanism, Canada was called upon to submit a written report detailing the progress it has made over the past two years in responding to all of the recommendations and follow-up points previously identified by the working group on bribery.

The written report details the significant progress made by Canada in terms of investigations and prosecutions of the foreign bribery offence; the awareness-raising efforts undertaken by numerous government officials, agencies and crown corporations; and the amendments to Canada's foreign bribery legislation, the corruption of foreign public officials act, or CFPOA.

The lead examiners for Canada's evaluation stated that they were extremely impressed with our results. They indicated that Canada should be very proud of what it has achieved in such a short period of time. They also signalled their strong support for Bill S-14, stating that should this bill be adopted by Parliament, Canada would be deemed to have fully implemented most of the significant recommendations made to it by the working group on bribery.

The working group on bribery also concluded that as it stands, Canada has already fully implemented nine out of the total of 18 recommendations and subrecommendations, including those that touched on resources for foreign bribery prosecutions and investigations, awareness-raising, building relationships with provincial securities commissions and due diligence in government contracting. In addition, five of the 18 recommendations were deemed to be partially implemented. Another three of the 18 recommendations were held to be not implemented, but will be fully implemented if and when Bill S-14 is adopted by Parliament.

This is positive reinforcement. Members can rest assured that it only strengthens our desire to see Bill S-14 passed as quickly as possible.

I would now like to provide a brief summary of some of the key conclusions made by the OECD's working group on bribery.

The first relates to a recommendation that Canada amend the offence of bribing a foreign public official in the CFPOA so that it is clear that it applies to bribery in the conduct of all international business, not just business for profit. The elimination of the words "for profit" from the definition of "business" is vitally important, as it would ensure that the CFPOA is not limited to bribes paid to for-profit enterprises or just in the course of business that is currently profitable. I am pleased to report that this recommendation would be considered fully implemented if Bill S-14 is passed in its current state within one year of tabling.

A second recommendation requested that Canada take appropriate measures to automatically apply, on conviction for a CFPOA violation, the removal of the capacity to contract with a government or receive any benefit under such a contract, consistent with the domestic bribery offence in the Criminal Code. This was assessed to be fully implemented as a result of the change in policy in 2012 by Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The third recommendation urged Canada to take such measures as may be necessary to prosecute its nationals for bribery of foreign public officials committed abroad. I am pleased to report that with the nationality jurisdiction clause included in Bill S-14, this would be considered fully implemented once the bill has passed in its current state and within one year of tabling.

The last recommendation I wish to mention specifically calls on Canada to find an appropriate and effective means for making companies aware of the CFPOA, including the defence for reasonable expenses incurred in good faith and the defence of facilitation payments.

It also calls on Canada to increase efforts to raise awareness of the CFPOA in industries at high risk for bribing foreign public officials and individuals and companies operating in countries where there is a high risk of bribe solicitations, as well as municipal and provincial law enforcement authorities. This was assessed to be fully implemented.

Should members choose to read the report and the OECD findings on their website, I think they would be delighted to hear some of its conclusions. Here is a sample:

Canada has continued the enforcement momentum...Canada now has two additional and major convictions against companies in the oil and gas sector under its Corruption of Foreign Publics Officials Act.

The WGB also welcomes significant steps taken by Canada to improve the CFPOA and address three main Phase 3 recommendations through Bill S-14....Bill S-14 also repeals the exception in the CFPOA for facilitation payments...Canada has therefore now fully implemented Recommendation 6.

A number of federal departments, agencies and crown corporations play key roles in Canada's two-pronged approach to foreign bribery: that of enforcement and prevention. Bill S-14 reflects what we believe is the will of Canadians and of Canadian businesses and stakeholders.

In considering the OECD's recommendations and in preparing our response to them, the government consulted widely, including a January 2012 session hosted by the Department of Foreign and International Trade. At that time, over 30 expert stakeholders from Canadian businesses, law firms, academic institutions and non-governmental organizations participated.

It provided an opportunity for fulsome discussion on concrete steps that would be taken to improve the enforcement of the CFPOA as well as an opportunity to further encourage Canadian companies to prevent bribery before it happened and to detect it if it occurred.

We are pleased with the WGB strong positive endorsement of the significant progress made by Canada on investigations and prosecutions of the foreign bribery offence, the awareness raising efforts undertaken by numerous government departments and on the proposed amendments to CFPOA in Bill S-14.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated on the day Bill S-14 was introduced:

Canada is a trading nation. Our economy and future prosperity depend upon expanding our trade ties with the world. This, we hope, is a good faith sign that Canada’s good name retains its currency.

In conclusion, failing to adopt Bill S-14 would send the wrong signal about Canada and Canadian companies. For this reason, I urge all members to support this important legislation.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's presentation was fairly elaborate and had a lot of interesting points.

We note that in the bill we redefine business. That is probably a good idea. It will be clear now what constitutes a business and what the bill would actually be addressing, what form of business. However, it does lead the question of, and the member had mentioned it in his presentation, facilitation payments.

How will we ensure that any non-profits especially, any Canadian company really, but especially non-profits will not have to unduly pay consequences for the fact that they had to pay facilitation payments?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, we need to talk about what a facilitation payment is. I guess we would call it a “grease payment”. It is a payment made for something that should be given, regardless. In other words, if a government official is supposed to give, or provide for a mining company, a report before it can begin its business, it is maybe a little bit of a grease payment. It gets the guy working a little bit faster, gets that thing happening quicker and gets them a little up on the competition.

We have added to this bill the provision that that would become illegal. In the past bill, there was a provision for that sort of thing; it was for something that was not business related, just part of the regular goings on. That will no longer be the case.

However, we will give them an opportunity to implement this. I believe there is a period of a year's time for that to take place. Once that takes place, this, too, will become part of the Criminal Code and will no longer be acceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that whether it is bribery, kickbacks or corruption, it does occur. A very small percentage of Canadian companies cause issues related to that whole area.

We have seen attempts in the past. I made reference to my colleague's attempt through the sunshine bill and other efforts to try to deal with this so that Canada could be playing a much stronger role, as opposed to following the lead of other nations. There is a high expectation for Canada to have a legislative process.

My question is for the member. To what degree is the government prepared to entertain amendments that would give this legislation more teeth and which would ultimately have it receive wider support outside of Canadian borders?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are six amendments that will take place and will enhance the current legislation, the CFPOA.

This is a progressive movement. It is something the OECD has recommended for all nations. Canada is a leader, and Canada will continue to be a leader as we move forward and implement more changes. As Canadians, we will always be proud of business conducted outside the countries. Our companies will also be able to benefit from that gain, as well as the nations they conduct their business in.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like Canada is on the right track.

Given our international reputation in these regards, does the member not think that some of this fighting corruption starts right here at home? More pointedly, does the member believe that the Leader of the Opposition, who has had some knowledge of corruption for more than 17 years and has not come clean with Canadians, might be a starting point in a discussion?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we conclude from this piece of legislation that it is wrong to use bribes. It is wrong to offer bribes and to accept bribes. The biggest reason is that the rule of law is foundational upon any community, government, organization to move forward. If we do not have those basic principles, that makes it impossible. We encourage that abroad, but of course we also encourage that as much here at home, too.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act.

This legislation highlights our government's intent to take further steps to combat corruption and bribery. The amendments included in Bill S-14 would ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Introduced in the other place on February 5, I am pleased that the legislation is moving quickly. It is my hope, as I am sure it is the hope of most reasonable people, that it will make its way through the chamber as expediently as possible and soon thereafter be enacted. I hope that members will agree that the fighting foreign corruption act sends a strong signal that corruption is not the Canadian way of doing business and highlights our own expectations that other countries follow suit.

Bill S-14 makes a number of amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, which has been in force since 1999. Canada passed that act to implement our international obligations under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Anti-Bribery Convention, and two more anti-corruption conventions passed by the Organization of American States and the United Nations.

Canada has long been committed to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the efforts of, in particular, the OECD working group on bribery. In fact, in February, Canada submitted to the secretariat our follow-up report on the implementation of the convention. We are also required to report annually to both houses of Parliament. The issue that we want to stress is that we are committed to continuing to remain open and transparent in communicating our government's actions in fighting foreign corruption.

Despite our commitment to this issue, over the last number of years, international anti-corruption bodies and Canadian stakeholders have urged us to strengthen our laws. The OECD working group on bribery issued a report in March 2011 that raised specific concerns with regard to the strength of Canada's current legislation. As I have previously stated, we were pleased to submit a report to them earlier this year highlighting Bill S-14, which shows distinct progress.

Another important stakeholder in the fight against corruption is Transparency International, which also recently came forward to make the case that Canada could do more. I am pleased to tell the House that, following the introduction of Bill S-14, Janet Keeping, chair and president of Transparency International, said that Transparency International Canada was delighted that the federal government is moving to strengthen the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act in accordance with Canada's international obligations, and encourages the government to ensure that the RCMP have the resources necessary to enforce the particular act effectively. She also said that legal changes of the kind proposed are only as good as the government's commitment to making the law meaningful on the ground.

Canada's former Foreign Affairs minister, John Manley, also complimented these recent steps. He said that good corporate citizenship at home and abroad is essential to Canada's economic success, and that these latest measures aimed at eliminating corruption and bribery would strengthen Canada's already strong reputation for good governance and ethical business practices.

For those unfamiliar with the act, the CFPOA makes it a crime in Canada to bribe a foreign public official to gain a business advantage abroad. It is a comprehensive step against the corruption of foreign officials, especially when read in conjunction with existing offences in the Canadian Criminal Code.

It makes it possible to prosecute, say, a conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit such a bribery. It covers aiding and abetting the commission of bribery, an intention in common to commit bribery, and counselling others to commit bribery. Laundering property and the proceeds of crime, including the proceeds of bribery offences, as well as the possession of property and proceeds, are already offences under the Criminal Code. The new offences being created in the CFPOA will also be captured by these Criminal Code provisions once they are in force.

Bill S-14 proposes to make six amendments to the corruption of foreign public officials act.

First, there is the introduction of a nationality jurisdiction which allows Canada to prosecute foreign bribery by Canadians or Canadian companies based on their nationality and regardless of where the bribery takes place in the world. Currently we can only do so after proving a real and substantial link between the offence and Canadian territory.

The second amendment would specify which authority can lay charges under the act. In this case, the RCMP would be the entity. In 2008, the RCMP international anti-corruption unit was established, which is dedicated to raising awareness about and enforcing the CFPOA. Currently this act does not place a limit on who is able to lay charges, but this amendment will ensure that a uniform approach is taken across the country. It highlights our government's faith in the work of the unit, and it sends a strong signal to Canadian businesses that they should contact the RCMP if they have a problem with foreign bribery.

The third amendment being proposed by Bill S-14 seeks to clarify the scope of the act by eliminating the words “for profit” from the definition of business. This would ensure that the CFPOA is not limited to bribes paid by for-profit enterprise or just in the course of business which is currently profitable.

Under Bill S-14, we are also proposing to increase the maximum penalty under the act to a maximum jail term of 14 years. The foreign bribery offence under this act is currently punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment and unlimited fines. The possibility of unlimited fines will remain as is.

In developing these amendments, our government was well aware of the implications they would have for Canadian businesses operating abroad. The global economy is still in a fragile state, and the number one priority for our government is securing jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians and Canadian businesses. That is why in January 2012, the Department of Foreign Affairs undertook consultation in the form of a workshop on new ideas for Canada's fight against foreign bribery. Over 30 stakeholders, as my hon. friend alluded to earlier, participated in this event, and these were from businesses, academia, non-government agencies and various other governmental departments.

At that time, Canadian stakeholders unanimously supported increasing penalties under the act to deter Canadian companies from engaging in foreign bribery. For this reason, and as I have already stated, Bill S-14 proposes to increase the maximum jail time from a maximum of five years' imprisonment and unlimited fines to a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment and unlimited fines.

The fifth amendment included in the fighting foreign corruption act creates a new “books and record” offence. Although there are already offences under the Criminal Code that criminalize falsification of books and records, they are not specific to foreign bribery. The penalties are stated.

The last item, and perhaps most significant amendment being proposed by Bill S-14 would eliminate the so-called “facilitation payments” exception under the CFPOA. Currently the CFPOA states that payments made to expedite or secure the performance by a foreign public official of any act of a routine nature do not constitute bribes for the purposes of the CFPOA.

I hope we all will see the merit and worth in this leadership role that Canada has taken in fighting corruption at home and abroad.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech.

Based on how he presented the bill, it is clear that we should support it so that it can be referred to committee and debated further. It deserves our attention and support, at least at second reading.

The member mentioned that the bill would send a signal that wrongdoing should be denounced, that people who witnessed wrongdoing should report it to the RCMP.

Would the bill also an effect on our ministries here in Canada when exaggerated payments are being brought to the fore? For example, Public Works was looking into buying a couple of arctic explorers. We are not even going to get the ships, we are just going to get the design, for $100 million. Other countries, such as Norway, got two ships for the same price. Then, for example, the F-35s, where we would be paying $38 billion for planes that would not even work in our Arctic.

Would the bill have any impact on the government's incredible waste and, quite frankly, questionable tactics?

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has convoluted a whole bunch of issues into what appears to be somewhat of a displeasure with the attempt, the content and the intent of the bill. We are not talking about legitimate business deals, whether we like them or not. We are talking about corrupt practices.

I would caution the member that he needs to do his homework with respect to the F-35 file or any other purchases that the Canadian military is making in the context of good business practices. This is not about that. This is about corrupt practices. Your own leader should be answering to this kind of issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would remind hon. members to address their comments to the Chair rather than their colleagues.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has read us the contents of the bill.

It does indeed contain some measures that would be very important to the police.

However, he has not told us what is not in the bill. In view of his former occupation, he could certainly argue that there are changes to be made, particularly with respect to the resources available to the police. That would be a very important change. Everyone agrees that anti-corruption legislation is needed. We will therefore refer the bill to committee, where we hope to be able to make some changes to improve it.

The police need adequate and effective resources. They are not incompetent, but they often do not have the resources they need. I think that the minister is in a good position to pressure cabinet on this point.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, a lot of this work is labour-intensive and, no doubt, we are looking at some international aspects to this particular piece of legislation or the enforcement of same.

No doubt, resources will be required. I am confident that with the passage of this legislation there would be the capacity and the ability within the RCMP, which has been mandated to deal with this issue, to enable the legislation to truly have a deterrent effect on those who are intent on this kind of activity and to ensure that those who do engage in it pay the appropriate price to society.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for this very important bill on corruption. Just listening to the comments here in the House, I know this minister has a lot of experience on the justice side and a lot of expertise in this area.

Based upon some of the comments I have heard, I would like the minister to comment on an example of what corruption would be. I think this is very important because I think members opposite are confused about what real corruption is.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her insightful and, no doubt, very focused question on the issue.

Very simply stated, I think it is along the lines of what of our Prime Minister was alluding to today, with respect to the leader of the NDP, who apparently was the recipient of an offer of a bribe. Those issues are the kinds of things that we are talking about.

A diversion from ethical, honourable, legal activity, causing people to do something that otherwise would be illegal, improper and certainly against the laws of the land, would be very clearly an illegal activity under this bill, as well.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

In looking at this bill, and given the record of the government, I find myself yearning to have a companion bill introduced in the House that would be entitled, “an act to amend the corruption of domestic public officials act”. There is a whole host of things we could be dealing with.

In terms of domestic corruption, we could be trying to deal with $90,000 payments to senators made by officials in the Prime Minister's Office allegedly to cover up illegal activity. We could be investigating Canadian senators fraudulently claiming housing and living expenses. We could be looking into people like Arthur Porter, another Conservative and a former appointment made by the Prime Minister to the CSIS oversight board, who apparently helped himself to millions of taxpayer dollars in Montreal and fled to South America. We could be looking into Conservative candidates like Peter Penashue, who spent over the election limits and effectively bought his seat by cheating. We could be looking into robocalls where the Conservative database was used to commit election fraud. Then we watched the Conservative Party try to obscure things and fight against any attempt to bring transparency into that procedure.

There is domestic corruption of public officials galore with the Conservative government. I look forward to the government introducing a bill that would attack corruption and finally clean up politics in this House for Canadians, but unfortunately, that is not the bill before us. We are dealing with foreign public officials.

The NDP, being a party that stands for ethics and transparency in Canadian politics, is proud to support this bill for referral to committee.

This bill makes four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. First, it increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. Second, it eliminates an exception for so-called facilitation payments—there is a euphemism if I have ever seen one—where a foreign official is paid to expedite the execution of their responsibilities. The government calls it a facilitation payment, but I call it a bribe. Third, the bill creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe or conceal bribery of a foreign official. Fourth, it establishes a nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

Again, New Democrats have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas, which usually have been opposed by the Conservatives, unfortunately. This bill complements legislative efforts by New Democrat MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices.

In Canada, our inability to enforce anti-corruption laws is a source of embarrassment to the country. We are pleased that the government is finally looking into these problems, but it is deplorable that it has taken so much time and that Canada had to be condemned and discredited before the government took any action.

Canadians want Canadian companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada. We want Canadian companies to have clear and consistent standards for international business. Enforced loophole-free regulations would create a level playing field for all companies while ensuring environmental, labour and human rights protection of which we all can be proud.

In a 2011 report, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all G7 countries with regarding to international bribery, with “little or no enforcement” of the scant legislation that exists. Since then the government has been responding to this national embarrassment. However, there have only been three convictions since 1999, two of which were in the last two years. I would like the government to get tough on corruption. When there have been only three convictions since 1999, that is hardly being tough.

By repealing the facilitations exception, this bill would bring Canada into line with the practices in 36 of 39 other OECD countries. However, while the rest of the bill would come into effect at royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments would take effect at an unknown future date at the will of cabinet.

The books and records rule is already being enforced in the United States at the civil level by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but Canada has no equivalent regulator. While criminal law achieves the same effect, we should be increasing our efforts in this regard.

This bill is particularly relevant to the extractive industry, where the NDP has been and remains the strongest advocate for accountability in the House. Examples include my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster's Bill C-323 as it then was, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations; and my colleague from Ottawa Centre's Bill C-486, requiring public due diligence by companies using minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

I point out that the mining bill was opposed by the Conservative government and 13 Liberals failed to show up for the vote, which led to the narrow defeat of that bill by six votes. Again, Canadians can only count on the New Democrats to bring corporate social responsibility of Canadian mining companies into international normative standards in the House.

The political elites that profit from corruption, particularly in those countries and sectors where corruption is most problematic, consist mainly of men. At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection.

While we support the bill for referral to committee, we do have some concerns. It would amend the definition of a “business” to include not-for-profit organizations. The New Democrats believe this clause should be carefully studied at committee, in relation to its impact on charitable and aid organizations, which may, in the world we live in, have to make occasional payments in order to expedite or achieve delivery of essential assistance. We must take great care around that.

The committee should also study the consequences of establishing an indictable offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, as this is the threshold at which conditional or absolute discharges or conditional sentences become impossible.

Finally, the committee should study whether the rule on facilitation payment should take effect at the whim of cabinet, as is in the current text of the bill, rather than when ordered by Parliament.

Here are some key facts and figures to consider.

There have been three convictions, as I have mentioned, under Canada's foreign bribery law since it took effect in 1999: Hydro Kleen Group was fined $25,000 in 2005 for bribing a U.S. immigration officer at the Calgary airport; Niko Resources was fined $9.5 million in June 2011 because its subsidiary in Bangladesh paid for a vehicle and travel expenses for the former Blangladeshi state minister for energy and mineral resources; and, Griffiths Energy International was fined $10 million in January of this year, after it agreed to pay $2 million to the wife of Chad's ambassador to Canada and allowed her and two others to buy shares at discounted prices in exchange for supporting an oil and gas project in Chad.

We all are watching the newspapers as we see the difficulties that SNC-Lavalin has got itself into in terms of allegedly paying bribes to foreign officials to secure contracts abroad, in the millions of dollars.

The Transparency International Bribe Payers Index in 2011 ranked the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. This should be of great concern to Canadians because Canada is a world centre for mining and oil and gas industries and companies. These companies, among all sectors as stakeholders, should want to establish very clean, high-level regulations and rules regarding acceptable corporate conduct. Moreover, the mining and oil and gas industries are the second and third most likely to engage in grand bribery targeting of high-ranking officials and politicians. This makes a bill like Bill S-14 especially important in these sectors.

The fact that the government does not enforce the anti-corruption laws is a national shame. We are pleased that it is finally paying attention to these problems. It is nevertheless deplorable that it has taken so much time, and that Canada had to be condemned and discredited before the government took any action.

For business, for the environment and labour and for Canada's international reputation, we urge that this bill go through Parliament and I urge the Conservatives to make the amendments necessary to get the support of all parties in the House.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr.Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and work as the NDP's international trade critic.

It has become increasingly important for all companies, wherever they may be in the world, be it in Canada or abroad, to respect the social contract.

They have a responsibility to respect the communities where they set up business. I would like the member to elaborate on this issue.

I would like him to say more about the matter.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to thank my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard for the fine work that she does in the House and for her contributions to the debate, which are always of very high quality and perceptive.

What the question really raises is the fact that in an increasingly interconnected global world, what Canadian companies do abroad matters. It has always mattered, but never has it been so fundamentally important to Canada's reputation on the world stage that our corporations act above reproach, that we set a standard on the world stage for conducting business in a legal and ethical manner. It is only by doing that, by showing an example here in the Canadian Parliament, by requiring high standards for Canadian corporations acting abroad, that we can legitimately urge other countries to carry the same standards in their jurisdictions as well.

What we all want in the House is for the standards of ethics and legality to improve in Canada and around the world. I think we can start by passing laws like this and by putting some teeth into these laws as well.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. We have had versions of this debate in a previous session, when a private member's bill was brought forward around corporate social responsibility with a particular emphasis on the mining companies. I know the diminishing caucus of the New Democrats with respect to mining might explain why they are more focused on government intervention.

When I attended the PDAC conference this year or the year prior there was a lot of excitement about e3 Plus, a program that inspires and sets out a framework for the corporations, particularly mining and energy companies, to act responsibly when abroad, and sets the balance to keep corporate operations here in Canada, particularly for our mining companies.

I was wondering if the member could comment on what his proposals might be or what his thoughts are on letting the industry do some self-regulation when it comes to corporate social responsibility, rather than this paternalistic kind of approach that he is advocating.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I see diminishing in the House is the integrity and credibility of the Conservative government over the last two months. All Canadians just have to open up a newspaper to see that.

I do not know what the member is talking about. We have members on this side of the House, such as the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who were miners. We have people on this side of the House, such as the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who worked in the mines of this country. We do not take any lessons from the Conservatives about experience or what is healthy for the mining industry.

What is important is that corporate social responsibility is an issue. Right now we have a serious investment by a Canadian mining company in Chile, which has been halted by the Chilean courts, the Pascua-Lama mine, because of environmental degradation and violations of Chilean law. We just heard from a Greek delegation about a Canadian company's mining operations in northern Greece, which are causing great concern.

It is time that we recognize that Canadian mining companies play a very important role in our economy. However, they benefit from having strong laws and ethics applied to them too, and the whole world would also benefit from watching Canada expect more from our corporations. It is good for business, it is good for Canadians and it is good for Canada's reputation.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr.Speaker, I rise this evening in the House to talk about Bill S–14, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

I cannot ignore the fact that this bill has come from the Senate, where there is still a lot of commotion over ethics issues. It is, therefore, ironic that this bill, which deals with the corruption of foreign public officials, originated in the Senate.

As has been previously mentioned, the NDP will support the bill at second reading, because we think it is important. As industry critic, I believe that Canadian industries and companies operating abroad must focus on three pillars. The same could be said of companies operating here, in Canada. Reference is often made to economic development, which is often the only pillar on which development is based. Economic development is intended to be profitable, and good for the economy, period.

The two other pillars, which must form the basis for the development and establishment of industries or companies, seem neglected. One of these pillars is social responsibility. When an industry is developed, social responsibility must be a focus. It is imperative that there be the social guarantee to be able to open a business in a particular locality.

This is the case with many mining companies. However, other types of companies also establish themselves abroad and they must ensure, at the very least, that the surrounding communities have a stake in potential impacts, and that they be able to participate in the establishment of the business in question. They can do this by, for example, providing labour, however this labour must be paid, working conditions must be good, and health and occupational health and safety must be a concern.

In fact, there seem to be a large number of articles written on Canadian companies that have established themselves abroad, and also companies that outsource offshore, where there is no respect for working conditions, occupational health and safety, and a number of other factors.

We agree that under our current system, it is important for companies to be able to establish themselves and survive economically. However, we can no longer ignore this type of social responsibility, which must be taken into account. In other words, responsible working conditions must be provided.

I shall now turn to the last pillar. The environment must also be respected. A business cannot set up just anywhere, nor can this be done in just any old fashion, without taking into consideration the impact on the environment. Also, this issue is often raised in articles around the world. Reference is made to Canadian companies, among others, that have set up businesses abroad and do not respect the environment. They justify their actions by saying that there is no environmental regulation, and that they will do business anywhere, and any way they see fit. Yet, it is absolutely crucial that measures be taken to protect the environment and, in doing so, protect the surrounding communities. All of this is part of a framework of responsibility that must be developed.

Often, in order to set up business and circumvent these two principles of social and environmental responsibility, unfortunately, and regrettably, payments make it possible to break the rules that are enforced and put in place here. They are not enforced abroad.

As we have stated, when ethics rules, standards and laws are established, the same should be applied abroad. In fact, even more should be done when a business is established abroad because Canada's good name is at stake. We have an international reputation to uphold.

I think that Canadian industries and companies that set up business abroad are responsible corporate citizens. However, there have been, and still are, cases involving certain Canadian business people who have failed to demonstrate their sense of responsibility and ethics.

In my opinion, the bill will establish rules that everyone will have to follow. This goes without saying in a society such as ours, where law and order are respected. We also respect working conditions, human rights, and environmental laws. However, we are sometimes left wondering, especially when the Conservative government violates a number of environmental protections put in place over the years in order to protect the environment. We should ensure that businesses operating abroad continue to adopt our Canadian practices.

The New Democrats have always encouraged Canadian businesses abroad to be transparent and responsible. That is a top priority. In fact, Canadians generally want their businesses to represent Canada abroad in a more respectable and responsible way. Moreover, Canadian businesses want clear and consistent standards for international trade for Canadian businesses operating abroad. When cases of corruption are uncovered, it is these businesses' reputations that are tarnished.

As I already mentioned, the NDP will support the bill at second reading. We also want Canada to restore its reputation as a responsible corporate citizen and businesses operating abroad to focus on the three pillars that I mentioned: respect for human rights, working conditions, occupational health and safety, compliance with environmental standards, and consideration of the economic dimension. However, that dimension does not exist in isolation. It must be based on more than one pillar.

That is all the speaking time I had at my disposal. My time went by very quickly. I hope that I have covered the issue. I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have this lasting feeling that the bill is yet another attempt by the government to use current issues to score political points, without really thinking about what should be done to solve this problem.

It takes both human and financial resources to successfully fight corruption. With all the cuts at the CRA and in other federal programs, both at the international and national levels, how can we fix these problems with the bill if there is no additional human and financial resources?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because this is an issue I did not have time to address.

I think we agree that the bill has very good intentions. The issue is how to take action. I think the hon. member has raised this point before. A large number of cuts were made. We wonder how this bill can be implemented, how we can ensure that there is more than the three convictions obtained since 1999.

A number of issues were reported in the media. They relate to things like the environment, working conditions and Canadian companies put on trial abroad.

How are we going to implement the bill when we know that this government has made major cuts to several agencies?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about corruption. However, we do not talk about the fact that Canadian companies are reported as being responsible for the persecution of unions in countries where they are doing business, and are even involved in criminal activities.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this issue.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, corruption may involve paying public officials. However, there are other types of crime committed by companies such as, for example, not complying with labour standards or working conditions like those in Canada where health and safety standards are in place. There is also the violence against workers who must work in truly deplorable conditions.

I thank my colleague for raising this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while we do support this bill and its ultimate passage, we would love to be able to see the bill get even stronger in terms of the potential for amendments, whether by Liberal members of Parliament or NDP members of Parliament, or whether it is private members' bills on the order paper.

Is the idea of trying to enhance the legislation by amendment something the member would like to see the government accept?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we can always hope that, at some point, this government will want to improve the bills presented here, particularly when they are reviewed in committee, when experts are heard and when amendments are proposed. That is certainly our role.

I think the opposition has played it very well so far by presenting amendments precisely to improve the legislation. That is what we want, because we raised some issues during the debates here.

It is going to be very important to be able to propose amendments in committee to improve the bill. We strongly hope that the government will listen to reason, pass these amendments with enthusiasm and show an openness that it has not displayed so far.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that this bill was introduced, but it is disappointing that it came from the Senate.

Last year, other bills on the same topic were rejected. Now, a door has opened. This bill addresses corruption of foreign public officials. The NDP is in favour of clear rules requiring that Canadians and Canadian businesses abroad be accountable and responsible.

We will support this bill so that it can be sent to committee. However, there needs to be some ambition here. This bill is lacking many components that would implement basic standards to ensure that companies doing business overseas respect human rights and are congenial. Those standards would allow Canada to become a model country in doing business overseas.

During a Senate committee meeting on February 28, 2013, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the following:

...our government's priority is encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity...It is reflected in the need to position Canada as a reliable supplier of resources which emerging markets need to grow...

We need to position our country as a reliable resource. We need to be a model country, but there is still work to be done in that regard. I would like to talk about what is happening with certain Canadian countries abroad. I will just give a few examples.

We sometimes think that things are wonderful everywhere. We talk about corruption elsewhere without looking in our own back yard. For example, there are Canadian public servants who receive bribes. Turn on the television and you might be shocked to see what is happening here in Canada.

There have been some examples on television, on the CBC. For example, the RCMP investigated a Canadian mining company's activities in Mexico. The story did not end well. The people in the concerned area in Mexico did not want the Canadian mining company, Blackfire, to set up shop in Chiapas, and that resulted in criminal activity.

In March 2010, the coalition MiningWatch Canada informed the RCMP and provided proof that money had been paid to the mayor of Chicomuselo. However, nothing really came of it because the RCMP also needs the means to investigate. Bills are great, but it is hard if there is no money to implement them.

Finally, the Mexican spokesperson in this story was killed. No one knows who killed him, but he was a harsh critic of a Canadian company. The company was accused of killing him, but no one could prove it. It is odd that this man, who fought to defend his land and ensure that the mining company conducted its business properly, got himself killed. That gives us food for thought. Just go to Radio-Canada for the source.

As far as Guatemala is concerned, last year we welcomed a group of people who came to talk to us about the way Canadian companies operate in these countries. They were talking about the involvement of security staff from Canadian companies in recent acts of violence that could result in civil suits.

I am talking about Tahoe Resources, a Vancouver-based company. This company sets up in a region without consulting the people who live there, those who will have to live with the impact of its activities on the environment and the water they consume.

These Canadian companies are giving us a bad name because the people are not going to say it was the Canadian company's fault; they are going to blame Canadians. We have to be careful. Yes, it is a matter of corruption, but the problem is even broader than that. We have to be more ambitious and draft a bill to crack down on offending companies.

Tahoe Resources' project heightened the conflicts in the region. Civilian security officers came down on the community and hurt people, some seriously. We do not want that. We want good relations.

As members said earlier, our government's priority is to promote jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, but not by destroying our neighbouring countries. I have another example: the police search of SNC-Lavalin.

Nonetheless, I will close on a note of hope. Earlier, one of my colleagues was talking about Pascua-Lama in Chile. This is another Canadian company. The local people demonstrated for months, but the company kept operating. The same people went to court and won. The government had no choice. It had to put an end to the activities of the Canadian company. The company was unable to set up there because it had no consideration for the local people.

This brings me to another point. In Spanish we say that we must have un acuerdo social, une licencia sociale. We must get along socially. It is similar to a driver's licence, but it is social license. It means that these companies, except for the corruption issue, are very honest. That is what we hear. They must consult people and explain to them how their mining activities may affect their lives. Before doing anything, they must secure social license. Otherwise, this leads to conflicts in the country, and they do not want that.

We signed free trade agreements with these countries and we do not want to create problems there. We want wealth for both sides.

In Chile, a court ruling forced one of the largest gold companies in Latin America, the Pascua-Lama mine, to stop all its activities. The Chilean justice felt that the project did not meet environmental standards. It is a good thing the country had some environmental standards. In the end, the company will not leave. It is now negotiating to resume its activities next year. That is great. We should not expect this to happen overnight.

This is a good bill and the NDP will support it, but we must go further. We must be more ambitious. Canada has an opportunity to be a role model. For a long time, the United States was always mentioned as a role model. If Canada creates jobs, if it establishes mines elsewhere, if it develops a policy with a minimum of social agreements that respect people's way of life—and not just the environment—it may become a role model, and other countries will open their doors to us. We will be proud of what we will be doing abroad.

The bill is particularly important for the mining industry, of which the NDP is a strong supporter. In the past, Bills C-323 and C-486 were not passed. The time has come to retrieve them and to read them. Then, perhaps members opposite will realize that we were not so wrong and that the NDP was right on target, because it was able to look a little further, instead of thinking only about the money going into the companies' pockets. Moreover, these companies often do not even pay taxes in the countries where they settle.

I invite all hon. members to be more ambitious and to dream of a country that can behave like a good big brother and be a role model. This is a start, but it is not the end. We must go further.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from the NDP, and I want to point out that every opportunity the NDP has to criticize Canadian companies, Canadian jobs and Canadian workers around the world, it seems to take those opportunities to put down Canadian companies, Canadian job opportunities and Canadian initiatives.

Throughout her speech, the member talked about examples. I am wondering if she is aware that as Canadian companies go around the world to different countries, quite often in these countries they actually have higher standards than the countries themselves. Our companies are working to increase the economic viability of the countries they are operating within. They are actually raising the level of economic development and wages in these countries. If Canadian companies do not do that, it is going to be companies from other countries that do it, and they may not have the absolutely high standards that we do.

As Canadians, we want to see our companies out there in the world. I would argue with her that we are leaders. We have some of the best companies in the world in development.

She has stated that the New Democrats would like to support this bill. I wonder if she could put forward the amendments they would be considering so we could have a look at them instead of having them dropped on us during committee. I would like to see how she would improve the bill because I think the bill is very good the way it is.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In the past, some members of my party introduced bills on this subject, but they were not approved, which is a shame.

Canada does indeed have high standards, but these apply only when companies are based in Canada and not when they are based abroad, unfortunately.

I provided examples and mentioned that people had been killed, in addition to talking about conflicts. These examples have even been reported in the newspapers. In Chile, for example, the company acknowledged having lost the case, but indicated it would renew negotiations with the locals. Operations will therefore resume, but with some basic standards.

I therefore propose adding to the bill the fact of having a social agreement, consent among the locals at the site where the Canadian company will be operating. If there is consent, there is no problem. Alternatively, if there is no consent, violence will occur, and this is what should be avoided.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be fairly clear on the position of the Liberal Party of Canada on this legislation. We see it as a step forward, but we also see it as a lost opportunity, in that the government could have done a whole lot more. We have seen that demonstrated. In particular, a member of Parliament from the Liberal caucus brought in the sunshine bill that would have had more of an impact. Ideally, I would love to see some of these amendments to give the bill more strength.

We recognize that whether it is bribery, corruption or kickbacks, these types of things occur and have a devastating impact on many countries around the world. Even though we have 95%-plus in terms of excellent companies that contribute in many different ways to many different countries, a small fraction of companies cause a great deal of concern, and we should all be concerned. This is the reason we believe that the legislation is necessary.

Canada needs to play a stronger leadership role, and bringing forward legislation is one of the ways we can do that. We hope to see the government being open to amendments. Would the member not agree that the government would be best advised to accept amendments to enhance and give strength to Bill S-14?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not ask a question, he made a comment.

We fully agree that this is indeed a first step. I think the people on the other side of the House agree as well. The fact still remains that we can improve the bill and go further. I want to emphasize that we need some ambition.

I think Canada will lead by example. If it can sit at the table and talk to people from other countries as equals, a bright prosperous future will open before all of us. We must continue in this direction. This is a first step.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. I would also like to congratulate her for the exemplary work she does in her riding. I would like her to keep up the good work.

Her speech was very interesting, especially because she highlighted the problems that we see outside Canada. That is the impetus for the bill that is currently before us.

Sometimes the problems that we have to solve abroad originate here. We must not hide the fact that Canadian corporations working abroad do not always act ethically. I believe that this bill could do much to defend the rights of people outside Canada.

We believe in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also believe that people who live outside Canada should have fundamental rights and that we have an obligation to protect them.

It is true that Canada's reputation abroad is sometimes dubious or is declining. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. On a number of occasions, Canada has shown that it is not interested in protecting rights outside the country. I believe that my colleague made some very interesting points about that.

Does my colleague believe that the bill is enough to restore Canada's international reputation? Do we have to do more?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is just a first step. I know that full well.

I see the work being done with ParlAmericas and with friendship groups in other countries. However, even the members who are part of other associations feel we could be going further. It is a first step, but it is not enough.

This bill lacks ambition. They need to be more ambitious, and they need to listen to members on the other side of the House. They need to listen to the opposition. We have plenty of good proposals. They need to listen to us. That is what democracy looks like: working together and not simply saying that because they have a majority, they can do whatever they want. We have very good ideas and we will share them for everyone's benefit.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 9 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 9:00 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:00 p.m.)