Bill C-486 (Historical)

Conflict Minerals Act

An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa

This enactment requires Canadian companies to exercise due diligence in respect of the exploitation and trading of designated minerals originating in the Great Lakes Region of Africa in seeking to ensure that no armed rebel organization or criminal entity or public or private security force that is engaged in illegal activities or serious human rights abuses has benefited from any transaction involving such minerals.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, and as we are debating this at second reading, it still has to go to committee.

I have listened with interest to the debate in the House today. It appears that all parties will be supporting this bill. We are debating it in principle but, nevertheless, it is important for us to go through the bill to examine it, as we should all legislation, and then it will go to committee.

I want to begin by saying that these last few weeks in the House have been particularly difficult because the government has used time allocation, a form of closure, I think 47 times, if I am keeping the tab correctly. It is really quite incredible that so much legislation has been rushed through.

We serve our constituents in this place. We do our work in the constituency, but our role in this House is due diligence in examining legislation and going through it. Even if we are going to support it, we have to go through it. That is part of holding the government to account in our parliamentary democracy, so it is very disturbing that we see the pattern over and over again. It has become routine. Other colleagues in the House have commented earlier that bills are now pro forma. We are expected to have a couple of hours of debate and take a cursory look, and then there is a time allocation for going through committee, report stage, and third reading. It is all established by timelines.

As members well know, that is not the way to do parliamentary business.

I wanted to begin my remarks with that because, as someone who has been around here a few years, I have watched the erosion of parliamentary and democratic practice in this House.

I can almost hear the voice of Bill Blaikie in my head, the former member for Winnipeg—Transcona. He was one of those folks in this place who had the long-term memory to know what had changed over the years. When change happens incrementally, just a little snippet at a time, it is difficult to get that overview. I think it would be useful one day to have that overview and to actually look at how much certain practices have changed in the House, say, from 10 years ago or 20 years ago. I think we would all be quite shocked, actually, no matter what matter party we belong to.

In any event, we are debating this particular bill today.

I want to begin by saying, as others have remarked today, that the bill is long overdue. Canada has, really, an embarrassing record on corruption overseas, in terms of lack of legislation.

As many have pointed out today, Transparency International, a very credible organization that monitors corruption and bribery in terms of what happens in different places in the world, in its 2011 report, ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with regard to international bribery. It pointed out that we had little or no enforcement, based upon the very minimal legislation we had.

There is no question that this is absolutely long overdue. It begs this question. Why does it take so long?

We look at the legislative agenda and look at all of the little boutique bills that come through on the Criminal Code, when they do not need to happen. Why has it taken so many years for something as major as this, which would deal with crime and corruption? Why has it taken so many years for anything to come forward? Where is the balance here? Where are the priorities? We are sort of pulling apart the Criminal Code clause by clause and adding in more mandatory minimum sentences. We have had so many Conservative backbencher bills. Yet, with something as major as this, in terms of Canada's role in the international community, we are hauled on the carpet by an organization that monitors international bribery and corruption, which has said, “You guys have got a pretty bad record; in fact you're basically the worst of all of the highly industrialized countries”. This is an embarrassment.

Further, there have only been three convictions in the last number of years, in fact, since 1999, and two of those were in the last two years. This is a pretty appalling record.

Suffice it to say I am glad, at least, that we are debating this bill today. At least the bill would take some steps.

Just to focus for a moment on what this bill would do, for those who are watching the debate, there would be four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. One of them would be to increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from five to fourteen years. That is a fairly significant change.

The second change in the bill would eliminate an exception that had been in operation for what is called facilitation payments, where foreign officials are paid to expedite the execution of their responsibilities. I will come back to this, because there are some concerns about it. While we agree that this exception should be eliminated, we have to examine the impact of that, for example, on NGOs that are operating in extremely difficult circumstances in political environments that are very risky and where they have to provide payments to get essential emergency humanitarian goods through—for example, going through police checkpoints. One does have to find that balance.

Third, the bill would create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe or conceal bribery of a foreign official. This is a very important change in terms of ensuring that transparency goes right the way down the line.

Finally, the bill would establish a nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act. What this means is that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences that are committed overseas. Again, that is a very important measure.

I want to say very clearly that New Democrats have long supported clear rules that require transparency and accountability by both Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. In fact, the NDP has had a number of bills in this regard. One of my colleagues, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, had Bill C-323, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations. The member for Ottawa Centre had Bill C-486, which would require public due diligence by companies using minerals in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

These are very important issues for Canadians, because we know that the extraction industry in Canada and the way it operates overseas is a major business concern. The way those companies do business is something of great concern to Canadians in terms of ethical practices. We have seen many movements here in Canada, including NGOs, the labour movement and individual citizens who have made sure they became active on this issue.

I want to point out something about a bill we voted on not that long ago, Bill C-300, which was a Liberal member's bill. When I raised transparency in the debate, the Liberal member for Charlottetown who replied to me pointed to Bill C-300 as another attempt to bring about better transparency and corporate accountability in foreign practices.

What is really interesting, and I am sure many members here will remember, is that it was defeated in part because 13 Liberal members voted against it. I remember the bill when it came up. There was intense advocacy for the bill from major NGOs across the country. They did an incredible job. The bill itself was very reasonable. It laid out basic standards for practice. However, there was, of course, a lobby against the bill. It was really quite shocking that 13 Liberal members voting against the bill resulted in the bill being defeated by a mere 6 votes.

We actually did come close to having that bill go through the House of Commons. I know that many of the organizations and individuals that had supported the bill were quite shocked that it had been defeated and were hugely disappointed about the amount of energy, time and effort that had gone into it.

It was a wonderful example of how Canadians look beyond their own border, look globally to see what Canada is doing. They had paid great attention to the need for Canadian corporations, companies and businesses to be accountable, to engage in ethical practices and to ensure there is not bribery and exploitative practices taking place in terms of labour rights or the environment.

These are things Canadians are actually very concerned about. I always feel very inspired when I see these organizations and people, whether they are putting out petitions or sending us emails. People really care about what we do in other parts of the world. We care about whether or not people are being exploited.

Just a little while ago, my colleague from Ottawa Centre talked about the situation in Bangladesh. I saw the story too, last night on CBC, and it is gut-wrenching and it makes us want to jump up and ask what we have to do to make sure these kinds of terrible, appalling conditions no longer exist.

We are talking about thousands of people who lose their lives because they work in terrible conditions where safety is disregarded, where people are not paid decent wages. If we layer on top of that all of the bribery and corruption that goes on, this is a multi-billion dollar business in terms of corruption and unethical practices.

I do not think the bill before us would address all of that, so the other bills we have before the House, particularly from the NDP members that I mentioned, are critical to ensuring there is a comprehensive approach to the way we are dealing with this situation.

We do have some concerns about the bill, which I would like to put on the record. assuming that the bill does get referred to committee. Because the bill would amend the definition of a business to now include not-for-profit organizations, we believe that this should be studied very closely at committee, and obviously witnesses need to be brought in to look at the impact of this particular change on charitable and aid organizations. As I mentioned earlier, the reality is that those organizations do sometimes, out of sheer necessity, have to make payments to expedite or achieve delivery of very essential items and humanitarian goods. This is something that is out there in the real world.

The bill is really tackling corruption and bribery, from the point of view that money is being made, money is being put in people's pockets and officials at embassies and so on are being bribed. That is what we are trying to get at, so I think we have to be very careful that we do not, by consequence, lay down a rule that could actually have a negative impact on organizations that are legitimately and in good faith trying to do very important work in some of these global areas where there is political, military and civil conflict going on. To make sure that kind of aid is delivered in a proper way is very important. We are hoping this issue would be examined more closely at committee.

The second item we think needs further examination is that the committee should also study the consequences of establishing an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, because once 14 years is reached, it is actually the threshold at which conditional or absolute discharges of conditional sentences become impossible. It is obviously a much more serious penalty, and the committee, when it receives the bill, should examine that very carefully to make sure there is a balance in terms of our judicial system and conditional sentencing or the question of absolute discharges.

It is easy to make a blanket case, and again we have seen that so often with the Conservative government. It tends to make harsh, blanket rules that do not allow for discretion within our court system. Our court system has a history and a tradition of allowing judicial discretion, so judges can actually examine individual cases and the circumstances that warrant a harsher or a more lenient approach. That is what balance in the judicial system is about.

Therefore, one has to be very careful that in bringing forward new legislation we do not tip that balance and create a system that becomes so rigid that it becomes counterproductive. As the penalty is so harsh, people could end up pleading not guilty more frequently, or prosecutors may even be more reluctant to bring forward charges. There could be unintended consequences of having penalties that are so harsh. This is an issue that we think should be looked at in the bill. We support, in principle, the penalty being increased and the sentencing threshold being increased. However, we have to look more carefully at whether 14 years is the right cut-off.

Finally, in terms of changes that we think need to be looked at, there is the question of the rule on the facilitation payments that I spoke about earlier. We need to figure out how it impacts NGOs and non-profits. That issue would not be part of royal assent but rather would be under the consideration of cabinet, which is in the current text. That one aspect of the bill, if this bill were passed as is, would not go ahead with the rest of the bill. Therefore, that has to be examined. We need to know the reason that is being put aside. The discussion on the facilitation payments as they would impact NGOs might help inform that debate, but it is something we need to look at.

I also want to talk briefly about more current situations. We heard today from the member for Ottawa Centre, who updated the House on a communiqué he had received from the G8 that is currently taking place. It was quite interesting. He pointed out that in this communiqué the issues of corruption and transparency were quite prominent. His point was that we need to know that our own government is committed, not only to the words in these communiqués, but that it is actually going to follow up. I thought the member used a very good example when he spoke about international treaties that we sign for which there is no follow-up.

The example he used was Bill S-10 that was rushed through this House a few days ago, on cluster munitions. I was one of the people who spoke to that bill. The member pointed out very clearly in the debate on that bill that the NDP believes Bill S-10 would actually undermine the very international treaty that it is meant to be following up. The point is that when these communiqués come out and these commitments are made in places like the G8, we need to know they are actually going to be followed up. We need to know that those commitments mean something.

Again, we get back to this particular bill, Bill S-14, that has taken so long to come forward. Why has it taken so long? Why is there not a greater priority and emphasis on these kinds of bills? In the G8 communiqué, among the issues that were flagged, was the need to have greater transparency and a public registry.

The member for Ottawa Centre told us that one of the proposals is the need for a regime whereby companies would not be able to set up a shell company. Even if there is good legislation, if enforcement is to be taken on issues of bribery and corruption, it is very difficult. There could be a lack of political will, as I have just spoken about, or it could be that they are trying to figure out who the operatives are in a particular company. There is the idea of a public registry and the need for better transparency, as well as the notion that we should not allow elaborate legal complexities for the setting up of shell companies that in effect allow individuals and operatives to hide behind other entities. That makes it much more difficult to figure out who is doing what and where enforcement should be applied.

That is a very significant issue, and it is not covered in the bill, so it does show us that the bill does not go far enough. I think that was the member's point this morning.

Nevertheless, we are supporting the bill at second reading. We will pay great attention to it in committee. We will seek to improve the bill so that it lives up to its spirit and intent, which is ensuring that we tackle bribery and corruption by public officials in other countries.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak, yet again, to Bill S-14. We on this side of the House have mentioned before that we support the bill. We believe that we could go further, as I mentioned in my comments and questions to the parliamentary secretary.

As I have done with all of these bills, I have to start off with our concern and my concern about the way the bill came to us. We have a bill on foreign corruption that has come to us from the other place. When a bill has an “S” in front of the bill number, it is an indication that it comes from the Senate. It has been said numerous times since we have been debating the bill that the government should have seen fit to start this bill here in the House. After all, the elected representatives, I think, are the best people to actually look at corruption, notwithstanding what is happening in the other place, speaking of corruption. Every day there is another story of corruption in the other place. I have to start by underlining that point.

The government seems to not even blush anymore when bills are sent over from the other place. At least on this bill, it should show some contrition that there is a bill, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, that would crack down on foreign corruption, yet it comes from the other place, an unelected body, that is mired in corruption right now.

It is rather stark to see this happening with the current government, which claimed that it was going to be different. Now it has become just like the other guys. The government brings in closure and uses the Senate, abuses the Senate, to do its toil. That is what the government has done with Bill S-14. No one even blushes anymore. It is just business as usual with the current government. It uses the Senate to do its bidding, even on something as important as foreign corruption.

The bill itself, as has been mentioned, would simply bring us up to the minimum standard of our allies. The government was embarrassed by our critique, on this side of the House, in terms of how the standards of our companies abroad have fallen in terms of enforcement on corruption and corporate social responsibility. We just saw a news report last night about what happened in Bangladesh. We should not forget that. The NDP called for hearings at the foreign affairs committee. We would like to see more done on that.

It is about Canada getting back into the game and actually leading. The bill does not go far enough.

I will just give a quick résumé. The bill would make four major changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

It would increase the maximum sentence, as was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.

It would eliminate the exception for so-called facilitation payments, which is basically paying someone to grease the wheels to get a contract moving. Interestingly, we saw allegations of that happening in Montreal. Maybe we should be applying those rules more forcefully here. Maybe the government should be taking a look at who its candidates are when it recruits them and who it hires as staff when ministers hire ex-candidates. Hopefully, it will do a better job on that.

The bill would also create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records. We just received a communiqué from the G8, which came out half an hour ago. In fact, if the government is going to live up to what it has signed on to, it would actually have to amend the bill further, because there is an incentive in this communiqué for the government to do more in this area and to be more transparent in terms of books and records.

The fourth part of the bill would establish national jurisdiction such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences under the act that are committed overseas. They cannot go overseas and do something they could not do here.

I think it is important to put it into context. As I mentioned, we just received the communiqué from the G8 conference. It touches on many of the aspects we are dealing with in Bill S-14. It is a 10-point communiqué. I am not going to read all 10 points, because they are not all directly related to the bill we are debating.

The first point the G8 leaders signed on to is that “[t]ax authorities across the world should automatically share information to fight the scourge of tax evasion”.

When we talk about the corruption of foreign officials, a lot has to do with the way money moves around. I am delighted to see that this is in the communiqué. We will see if the government takes this seriously.

Second is that countries “should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes, and multinationals should report to tax authorities what they pay where”. This has been mentioned already by the parliamentary secretary. It would mean more transparency of companies' operations.

Third is that “[c]ompanies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily”. If we do not have this in place, the S-14 provisions would be very difficult to enforce, in some cases, because if we do not know who owns companies, we do not know who is influencing the companies. We do not have a full profile. In other words, if we were trying to establish that there was a payment to a company official, and we did not know who the company belonged to, it would be very difficult to prosecute.

We have heard from the G8 meetings that Canada was fighting this. We should be fighting back and getting the government to comply. It turns on the issue of beneficial ownership. That means that a company is hidden behind a shell. What the G8 is looking at, and what Mr. Cameron is pushing for and what number three in the communiqué is about, is that there be full disclosure. Companies can no longer have this parlour trick of hiding behind beneficial ownership. That means having a public registry of all companies showing exactly who owns them. We do not have that right now. Prime Minister Cameron said, “Personally, I would hope the whole world will move towards public registers of beneficial ownership”.

Aid agencies say that private registries would be second best. In other words, there would be a registry, but it would not be public; it would be in government. We are hearing that only the U.K. and the U.S. have committed to having public registries.

I hope the government will take this seriously, because if we are to deal with foreign corruption, we have to have transparency. If we are serious about this communiqué we have signed on to, we have to have a public registry of all companies, who owns them and where they sit. Otherwise, we will not be able to live up to the spirit of transparency.

Fourth is that “[d]eveloping countries should have the information and capacity to collect the taxes owed them—and other countries have a duty to help them”. This is critical when it comes to the issue of being able to influence foreign officials. What we often hear, on the ground, in emerging or developing economies is that officials are able to take advantage of their power to approve projects, et cetera, mainly because there is not a requisite tax system with the proper enforcement and oversight, so they can get away with it. This is what leads to corruption, because there is no proper oversight.

This is extremely important, because obviously, it would help benefit their citizens. It is also a way to deal with the potential for corruption. If there is full disclosure and sunlight, if you will, on who owes taxes and whether they have been paid, it is a disincentive for officials to use their power for corruption.

The fifth point is very important for us in the NDP: “Extractive companies should report payments to all governments—and governments should publish income from such companies”.

We have heard a positive message from the government that it will get behind this. We need to see legislation. From what we have seen and heard from the government, there is no requirement that these reports are to be made public. It is important that we fully embrace transparency and not go just halfway.

By the way, mining companies have said that they would sign on to this. I am hoping that all the extractives will get behind it.

Number six is very near and dear to my heart. It states: “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. As members know, this is the whole issue of conflict minerals. In places like the eastern part of the Congo, where there are human rights abuses and massive corruption, it is a conflict zone. Minerals that go into all of our devices, such as BlackBerrys and cell phones, come from a conflict zone. In essence, we are all, unknowingly for many people, carrying a piece of a conflict in our electronics, because we do not have the proper sourcing of minerals.

What the communiqué says is that “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. This is a challenge to the government. Are the Conservatives going to get on board? Bill C-486, which I put forward, would allow us to comply with what we have seen in the United States with Dodd-Frank. Legislation is in place to ensure that all minerals are from legitimate sources and are not aiding and abetting conflict. The Europeans are moving in this direction. The OECD, which we talked about in terms of this bill, has provided guidelines on ensuring that there is proper and appropriate oversight when it comes to sourcing minerals.

The sixth point is very important, and it is something I have worked on with a lot of people, including people in this place, to get Canada on board and at least get us up to the standard that has been established by others.

Number seven is very important: “Land transactions should be transparent, respecting the property rights of local communities”. When it comes to the corruption of foreign officials, one of the biggest trends we have seen in the last while is the acquisition of land by foreign countries, particularly in developing countries. There is a massive land grab going on right now, particularly in Africa. I will name some countries. China is big into this right now. It is banking land, taking over land. We need to ensure that local communities are respected.

Let us be honest. We are not perfect here in Canada. When we talk about social licence for companies to do their work in extractives, oil and gas, we need to respect local communities. This is an extremely important and urgent issue in developing countries, because we are seeing massive land grabs. It is about food security and about certain countries banking land and keeping an eye on their needs for minerals, oil, gas, et cetera, and in some cases, even food.

Number eight states that governments should roll back some measures on trade that they think would be helpful for trade.

Number nine is about ensuring that things are streamlined, particularly at borders between countries. We certainly know that issue with respect to our friends south of the border. Mr. Speaker, representing your constituency, you do not have to be told that this is extremely important.

Number 10, the last part of the communiqué from the G8, states: “Governments should publish information on laws, budgets, spending, national statistics, elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. That is actually for us. I am going to read that one again. It is cogent, because if we are going to talk about fighting corruption abroad, we need to be transparent at home. The G8 has signed on to this.

“Governments should publish information on laws, budgets”—think about the parliamentary budget officer here—“spending, national statistics”—this is very interesting, considering what we have done to Stats Canada—“elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. Number 10 needs urgently to be brought into force here.

I have listed these G8 points that just came out in the communiqué, because as I said in my comments when I questioned the parliamentary secretary, this bill does not go far enough. If we are going to seriously deal with corruption abroad, and we are going to actually be leaders, then it is not good enough just to get up to a minimum standard. That is not the Canadian way. I feel that we are living in the past with the current government.

The way the current government seems to operate, and the parliamentary secretary said it well himself, is that the Conservatives brought forward Bill S-14 because the OECD had cited us as being laggards. It was not until that happened that the government decided to bring forward this legislation. That is not the Canadian way. We should be leading. We should be looking at our practices to see where we are in terms of other jurisdictions.

Everyone knew that we were laggards. Transparency International has been saying so for quite a while.

We can look at this 10-point communiqué of the G8. Are we going to at least meet the standard of our allies? I would like us to see us go further.

For instance, I am concerned when it comes to the issue that Prime Minister Cameron cited about companies being transparent about who owns them so that we can deal with tax evasion. We are hearing that Canada is not going to do that. We are not going to publicly publish who owns a company.

As I mentioned, we need to deal with corruption seriously. We need to have full daylight, and if the government is only going to go halfway on this initiative, we will again fall back. We will be back in this House debating a bill to bring the standard up yet again. The government should embrace what both the U.K. and the U.S. are planning to do and have public registries listing who owns which companies. It should stop the shell game, particularly this practice of “beneficial ownership”.

The point is to make sure that we are transparent when it comes to the extractive industry. The government talked about signing on to the initiative for ensuring that all payments made between foreign governments and Canadian companies are transparent, but to whom? Is the information going to be kept within government, or would it be public? Will we have to ATI to obtain it, or would government do what other governments have done and make it transparent?

As I mentioned before, we must ensure that we get up to the standard of other countries on the issue of conflict minerals so that we no longer are looking the other way when it comes to the sourcing of the supply chain for many of the things that we rely on in our technologies.

If we are serious about it, we would embrace these initiatives of being fully transparent on who owns what companies, being fully transparent and pushing transparency when sourcing minerals in the supply chain for our electronics, and being fully transparent about payments between companies and governments abroad. Then we would be at the same standard as our allies. If we do not meet that standard, then we will be left with what we are doing here, which is trying to catch up.

I will be a bit partisan: what we have seen from the Conservative government is that we have become laggards. We sign on to international treaties, but then we do not follow up with implementation that lives up to the treaty.

For example, we have been called out by Norway and the Red Cross on the fact that the cluster munitions treaty that we signed on to will be undermined by Bill S-10, the proposed implementation legislation, which we have debated. It would undermine this international treaty.

We must think about this for a second. The International Committee of the Red Cross never comes out and criticizes government, but they just did yesterday. It said that Bill S-10, the implementation bill for the cluster munitions treaty that we have signed on to, would actually undermine the treaty. It is shocking.

I am very concerned that when we sign on to this communiqué for the G8 that we actually follow up, live up to the spirit of what we have signed on to and not undermine it.

Another example when it comes to international treaties is the arms trade treaty we agreed to. Then we find the gun lobby taking it over from the government. It is astonishing.

Instead of embracing the future, these guys are living in the past. They are affecting our reputation. Instead of getting on board with progress, they are holding us back just because of their ideology.

Bill S-14 will be supported by the NDP simply because it is the least the Conservative government can do. However, what we want to see is full transparency. When we see the follow-up to the communiqué on the G8, we will be holding the current government to account to at least come up to the standard of our allies.

Personally, and I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, we would like to see Canada lead and not be a laggard. It is something I think most Canadians want to see as well.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Conflict Minerals Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill entitled, an act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.

The conflict minerals that end up in many products, such as our cell phones and game consoles, are responsible for funding and fuelling a war that has killed more than five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The war in the Congo is the deadliest conflict since World War II. Rape is widely used as a strategy and a weapon of war.

The bill ensures that minerals used in Canadian products will not benefit armed groups engaged in atrocities. We developed the bill in consultation with industry and civil society. I urge all members to support the bill in Parliament. Let us make Canada a leader in ending rape and war in the Congo.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)