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

[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.)