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.

[Janet Keeping]

If I might make a comment there, I'll be frank that at TI Canada we have not paid explicit attention to the fact that there is this discrepancy between what's proposed by way of penalties in Bill S-14 and what we have in our current criminal law.

But I'd have to say that anybody connected with Transparency International wants to see greater attention paid to the problem of corruption. Therefore, if we're going to find consistency, it ought to be consistency at the more serious level...not to think that foreign corruption should be necessarily reduced to the penalties in our Criminal Code, which may indeed be inadequate.

[Janet Keeping]

Well, historically that's certainly been correct, and that's been noted by the OECD and the other organizations that monitor these things. Of course, the OECD is particularly interested in how we do vis-à-vis the OECD's anti-corruption convention, but yes, in the past, quite frankly, we've been seen as a laggard. There's nothing sensational in saying that. It has been well documented.

But ever since we signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the RCMP was mandated to create specialized teams to enforce the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, we've been doing a lot better. I've heard RCMP officers speak several times over the last few years on their involvement in enforcing the CFPOA. They're working hard at it. It's very convincing. I think they're very committed to the objectives.

I'm glad to be asked this question, because I did want to have an opportunity to say that good law on the books is really important and essential, and Transparency International Canada is behind the adoption of Bill S-14. But just as in any other country of the world, legislation is only as good as it is enforced, especially in the criminal law area.

I know that's not the mandate of this committee today—you're looking at a piece of legislation—but keep in mind that we must have the RCMP and the prosecution services adequately resourced to enforce the legislation.

[Janet Keeping]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to the committee.

I'll just correct something right off the bat. I am with Transparency International Canada. I'm president and chair of the board of Transparency International Canada, which is a national chapter of Transparency International. That parent organization was formed in 1993 and is based in Berlin. It has about 100 chapters around the world and is often considered the leading NGO committed to the struggle against corruption globally.

TI Canada, on the other hand, was formed in 1998. We're a coalition that includes professionals, lawyers, such as me, and accountants, and people from the NGO community, retired government officials, and people from business, including from the extractives.

My primary mission today speaking on behalf of Transparency International Canada is to urge the adoption of Bill S-14. In our view, it is a very good thing that the Canadian government is responding to criticisms of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act that have mounted over the years.

Passage of the bill will allow the Canadian struggle against corruption abroad to move on to other fronts. The bill addresses issues that have been pointed to by many over the years, both from within Canada, including from Transparency International Canada, and from outside our country, as I'm sure you well know.

I'm going to be very brief here and just mention the provisions of the bill that have been of special interest to Transparency International Canada. One is the addition of nationality jurisdiction. It needs to be added. Bill S-14 would add it, and we're very pleased to see this.

On the more serious penalties that the earlier speaker from the Canadian Bar Association alluded to, in our view, increasing the penalties sends the message that Canada is truly serious about the struggle against corruption. Many people believe that only when individuals realize they could go to jail for a significant period of time will more people resist what they see as the corrupt, easy way to do business. I think it's probably more important that enforcement of the law be vigorous and consistent than to have the possibility of long jail sentences, but generally speaking, we are pleased to see that the penalties are being increased.

What about facilitation payments? We have debated this internally in TI Canada and within the course of public events that we've put on several times over the last few years. We understand the complex and, with some of them, subtle issues here, but we are supportive of eliminating the current exemption for facilitation payments.

In our view, the addition of the books and records offence that's created by Bill S-14constitutes a very important start in the area of books and records. We also need a civil books and records provision, but we are fully aware of the constitutional limitations on the federal government in this area. In our view, adding a criminal books and records offence, which Bill S-14 does, will be of tangible assistance to the struggle against corruption.

Just briefly, we also spent a fair bit of time at TI Canada talking about the change to the definition of “business”, eliminating the words “for profit”, and we believe that too is an appropriate measure and are glad to see it in Bill S-14.

I want to conclude my very brief remarks by expressing appreciation to those in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who organized a two-day workshop in early January 2012 to examine many of the issues now addressed by Bill S-14. It was an excellent effort that was well prepared for, well conducted, and well followed up on. Several government agencies were represented, and TI Canada was pleased to have had a number of its directors and our administrative consultant involved in that process.

It was an open and honest discussion. We felt we were heard, and we probably would have had a whole lot more to say about Bill S-14 had we not been involved so far up front in this process.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this statement, and I welcome questions later.

[Joseph K. Ingram, President, North-South Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you and other members for inviting the NSI to comment on the proposed amendments to this bill. It's an honour for the institute, Canada's oldest independent development think-tank—and, I might add, ranked for the past two years as the world's leading development think-tank by the Global Go-To Think-Tank survey. Despite our annual budget of less than $5 million, we were also ranked in the same survey as Canada's leading development think tank.

In addressing the significance of the bill, I wanted to briefly describe the global context in which the bill is being considered. I don't do it as a lawyer or as an expert on the amendments themselves, but rather as a Canadian development economist concerned about the defining challenges of 21st century global development. I also do it as someone who has worked in international development since 1970, including 30 years with the World Bank, including 14 years living in and managing financial support to some of the most corrupt countries on the planet, according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index—and I won't name them in this room.

I know first-hand the insidious and devastating effect that corruption, fed by an absence of representativeness, transparency, and accountability—the three pillars of good governance—has on a society's economic and social health. It's not pretty and it's not how Canadian or any other taxpayers' resources should be used.

As noted in the recent “Africa Progress Report 2013”:

Transparency and accountability are the twin pillars of good governance. Taken together, they are the foundation for trust in government and effective management of natural resources—and that foundation needs to be strengthened.

As also suggested by this eminent international panel, the absence of these pillars is especially damaging in resource-rich states where the financial stakes and temptations to maximize personal gains by political and economic elites, including foreign investors, are high. The unprecedented growth in demand for natural resources, particularly extracts coming largely from the emerging economies, is producing both volatility and rising commodity prices, with global competition for resources intensifying, especially in Africa where the potential is as yet relatively unexploited. For Canada, a globally connected resource-rich country whose economic health depends increasingly on its capacity to globalize its trade relations, the intensified competition constitutes a particular challenge. The comfort zone of producing primarily for domestic consumers and the U.S. market is quickly evaporating.

As noted by the Conference Board of Canada in 2012, the past decade has effectively been a lost decade for Canadian exports:

The 2000s were a “lost decade” for Canadian exports of both goods and services, as essentially no growth in volumes occurred—even though the volume of global trade in goods expanded by 68 per cent during this period.... We have lost export market share to emerging markets in a wide variety of products, including Canadian stalwarts like wood and paper products.

During the same period, as noted recently by the former Governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, “We've dampened our [2013] forecast of exports because we're seeing a competitiveness challenge...”. Indeed, among the G-20 countries during the same period of 2000 to 2012 Canada was one of eight economies that lost market share of world exports, by about 37%, just behind the U.K., which had the biggest loss of about 40%. The 12 gainers were led, not surprisingly, by China with a gain of 170%—but Australia also saw a gain of 50%.

This loss of market share in exports at the global level is also consistent with a loss of competitiveness of Canadian extracted investments in Africa. Whereas in 2007 Canada was the leading investor in mining on the continent, notwithstanding an increase in the stock of Canadian investment from just under $3 billion to about $31 billion today, we are now fifth, exceeded by China, Australia, South Africa, and the countries of the European Union.

We recently discussed some of these issues at NSI's Ottawa forum entitled “Governing Natural Resources for Africa's Development”—and here I should add that both Dean Allison and Lois Brown made important contributions to that discussion—and addressed how Canada could elevate itself in that sector to being a leader on the continent in natural resource exploitation and investment.

This is at a time when African governments themselves and members of the G-8 are increasingly concerned about using mineral and energy resources more effectively, thereby ensuring that they become the economic blessing they should be rather than the curse they have tended to be.

Indeed, a senior vice-president of one of Canada's leading mining investors in Africa said during the conference that Canadian mining companies could no longer compete on the basis of cost alone, that we needed other attributes.

Enhancing the Canadian brand is one of them, as is being a policy-maker on dealing with corruption in natural resource exploitation, rather than being a policy-taker. Canada needs to be seen as a leader in setting global best practice standards, especially at a point in history where African governments, many of them democracies, are taking active measures to enhance domestic resource mobilization and stem the illicit outflow of financial resources.

Just to give you an example, it's estimated that the outflow of illicit funds in the form of mispriced trade, transfer pricing, etc., from Africa was about $63 billion in 2012, exceeding the inflow of aid and foreign direct investment of about $62 billion. The new Africa mining vision that was developed by the African Union in collaboration with the UN Economic Commission for Africa sets out a compelling agenda for facilitating such changes by shifting the focus from simple mineral extraction to much broader developmental imperatives in which mineral policy integrates with development policy. This means effective regulations governing extractive companies, the strengthening of institutional capacity, and policies that ensure that resources generated are spent to produce sustainable and more equitable outcomes.

For the international community, this means creating a level playing field where natural resource investors are subject to the same set of rules, building on the U.S. Cardin-Lugar amendment and the EU transparency directive adopted by the Europeans earlier this week, so that companies operating in Africa apply the same accountability principles and the same standards of governance that they are held to in rich countries. They should also recognize that disclosure matters.

In our view, Bill S-14 is an important step in that direction, in that it would strengthen the accountability of Canadian firms operating in developing countries and seek to apply the same standards as applied in Canada. We therefore commend the government for preparing it.

On its own, however, it falls short of what is needed for Canada to be seen as a global leader in stemming corruption in that it only deals with one of the pillars of good governance, namely, accountability. Indeed, China adopted its eighth amendment to its criminal code, a law not dissimilar to the Canadian legislation, in 2011. What is also needed is regulation that requires transparency on the part of Canadian investors. Per the call of Prime Minister David Cameron in the lead-up to the G-8 meeting later this month:

we must lift the veil of secrecy that too often lets corrupt corporations and officials in some countries run rings around the law. The G-8 must move toward a global common standard for resource-extracting companies to report all payments to governments, and in turn for governments to report those revenues. This will encourage more investment in resource-rich countries and level the playing field for business.

In my discussions with members of the Mining Association of Canada, some of whom participated in our recent forum, I've heard the same desire expressed, along with concerns that rising resource nationalism in Africa and elsewhere will first target the firms from those countries seen as being less rigorous in their application of laws to stem corporate corruption by their own firms. Indeed, the Africa Progress Panel report explicitly cited Canada, stating: “Not all the opposition [to stronger regulation] emanates from industry. The Canadian government has opposed the introduction of mandatory standards.”

Canada being perceived by African governments and civil society as one of those recalcitrants is neither good for our brand nor for our competitiveness in the medium term. The statement, therefore, by Prime Minister Harper yesterday in London that Canada “will establish new, mandatory reporting standards for payments made to foreign and domestic governments by Canadian extractive companies” is a welcome development, and the government is to be warmly applauded for this step.

This new policy will help change perceptions and enhance our brand, and should it include compliance with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Canada would align itself with 23 countries that are currently compliant with this initiative. An additional 16 are candidate countries, including Australia and the United States. France and the U.K. will apparently announce their compliance during the G-8 summit, while Germany recently informed EITI's former chairman—who's a German—that it too is on the verge of joining.

Canada's compliance would demonstrate our full commitment to transparency and provide comfort to Africa's governments and civil society that Canadian extractive firms investing in Africa are being subject to the same standards they would be in Canada.

This would contribute both to Africa's economic development and Canada's economic prosperity. It would also move Canada, once again, into a position of global leadership in the area of natural resource governance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Michael Osborne, Member, CBA Anti-Corruption Team, Canadian Bar Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and honourable members.

The Anti-Corruption Team of the Canadian Bar Association shares the convictions expressed in Bill S-14. As expressed in the Convention, bribery in international business transactions raises serious moral and political concerns, undermines good governance and economic development, and distorts international competitive conditions. That is why the ACT generally supports Bill S-14.

We do, however, have two concerns to bring to your attention today: first, the difficulties associated with repealing the facilitation exception at this time; and second, the difficulties created by increasing the maximum sentence to 14 years.

Turning first to facilitation payments, these are small payments made to officials to get them to do their jobs. They're different from payments made to obtain a business advantage, in the sense of a bribe to get a contract.

The current international consensus seems to be that facilitation payments should be discouraged, but it is not clear that the time is right to require the criminalization of facilitation payments made to foreign officials. Bill S-14 appeared to us to reflect this consensus by providing for the repeal of the facilitation payments exception, but not yet, since this repeal will come into force on a date to be fixed by the Governor in Council.

In the view of the CBA anti-corruption team, or ACT, this is not an optimal way of dealing with facilitation payments. Parliament, not the cabinet, should determine when the time is right, and it should do so after a fuller consultation with Canadians who do business abroad. Some of the important considerations that need to be addressed are as follows.

First is the impact on disaster relief. Charities that deliver humanitarian relief need to be authorized to do what it takes to save lives. One in-house counsel with a major charity told us that feared the day when facilitation payments would be illegal and a vital delivery of food would be held up in some hopelessly corrupt country by a jaded customs official who demanded $50 before releasing the food. The question, he said, would whether they could pay the man $50. If they did not, a thousand people or more would die.

There are other exceptions. Sometimes, for instance, people have no choice but to pay. In some countries, we're told, exit visas are routinely held up until money is paid. In others, the police demand a payment before they will even take a report of a crime. There are reports of cases where officials threaten the health or safety of people in order to extort money. I would think that most people would agree that in those circumstances the payment should not be a crime.

Thirdly, on penalties, as Bill S-14 stands, people who are coerced into making facilitation payments do so in fear of committing an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in jail. In other words, this is among the most serious offences on the books in Canada. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not this is an appropriate treatment for small payments of this nature.

For these reasons, the CBA-ACT recommends not proceeding with the repeal of the facilitation payments exception in this bill.

The second general point is the increase in penalties.

The maximum penalty under current legislation is five years’ imprisonment. The bill proposes that the maximum jail term be increased to 14 years.

Fourteen years will be the new penalty, and this will make the corruption offence one of the most serious offences on the books. By way of comparison, this 14-year maximum is higher than the maximum sentence for domestic corruption, for instance, which is generally five years, although it can be 14 years in some cases; for child pornography, which is 10 years; for abandoning a child, which is five years; for criminal negligence causing death with a firearm, which is four years; or for assault causing bodily harm, which is 10 years.

The increase in penalty from 5 to 14 years has important knock-on effects. Fourteen years is effectively a magic number in Canadian criminal law. Offences that carry a maximum sentence of 14 years are not eligible, first of all, for discharges, either conditional or absolute. Incidentally, this responds to a question from one of your colleagues the last day, when she asked about the availability of discharges.

Conditional sentences—that is, sentences served in the community—will not be available sentencing options for this offence. This severely constrains the range of remedial outcomes that are available to prosecutors, defence counsel, and the courts. It will, to put it bluntly, make it difficult to make the punishment fit the crime.

Suppose, for example, a Canadian business person is at the airport, trying to leave a developing country. The customs officials demand a facilitation payment. He pays in order to be allowed to leave the country and return to Canada. Has this person really committed one of the most serious offences on the books in Canada? Does this person deserve to have a criminal record? If the answer is no, then the penalty needs to be changed so that discharges remain available.

With respect, prosecutorial discretion is not the answer. The law should be as clear as possible so as to provide reliable guidance. I would also add that it is not the custom in Canada for the prosecution to issue guidance on the substance of offences. This isn't done, except perhaps in the realm of competition law, unlike, for example, in the United Kingdom, where they do have fairly extensive guidance on their Bribery Act.

Suppose a Mr. 10% somewhere requires a Canadian business person to pay a bribe to get a contract. Suppose the contract is relatively small, and the business person is a first-time offender. This would fit within the existing offence under the act. Of course, it's not a facilitation payment, it is a bribery offence. Do we really need to lock this person up? Why not impose a sentence to be served in the community for a person who does not pose a risk to society?

Under Bill S-14 as it stands, this outcome would not be available, although I should hasten to add that probation would remain available.

Thank you, honourable members. Those are my submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good morning everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 4, 2013, we are considering Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

I want to thank our witnesses because they have now been back twice—they were supposed to testify before us on Tuesday.

Thank you very much. We do understand that you have busy schedules and so we appreciate your changing your schedules to be here.

It looks like we will once again have the bells within 20 minutes. Voting would be at about 10 minutes to 12:00, which means that we would not be back here until 12:05. I thought it would be helpful to get the testimony in now and then go a little bit longer, if it's okay with the witnesses.

We also will understand if you have other things that you need to do. At least we'll get the testimony in. We will come back and finish off with 30 minutes of questions and answers. If we can get you to stick around, that would be great.

I want to introduce each of our witnesses here today.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Noah Arshinoff, staff lawyer for law reform, and Michael Osborne, member of the CBA anti-corruption team. Welcome Michael. Thank you for being here.

From the North-South Institute, we have Joseph Ingram, president. Joseph, it's good to see you here today, sir.

Joining us from Calgary, Alberta, from Transparency International Canada, is Janet Keeping, chair and president. Thank you, Janet, for working us into your schedule. I think the last time we talked you were in Edmonton.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Kessel and your colleagues, for being here this morning. This is very important legislation for Canada to pass. I appreciate your assistance in helping with the drafting of the bill, helping to appear before Senate and parliamentary committees, and helping to move it along.

I believe that all the political parties, at least at this stage, are in agreement that this is something that needs to be done soon.

Last week I had the opportunity to speak to the Transparency International Canada conference, and they expressed wide support for this legislation. There were people in the room representing stakeholders in government, academia, NGOs, businesses, law firms, accounting firms, and other kinds of consulting firms, and they all agreed that this was valuable legislation that should pass very quickly.

Mr. Kessel, in your opening remarks you mentioned the 2008 OECD working group on bribery report. It outlined some recommendations for Canada. Would it be fair to say that Bill S-14 is a response to the OECD report? Can you specifically tell us how the legislation addresses each of those recommendations? As a signatory to a number of anti-corruption conventions, including the OECD convention, does this help Canada live up to its commitment under those conventions?

Could you address those questions for us?

[Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you.

Honourable members, Mr. Chair, it's my pleasure to be here with you today to discuss legislative amendments to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, CFPOA.

Since its introduction on February 5, Bill S-14 has progressed quickly and has received widespread support from both parliamentarians and stakeholders. It's our hope that members of this committee, and indeed all parties, will recognize its importance and move expeditiously to ensure that Bill S-14 is enacted as soon as possible.

Canada has long played a prominent role on the international stage in combatting corruption, and it takes allegations of corruption involving Canadian companies seriously. We have seen an increasing amount of international attention being paid to global corruption, and indeed the Canadian media have taken note of a number of recent high-profile cases in our courts.

The global fight against foreign bribery is intended to create a level playing field for international business so that Canadian companies can compete and win fairly in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade. Canada has been an active partner and has played a prominent role in international efforts to combat corruption and bribery. The CFPOA was first introduced to implement our international obligations under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development anti-bribery convention, as well as two more anti-corruption conventions through the OAS and the UN.

Needless to say, Canada takes its international obligations extremely seriously, and we are pleased that at its meeting in March 2013, the OECD working group on bribery praised the government for its amendments as measures that will implement the working group's recommendations to a very high degree, if passed as tabled within one year of tabling.

Mr. Chair, Bill S-14 signals our government's continued commitments to further deter and prevent Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials in international business transactions. These are important amendments that will strengthen our anti-corruption laws and place Canada at the leading edge of countries taking strong action against corruption, action that will benefit Canadian companies both at home and abroad. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith. With this bill, Canada is sending a loud and clear signal to the world that we will not tolerate corruption.

I'll now take a minute to briefly explain the six technical amendments that are being proposed in Bill S-14.

First is the introduction of nationality jurisdiction to allow Canada to prosecute Canadians or Canadian companies on the basis of their nationality. Currently we can only do so after proving a substantial link between the offence and Canada.

Second, provide the RCMP with exclusive authority to lay charges under the act.

Third, remove the for-profit requirement so that bribery applies to all bribes and not just those paid by businesses that make a profit.

Fourth, increase the maximum imprisonment from five years to 14 years.

Fifth, introduce a new books and records offence specific to foreign bribery. 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 for the new offence would mirror those for the foreign bribery offence, that is, a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment and unlimited fines.

Finally, eliminate the facilitation payments exception under the CFPOA. You will note that the bill provides for a delay for the coming into force of the elimination of the facilitation payment defense. This delay will provide Canadian companies time 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.

Honourable members, Mr. Chair, as I previously stated, the proposed changes have given Canada tentatively good marks with domestic stakeholders and at the OECD working group on bribery. We are pleased with the OECD working group on bribery's strong, positive endorsement of the significant progress made on investigations and prosecutions of the foreign bribery offence, the awareness-raising efforts undertaken by numerous government departments, and the proposed amendments to the CFPOA included in Bill S-14. It's important to note that these positive comments from the OECD working group on bribery were given with the strong caveat that the proposed amendments be adopted. Canada has invested a lot of credibility in getting this bill tabled, and we must report back to the OECD in the near future regarding its adoption.

Honourable members, Mr. Chair, Canada is positioning itself as a reliable supplier of the resources that emerging markets need to grow. We must create the conditions for Canadian businesses to succeed in the pursuit of its pro-trade agenda. Corruption does the opposite. It hinders economic growth and long-term prosperity. It fosters only 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 applicable Canadian laws and ethical standards and practices. We believe they can compete with the best and win fairly.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated on February 5, when announcing these new measures:

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.

With that, my colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 4, 2013, we are looking at Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

I want to thank our witnesses from Foreign Affairs for being here on such short notice. I know, Mr. Kessel, you're going to be leading off, but I'll just introduce your team. Mr. Kessel is the legal adviser. From the criminal, security, and diplomatic law division, we have Roland Legault, the acting director; Marcus Davies, a legal officer; and Maria Mascaro, who is also a legal officer.

Welcome to the team. Thank you once again for being here.

Mr. Kessel, we're going to turn it over to you for your opening remarks, and then we'll have some time over the next 55 minutes to ask some questions and move forward.

In the second hour we'll be taking some additional witnesses from outside the Department of Foreign Affairs. We'll see if we can go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Kessel, welcome, sir. We will turn the floor over to you right now.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage of Bill S-2, an act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Mr. Chair, as you know, Bill S-14 has been referred to the committee. I'd like to propose we deal with it next Tuesday, with witnesses—officials and perhaps one or two others. I would suggest, in that regard, Janet Keeping from Transparency International. Hopefully we can deal with it in one meeting, both the consideration of the bill and the clause-by-clause review.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[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?

[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.

[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.