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

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be happy to take any questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill S-14--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a nifty technique to make his speech in a question and then come back and make his speech all over again.

The simple issue is that this legislation has been on the books since 1999. He is perfectly correct about that. If it was not being prosecuted then he has had six, seven or eight years now to have done something about it. It is not as if the world has not been asking for Canada to step up to the plate. Conservatives have had the opportunity but they have not. Then to turn around and say now that we have this new legislation, Bill S-14, good, I am great about that, but we are not going to support 494, which is the evidence base that any prosecutor, any police officer is going to be able to use in order to have successful prosecutions. It is useless having legislation if we do not have evidence and we do not have resources and that is what Motion No. 494 does.

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

Mr. Speaker, the great irony here is the legislation the member is complaining about, the legislation that he says is not robust enough to convict Canadian companies responsible for corrupting foreign public officials, is known as the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. It was passed in 1999 by the government the member was a minister in. Now he stands here today and says that there have not been enough prosecutions, not enough investigations under that act. It was actually his party, the government he sat at the cabinet table of, that passed that act and then sat on it for several years. That is the legislation the member is now complaining about.

Our government came forward with Bill S-14. The president of Transparency International, whom the member likes to quote, has said that Transparency International is delighted that the Government of Canada is moving to strengthen the corruption of foreign public officials act, the one that his government passed that is not robust enough to do what he says it should do, in accordance with Canada's international obligation and encourages the government to ensure that the RCMP have the resources necessary to enforce the CFPOA effectively--

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

moved that Bill C-474, an act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability through the public reporting of payments made by mining, oil and gas corporations to foreign governments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for being the seconder to this bill.

It appears we are at the end of a parliamentary week and this has indeed been a week about corruption, I am afraid. I wish it were not so, but it is.

Ironically, today, the government introduced Bill S-14, which is a bill about corruption and we had quite a number of interventions on that bill. Then question period followed and that, too, was, regrettably, about carryings-on about corruption, bribery and things of that nature. Then we were supposed to proceed with Bill S-14 after question period, but the government switched off that bill.

However, my colleague from the NDP raised the issue of the report of the foreign affairs committee where, in fact, it was also a discussion in some manner or other about the use and abuse of aid money in the extractive sectors.

Here we are, at the end of our parliamentary week, talking about bill C-474, which I have suggested be called the “sunshine bill”. The reason we call it the sunshine bill is that sunshine is light on, how shall we say, murky practices. It is light on goings-on that people only suspect.

However, it also has another aspect. Sunshine also has the aspect of killing bacteria. In some respects when we have legislation such as the sunshine bill, I would suggest it would not only shed light on somewhat murky and dubious practices, but it would also kill off some of those murky and dubious practices.

The bill is, as far as I have been able to make it within our legislative framework, a mirror image of the Cardin-Lugar amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill.

Members will recall that in 2008-09 the world went through a pretty significant financial crisis. The major legislative response by the United States was the Dodd-Frank bill. In the Dodd-Frank bill was an amendment made by Senators Cardin and Lugar which said, in effect, that an extractive company operating in a foreign jurisdiction must, within 180 days of its fiscal year end, produce an audited statement to be filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, which discloses all payments it has made in the course of its previous fiscal year, those payments being taxes, royalties, dividends, licence fees, production entitlements, bonuses, provision of infrastructure and other in-kind payments and a variety of other payments that would be appropriate to disclosure.

Insofar as I have been able to make this bill as mirror image as our American friends have done, I have done so.

In the United States, the sanction for failing to file will be delisting from U.S. stock exchanges. Therefore, we can imagine that the Americans are very serious about corruption. Failure to comply means that a company will be delisted from, primarily, the New York Exchange. Its stock will be worth zero. The company will be functus. That is how serious the Americans are about corruption in companies in which it has administrative jurisdiction.

We do not have a national securities regulator. That case was decided about a year ago. I actually applaud the government's efforts to try to create a national securities regulator. Our securities regulation in the country is a joke. There are all kinds of little silos doing various different things. Therefore, I applaud the government's efforts, but those efforts failed. As a consequence, we had to rejig the sanction to be a fine sanction.

Failure to file with the government in a similar fashion as the Cardin-Lugar amendment would, in this instance, attract a fine rather than a delisting from a U.S. stock exchange.

I know the Americans are extremely keen on this legislation. In 2011 or 2012, I am not quite sure in which was the meeting, President Obama raised this matter with his G7 partners. All the partners at the G7 wanted each nation to commit to legislation similar to the Cardin-Lugar amendment. The only nation that resisted was Canada, which is quite regrettable because we are the world centre for the extractive industry. More transactions take place on the TSX than pretty well anywhere else in the world. This is the centre of the world for mine financing, law firms, accounting and geology. We are the best in the world in mining. That is an extremely important industry to us and our nation's well-being. Therefore, we should also be the leaders in an international regulatory environment for the benefit of our nation and the companies that call Canada home. It is good for Canada, for the industry and it is good for our national reputation.

Unfortunately, Canadians are fed up of reading in their national newspapers and other media about various companies that find themselves on the wrong side of bribery allegations, the latest example being SNC-Lavalin, which is by anyone's standard a world-class engineering firm. However, because of bribery convictions in Bangladesh, it has been barred from competing in world bank contracts for the next 10 years. That basically takes SNC-Lavalin, and essentially Canada, out from competing for engineering projects. Officials have been fired and the stock has been hammered.

One can go through quite a number of Canadian and Canadian-based companies such as: the Calgary-based Griffiths engineering company, which recently paid a $10 million fine for an inappropriate financial relationship with the wife of the Chad's former ambassador; Niko Resources another $9 million fine in 2011 for again an inappropriate relationship with a former energy minister in Bangladesh; and Blackfire Exploration Ltd. is having its offices raided by the RCMP.

This is serious stuff. The common pattern is the conviction gets registered, the officials get fired, the stock gets hammered, so there is a bunch of unhappy people and the most unhappy of all are the shareholders. All of us are shareholders in many of these companies because they are all on the TSX and our Canada pension plan has large holdings on many of these companies.

It gets worse than that. Members may or may not have caught an article in The Globe and Mail last year entitled “Canada ranked worst of G7 nations in fighting bribery, corruption”. In the second paragraph it states:

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

Mr. Dent further states that:

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

The United States is serious about this kind of corruption and is very serious not only in a legislative fashion but also in a prosecutorial fashion in trying to deal with these allegations and concerns.

The United States, in a comparable period of time, has conducted 227 prosecutions. In a similar period of time, we have conducted two. We are the world centre for mining. Maybe when things go north of the border, we suddenly become a whole lot better than the rest of the world. I suppose we are entitled to believe in our fantasies.

However, the Americans, the British treat and the Europeans treat this very seriously. Unfortunately, the big hole in the legislative fence is right here. This has reputational damage, and it is not only reputation.

I hear my friends chirping over there because they are a little nervous that they have been caught with no legislative response going into the G8 next month.

If Conservatives do not think this is serious to shareholders, if they do not think it is serious to management, if they do not think it is serious to our corporations or our corporate brand, they should think about it in terms of our national reputation.

Positive views of Canada fell most steeply in the United States, Britain and China, according to the BBC World News survey of 20,000 people in 20 countries who were asked if Canada had a mainly positive or negative influence on the world. It is the first time Canada's popularity among its major trading partners has declined since polling from GlobeScan began tracking international sentiment in 2005.

GlobeScan chairman, Doug Miller, said, “the deterioration could hurt Canadian business interests”. He said, “If the conditions persist, it can start to set in more cognitively and become an anchor that weighs down [Canada's] reputation. What countries have found is that it's extremely hard work to regain trust”.

The industry is actually cognizant of this. The industry gets it. Over the last couple of years, I have been meeting quite regularly with industry groups. In many instances they have signed up for EITI, the extractive industries transparency initiative. In many instances they understand that not only is it important that their company have a good reputation, but it is important that their industry have a good reputation and it is important that our nation have a good reputation.

They have conducted on their own, at their own expense, all kinds of seminars, education things and the government has in some respects facilitated some of that discussion with the Vancouver-based organization which is on EITI.

Interestingly, Canada as a nation, unlike other nations like the United States, has not signed on for EITI. We actually cannot hold our own companies to account, even though some of our own companies have voluntarily joined the EITI initiative themselves.

Joe Ringwald, Transparency International Canada representative and an industry representative, said, “It is become important to become a leader in order to gain this reputational advantage”. He also stated that Canada had become a laggard on this industry, that industry in general was taking a favourable tone to this legislation and that there had been a number of industry players who wanted transparency.

The industry, the various other actors, the NGOs and others are stepping up to the plate, but what is really worrisome is that, internationally, we are about to get one more black eye.

At the G8 meeting in June, Prime Minister Cameron wants transparency to be one of the takeaways from that meeting. He wants the rest of the G8 partners to adopt the legislation similar to the Cardin-Lugar amendment. Thus far we are going in with fig leaves.

Bill S-14 is a fig leaf. It is wonderful in so far as getting prosecution, but it is not much good in terms of generating evidence.

I would encourage my colleagues, particularly my colleagues opposite, to support this legislation. This is extremely important to the industry and extremely important for our nation.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

And also:

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

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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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