I was involved in the legislation of the foreign practices in the United States, which made it a criminal offence for U.S. corporations to bribe foreign government officials. The U.S. law actually preceded the OECD decisions and the Canadian law by some 20 years. We heard many of the same arguments about bribery: “Well, this is us imposing our own cultural and social norms on other countries. It will put our companies at a disadvantage.” But the fact is that the wisdom of that legislation and the direct benefit to corporations are now widely recognized and accepted.
Bill C-300, if I read the text correctly, would not impose standards on other countries. It would simply impose the standard for the use of Canadian government support for investments. It says we will not support, directly or indirectly, practices by corporations that are guaranteed, insured, or funded by us that violate international norms of human rights and environmental best practice, even if the country where they are operating has vast human rights abuses, or doesn't have effective enforcement or even laws for environmental protection. I think this is a very common approach by the home states of corporations that provide the capital and political risk insurance or export credits.
I don't think this breaks any new ground in terms of the principles, including the review and enforcement action. In the U.S., the anti-bribery statute is enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.