Foreign Affairs Committee on June 11th, 2013

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

If I may, I'll repeat my question in English.

In the U.S. the process for dealing with facilitation payments essentially goes through the Securities and Exchange Commission. Does that mean that in the U.S. not-for-profit organizations are not covered?

[Alan H. Kessel]

I'm not an expert in U.S. law, so I can't speak for their situation. My understanding is that you'd have to be listed on the Securities and Exchange Commission to be caught by their situation. The international humanitarian organizations we have been dealing with do not find a problem with the 30 or 40 other countries that already have a prohibition on facilitation payments.

So if there was going to be an uproar, it should have happened already, and we would have heard about it and they would have said something to us, because we're in touch with them. If they didn't, then I'd be angry.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

To clarify, it was not a hostile question; it was a matter of understanding the system.

Very briefly, also, Mr. Kessel, you mentioned that this bill will cover most of the recommendations of the OECD working group. What will be left? What is the next challenge on the OECD working group recommendations that we won't have fulfilled yet?

[Roland Legault, Acting Director, Criminal, Security and Diplomatic Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you for this question.

I will speak in French, since no one on this side of the table has done so for some time.

It seems to me that an important recommendation was not implemented. This recommendation relates to the sharing of personal tax and income tax information. Canada cannot go this route because, based on its tax system and, more specifically, its income tax system, taxpayers provide personal information and the government is obligated to not disclose it. Taxpayers provide reliable information as part of the income tax system specifically because the information is not disclosed or used for other purposes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

We're going to finish up with Mr. Van Kesteren, please, for five minutes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, again, for appearing before us this morning.

Mr. Kessel, you were going in this direction when Ms. Brown's questions were finished. The Department of Foreign Affairs already engages in training and outreach, I understand. I understand that the information regarding Canada's international obligations to prevent and combat corruption is already administered and taught by heads of mission and state, and commissioners in political offices.

Can you maybe elaborate on how Canada is engaged in this and what is being done now in our missions for combatting corruption?

[Alan H. Kessel]

You raise a very important question, because changing culture means educating people, not only making them aware, but making it part of their daily DNA of functioning.

We're very concerned that this come from the top; therefore, we train from the top. We have just completed two weeks of head-of-mission training, which is what we call “ambassador school”, where we send our future heads of mission off for two weeks of intensive torture. Part of that is to make them aware of the kinds of obligations they have outside the country.

One of the key issues they deal with—of course, they administer the Trade Commissioner Service as well, and we deal with Canadian businesses abroad—is to be aware of what the domestic law is that applies to foreign bribery. We have a number of extraterritorial laws that apply outside the country. One of the key ones is anti-bribery. Some of the others, of course, relate to child sex tourism, and we make sure that our people know about that too.

One of the key things is that when you are interacting with Canadian business, or if you are in a situation where you're aware that there is a potential for or an actual bribery situation, you are obliged to advise us in Ottawa, and we are obliged to advise the RCMP.

Our reach in terms of application of this law is not just a passive one; it's an active one. We take that seriously. So we are, in the field and domestically, ensuring that our people are aware.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

In layman's terms, let's just say that there is a mining company in Central America and there are charges laid that there is some awful stuff going on. Do you become actively involved and investigate that yourself?

[Alan H. Kessel]

No, in fact the law that we're speaking about.... If they're charged in that country, then by definition the law has caught up with them.

The real question is if we become aware that there is a Canadian in a foreign country who has used either money or goods or gifts or other ways to make a profit on a deal; if we become aware of that—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but what I meant is, for instance, if you're hearing things, you would then go to the Canadian company and say, “Listen, we're hearing such and such. We just want to remind you about the laws and what your obligations are.”

Is it a pre-emptive...?

[Alan H. Kessel]

If we do hear that there's something going on, we have an obligation, one, to inform the RCMP.... Any investigation is done by the RCMP. We are not investigators. We merely pass on that kind of information.

Clearly, if a company is under investigation in a foreign jurisdiction, we would pass that on to the RCMP. But usually they'll know about it and tell us. If we hear there is a possibility, even within the company, we would.... We deal with companies on a daily basis. They know what our job is. Our job is to ensure that Canadian law is taken into account. For instance, any number of us at this table go off to conferences where private companies and other groups, Transparency or NGOs, are attending because they're talking about corruption. Our job at that point is to say to them, “These are the laws that Canada applies. This is how you should be aware. Govern yourself accordingly.”

That's the degree to which we deal with it. We're on the policy level. The RCMP is on the investigation level and the prosecution service is on the prosecution level.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

The point is, though, that your officers are trained to make sure our companies know the laws and follow them. Otherwise the result would be that the RCMP—

[Alan H. Kessel]

One of our trained officers wants to put a word in here.

[Roland Legault]

The type of interaction you're talking about does occur, but it occurs through the Trade Commissioner Service, which is included in this training program. Trade commissioners, who go abroad to help Canadian companies establish themselves or otherwise find business in foreign countries, work frequently with the Trade Commissioner Service. We train the Trade Commissioner Service to be aware of this sort of thing.

When a company comes to the Trade Commissioner Service for assistance either in getting that first foothold or in understanding the bidding system, or any of those things, the Trade Commissioner Service will provide this kind of information to make sure the company is aware of the law. In the event that the Trade Commissioner Service becomes aware of information that might suggest something untoward is going on, it is obliged to report it to us, as Mr. Kessel said, and then we are obliged to report it to the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. To our witnesses, thank you very much for being here this morning.

As I mentioned, we're going to adjourn the meeting now. We will not have time for all of the full testimony when we get back, so we'll continue on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.