Julian Reed

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that in 25 minutes we will be practising the art of democracy.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members who have participated in this debate. It has been to a large extent a constructive debate this afternoon. I extend appreciation for this very important breakthrough bill. This is a first for Canada and by all parties showing co-operation, it puts Canada in a position of leadership. Having said that, I would like to comment on the words of some of the members.

I marvelled at the generosity of the Speaker when the member for Red Deer was straying from the subject to such an extent. I realize there is a great deal of latitude in this parliament and there probably should be. I think he would have been ruled out of order in the Ontario house, if I can remember from my former incarnation. There were times when I did not know whether to call him Dr. No or Chicken Little, but it was a very interesting speech. Through it all and through all the raving and hair pulling about the terrible condition of this country as he sees it, there were a couple of questions which I think deserve answers.

One was his concern that this bill went through the other place first before it came to this House. I want to point out for the record that in our present system of parliament, a bill may be introduced either in the Senate or in the House of Commons. It is essentially for procedural purposes and for no other reason other than very often it makes for a more efficient process.

The hon. member for Red Deer was also concerned that this bill appears to be coming in at the last minute, because the commitment was made in December 1997. I will admit that sometimes things seem to happen very slowly around this place. I can share that point of view. The fact is that there was a tremendous amount of consultation undertaken when this bill was being considered. All the provinces and the territories were consulted, as well as the private sector. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council for International Business, the Pacific Basin Economic Council and so on, all of these organizations had to be taken into consideration.

Perhaps in hindsight, maybe the commitment to implement something like this should have had a more extended period before it was brought in. However, the bureaucracy operated as I think bureaucracies operate, with the speed of light. It actually brought this to an acceptable point here and allowed us to go ahead with a universally acceptable debate today.

The Bloc and my friend from the Conservative Party suggested that we could have gone further. Indeed we could have gone further, but I remind the House that we are acting in concert with the OECD, those 29 highly industrialized countries; in concert with the Organization of American States; and in concert with the European Community.

All those organizations together, as this anti-corruption force takes hold and as the net is cast, will cover almost all the commerce which takes place around the world. Yes, there will be some rogue countries, but the pressure will be on all countries in the world to operate a progressively cleaner ship.

My friend from the Bloc was also mildly critical about human rights and Canada's position on human rights. Canada is encouraging every country to act positively on human rights. We are helping China on the human rights issue and progress has been made over the last years. We are doing that in every country where we have what we call constructive engagement which hopefully involves doing business but also allows countries to see how Canada acts and how the Canadian system works.

I have had the honour of receiving delegations from countries around the world that come here to study Canada, to study the government process and to study what my hon. friend from Red Deer considers to be very awkward, regressive democracy. He asks if we do have a democracy. I remind him of the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill who said “The democratic process in government is the worst form of government except for every other form of government”. As difficult as it is, our system of democracy works.

I thank all hon. members for participating in this debate and for agreeing that we should proceed together so that Canada is truly seen as a leader.

[Employment Insurance, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the report formally reviewed Canada's performance from 1987 to 1994 and some questions were asked of the delegation about performance post-1994.

Here is what I would like to tell the House about the performance post-1994: $1.7 billion a year in child tax credits; tax relief for low and middle income families, taking 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls; the youth employment strategy; the aboriginal head start program; integration programs for the disabled. Shall I go on?

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak to a matter of concern to all of us, the subject of Bill S-21, the bribery and corruption of foreign public officials in international business.

This bill when enacted will allow Canada to ratify the convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. This convention was negotiated by the members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The 29 member OECD, which includes Canada, the United States, most European countries, Japan and South Korea, is the major economic policy forum for the world's most advanced industrialized democracies.

It is an accepted fact that corruption distorts international trade and competition. It impedes economic development. In developing countries in particular corruption distorts public policy. It leads governments to make decisions that are not in the public interest but are in the interest of those who benefit from the bribes.

Corruption also has the effect of lowering the quality of goods and services provided by the private sector in the course of meeting its contracts. If substantial bribes are being offered the money comes either by shortchanging the countries with which one has a contract or by undermining the quality of the goods and services being provided.

Furthermore it has an insidious effect of threatening the rule of law, democracy and human rights. It undermines the development of competent political and democratic institutions. Where they are in the course of development, it blocks that development. Stability and security are essential preconditions for economic growth. Prosperity, sustainable development and employment engender greater security and stability.

The successful promotion of Canadian values abroad can be assisted by increased economic partnerships between Canada and other countries.

The issue of the corruption of foreign public officials is not new and continues to be a major problem affecting international trade and investment. The problem has been the focus of attention within the OECD, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe.

To implement the OECD convention would enhance Canada's reputation as a world leader in fighting corruption. It would honour the commitments Canada has made at the OECD, at the Denver and Birmingham summits of the G-8 and at the United Nations. And it would continue to ensure if not enhance Canada's standing at the OECD.

Some have questioned whether what we are doing is enough. My response is that this is a dramatic and significant first step in the right direction.

I will highlight the key elements in this legislation. The essence of the convention is the requirement that each state party criminalize the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transaction and take measures to establish the liability of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign public official. This provision appears in section 3 and is the centrepiece of the proposed act. It prohibits the bribery of a foreign public official in the course of business whether directly or indirectly. It calls for significant penalties. The offence would be punishable on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

This legislation will use the definition of person found in the Criminal Code that includes Her Majesty and public bodies, bodies corporate, societies, companies and inhabitants of counties, parishes, municipalities or other districts in relation to the acts and things they are capable of doing and owning respectively.

Therefore for the purpose of the offences under this proposed act, potential accused are not limited to natural persons. Corporations also fall within the scope of these offences. The bill describes facilitation payments that would be exempted from the ambit of the offence. It would not be an offence if the advantage were lawful in the foreign official's country or public international organization. Reasonable expenses incurred in good faith and directly related to the promotion, demonstration or explanation of products and services or to the execution or performance of a contract with the foreign state could also be argued as a defence.

The bill would amend section 67.5 of the Income Tax Act to add this new offence to the list of Criminal Code offences referenced in that section in an effort to deny the deductibility of bribes paid to foreign public officials.

The convention requires the parties to provide that the bribe and proceeds of the bribery of a foreign public official be subject to seizure and confiscation. It requires the parties to consider the imposition of additional civil or administrative sanctions. For this reason the bill proposes to create two additional criminal offences, the offence of possession of property or proceeds obtained or derived from the bribery of foreign public officials or from laundering that property or those proceeds, and the offence of laundering the property or proceeds obtained or derived from the bribery of foreign public officials.

The bill incorporates the proceeds of crime provisions of the Criminal Code for use on prosecutions of the new offences. The new offence of bribery of foreign public officials is an enterprise crime offence to permit the search, seizure and detention of these proceeds of crime and is a predicate offence for the offence of laundering of the proceeds of crime. The convention has provisions dealing with mutual legal assistance and extradition with which Canada can comply. If possible under their legal systems, each party must also provide legal assistance in criminal and civil matters.

It is important to note the Canadian business community is behind this initiative. It considers the OECD convention as the most significant achievement to date in the international campaign against bribery and corruption. This convention is seen as an opportunity to create a level playing field on which Canadian companies can compete on the basis of quality, price and service. This was said loudly and clearly by members of Transparency International when they appeared before the Senate last week.

When he appeared before the Senate, the Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted Donald Johnston, a former Canadian Minister of Justice and current Secretary General of the OECD, who said in a recent article that “Integrity in commercial transactions is essential in making the global market work and to ensure that the public supports it. A logical consequence of globalization is that honesty has to be enforced at the global, not just national, level”.

With the passage of this legislation Canada has the opportunity to be the fifth country to ratify the OECD convention and to bring it into force, thus ushering in a new era of international accountability. I ask all hon. members to consider that the war on corruption is well underway. There is now no looking back.

[Spexel, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would be kind enough to equip me with the details of the problem at hand I would be pleased to answer him.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that Bill C-52 has now passed through the other place, unanimously, with an amendment.

The Senate amendment is a modification of the amendment of this House which inserted article 27.1(2), which reads:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister receives the report.

The Senate has amended the text of this amendment as follows:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister receives the report.

We fully support the Senate amendment. We consider it important that pursuant to Canadian parliamentary tradition the annual report of the CTBT national authority should be presented to both houses of parliament.

Let me remind the House that for the past 50 years Canadians have worked hard to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the construction of an effective international non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament regime.

The passage of Bill C-52 will allow Canada to implement one of the cornerstones of such a regime. I am proud to be associated with the legislation before us today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure its rapid adoption by this parliament.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that the federal government is opposed to bulk water exports.

There are no bulk exports taking place at the present time. The company to which my hon. colleague referred has had its permit revoked. The decision has been appealed to the Ontario environmental appeal board and the hearings are set for early in December.

The cumulative effects of tanker shipments by river or lake diversions are unknown and might be very serious. There might be effects on levels and flows of lakes and rivers. We want to take a cautious approach.

I point out to my hon. friend that this year particularly in parts of Canada one in 40-year droughts are taking place. Ontario is one of those that is suffering greatly at the present time. The levels of the Great Lakes are down, even to the risk of transportation on the seaway.

Considerable progress has been made regarding consultation with provinces on options to deal with this matter. Both federal and provincial governments have a role to play in deciding the outcome. The government will lay out its strategy for a comprehensive approach to water exports later this year. I can assure my hon. friend we will proceed with the utmost caution.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, was I mistaken or did I hear the member for Athabasca say that the governing party was largely an urban based party? Did I hear that correctly? If I did, do I have to remind the hon. member that the government has probably more rural based members than the official opposition. I suggest the hon. member take a look at the province of Ontario and what rural members have accomplished in that province.

I realize the member for Athabasca resents the ethanol biomass program. However, I would point out that if he makes a speech that is on record and goes to the people of his constituency, he should put it in the proper perspective.

[Kosovo, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this important question. It gives us an opportunity to report to the House. We are in the implementation stages of the agreement that has been struck. Canada has committed to send verifiers. The House might be interested to know that many Canadians have expressed an interest in going to Kosovo and serving as verifiers. We are compiling a list at the present time and we will be submitting it very shortly.

I am happy to report to the House that humanitarian aid is getting through to the victims. Canada has now raised its commitment to—

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is opposed to bulk water exports.

Let me clarify that there are no bulk ocean tanker shipments of Canadian water taking place now. The company, Nova Group, hoped to export to Asian markets, but the permit issued by the Government of Ontario was revoked. Nova Group has appealed the decision to the Ontario Environmental Appeal Board. That board has set its hearings early in the new year.

Federal officials consulted all provinces on options to deal with bulk freshwater export proposals. Considerable progress has been made in these discussions which were completed late last September.

The government will layout its strategy for a comprehensive approach to water exports before the end of the year, after ministers have had an opportunity to consider the results of these consultations with the provinces.

The U.S. has agreed to a joint reference to the International Joint Commission to investigate the issue of exports from boundary waters.