Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 22 - Evidence - Meeting of February 28, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 28, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, met this day at 10:45 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is here to deal with Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.
We are commencing our study of the bill, and I am pleased to have before us today the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
We are going to ask you, Minister Baird, to do the usual and give an introductory statement. I see that you have some officials with you. You might wish to introduce them, and then we will go to questions and answers.
Thank you, minister, for appearing today in your busy schedule. It is an important bill, and we appreciate your presence.
Hon. John Baird, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs: Let me introduce Alan Kessel and Marcus Davies from the department. They are here in case there are any technical or more detailed explanations.
Let me say how pleased I am to be before this Senate committee. I have enjoyed working with this committee more than any other committee I have worked with in the Senate.
I was Minister of the Environment not once but twice, and I remember I had more lively discussions in my early days as a minister. I am pleased to be here and I want to thank this committee for the excellent work that it does on behalf of Canadians. If anyone wanted to see the value in a thoughtful, intelligent committee that contributes to the public dialogue, they would not have to look any further than this committee, on both sides of the aisle.
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act. I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation at how quickly this bill appears to be progressing, which is a positive sign of its widespread support and an acknowledgment by all of us of how important these measures are, particularly at this time.
I would like to thank my colleague Senator Johnson who has taken a keen interest in this issue and has agreed to shepherd Bill S-14 as it makes its way through your chamber. I am disappointed that other responsibilities that she has as a senator prevent her from being here today, but, obviously, her role as co-chair of the Canada-United States Inter- Parliamentary Group is a very important one. There is perhaps no parliamentary group more important for us because of the power and influence of the U.S. Congress and I know how meaningful it is to engage at the legislative branch of government.
Canada has played a prominent role on the international stage in combatting corruption, and Bill S-14 signals our government's continued commitment to further deter and prevent Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These six amendments, which I will touch on shortly, will help to ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.
[Translation]
In effect since 1998, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act states that corruption of a foreign public official, in order to obtain a commercial advantage abroad, is a crime in Canada. As a party to various anticorruption conventions, the CFPOA allows Canada to implement our international obligations, not only in the context of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, but also the Organization of American States and the United Nations.
[English]
With recent events 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. Recent cases demonstrate the need for continued vigilance.
As I mentioned briefly, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act proposes to make the following amendments. First, it introduces nationality jurisdiction to allow us to prosecute Canadians or Canadian companies on the basis of their nationality. Currently, we can only do so after proving a substantial link between the offence and Canada. Second, it provides the RCMP with exclusive authority to lay charges under the act. Third, the bill removes the ``for profit'' requirement so that bribery applies to all bribes and not just to those paid by businesses that make a profit. Fourth, it increases the maximum imprisonment from five years to 14 years. Fifth, it introduces a new ``books and record'' offence specific to foreign bribery. Finally, sixth, it eliminates the ``facilitation payments'' exception under the act.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, our government's priority is encouraging jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With respect to our international relations, this priority is reflected in several different ways. It is reflected in the need to position Canada as a reliable supplier of resources which emerging markets need to grow, by implementing a dynamic business promotion program, and it depends upon establishing conditions that are favourable to the success of Canadian businesses.
[English]
We expect Canadian companies to play by the rules and we believe that they can compete with the best and win fairly. That is why we are bringing this legislation forward.
If I could say two things off the cuff, one is on the importance of this legislation. 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.
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of a great Canadian, Huguette Labelle, who is the Chair of Transparency International. She and her group have done some exceptional work. In a report a little over a year and a half ago, they came forward and politely made the case that Canada could do more, and that is one of the key reasons why we are acting today.
While there have been a number of instances in recent months that I think caused all Canadians concern, we were looking at moving forward after Huguette Labelle's Transparency International report. I could not think of a better time given some recent events to do with this issue.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues and I are pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Could I ask an information question? Will this bring us in line with OECD countries so that we will be on an equal footing with those countries?
Mr. Baird: This will bring us in line with OECD expectations and objectives. There are several members of the OECD who, like Canada, have fallen short.
Rather than simply wait for them to act or for us to act all together, we hope the actions Canada is taking will be an inspiration to two or three other countries that, like Canada, have not gone as far as we believe they could.
The Chair: Will we then, along with our colleagues in the OECD, be using this standard, which we would encourage other countries in the world to follow?
Mr. Baird: Yes, particularly aspiring OECD countries.
Senator D. Smith: Minister, thank you for coming. I briefly mention that I am the critic on this bill for our side.
On balance, these are amendments that we support. It goes back to 1998. We had a Liberal government then, when the OECD thing was entered into by Canada.
You have gone through the six quick points. I particularly like the one that eliminates these facilitation payments. There are different ethical standards in different parts of the world, but these were the ones where one pays money to foreign officials to get them to speed it up. That does not fall into the criminal category, but it should. Now, it does. That is a good move.
There have already been three cases, ironically. The one in Ontario involved SNC-Lavalin, who are back in the news for other reasons today. The other two were both in Alberta. I think that those cases illustrate why it had to be cleaned up.
I am curious and not really being critical here. It took many years for us to get here. Were there particular situations that dragged it out this long? Can you shed any light on that? We entered into the agreement in 1998 and it has taken quite a while.
Mr. Baird: The Transparency International report was certainly before the department when I became minister after the last general election. The Transparency International report was, I thought, a clarion call to action. I think, as well, that there are reputational issues for Canada.
Let me be clear: Canadian companies operating abroad — the Canadian mining industry, the Canadian financial services industry, the Canadian natural resources industry and the Canadian energy industry — operate, by and large, with very high ethical standards. I will not mention a particular case because they are before the courts, but we would not want any one or two instances to besmirch the reputation of what is a highly ethical industry. It was not a particular case. It was certainly before the department before I arrived, but that Transparency International report was certainly a good nudge in the right direction.
I would not say that the ``facilitation payment'' should necessarily have been in the 1998 legislation. I think we just found, 15 years later, that we have clearly seen the problem.
Senator D. Smith: The reality.
Mr. Baird: It is perhaps not bribery, but it is the younger sister of bribery. A facilitation payment, for those who do not know — and I did not know when I first tackled this — is not me giving you money to give me the decision I want, but me asking you to take my application from the bottom of the pile and put it on the top of the pile for consideration. Again, I would call it the younger sister of a bribe.
We are hoping that the few remaining countries in the OECD will look at Canada's leadership and, hopefully, it will inspire them to follow suit.
Senator Downe: Minister, in March 2011, the OECD criticized Canada for not having enough investigators working to uncover bribery of foreign public officials. Is it the intention of the government, after this bill is passed, to put more resources into this area?
Mr. Baird: When we tabled this bill, there were discussions with the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General. We will do our best with the Public Prosecution Service, the Department of Justice and the RCMP. Giving them the exclusive mandate will require them to devote additional resources. The amount of attention it has gotten in recent months shows that they are already stepping up their attention and focus on the issue.
Senator Downe: Is there any incentive for these organizations? If they recoup money, does it go back into the investigation pot, as opposed to into general revenue?
Mr. Baird: No, but perhaps it should. I will take that under advisement.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
I am wondering, given the importance of tracking the money, whether the Canada Revenue Agency was involved in giving any advice on this legislation or on procedures? If so, what advice did they give you on this bill?
Mr. Baird: The department says that they are not aware of that. I believe it was done under the previous Liberal government, when bribes were no longer allowed to be tax deductible, which I think was a welcome step.
Senator Downe: A good beginning, we called it.
Mr. Baird: We were probably surprised at that time that it was even allowed in the first place.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, my questions flow somewhat from those Senator Downe asked you; they have to do with the RCMP. From the moment the RCMP receives an accusation or that police authorities have reason to believe an act of corruption was committed with a foreign official, how would the RCMP go about collecting evidence?
Does the RCMP need to go to the country in which the crime was committed, and how do our investigators proceed when government authorities in the country in which the act was committed refuse to cooperate with the investigation?
Mr. Baird: Let me emphasize that this type of investigation is far from easy. There is work to do here in Canada as well as in the other country. This is new; these are new problems with new priorities. Of course, the issue of resources has already been raised by your colleague. I am prepared to raise the issue with my cabinet colleagues: the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety, in order to discuss the issue of resources.
But it is quite difficult for elected officials, since there is a line one would not wish to cross when it comes to how the RCMP goes about its duties. In my opinion, that is not up to elected officials.
I would also like to add something else. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I travel on a regular basis. In nearly every region — not every country, but in nearly every region — there is an RCMP representative stationed in one of our embassies who works not only in the country in which he is stationed, but in several countries in the region.
This is a very important aspect. They can work as a liaison and facilitate things for people who go there to do their work.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have one last brief question. Minister, I do not want you to think that because I am asking this question, I agree with the fact that Canadian companies may pay bribes in order to obtain contracts, and so forth.
In reality, with everything that is going on in Africa, whether that be North Africa or elsewhere, we know very well that certain countries — including China — pay sizable bribes in order to obtain contracts and be able to operate mines, and so forth.
Despite what the OECD is requesting and this wonderful bill that you have prepared, how can Canadian companies succeed in that context?
Mr. Baird: I would like to be very precise, so I will respond in English.
[English]
I do not think, just because some people act unethically to be successful, that Canada or Canadians should act unethically to be successful. At the same time, one hates to see anyone put at a competitive disadvantage for acting honourably and ethically. That is why I think that the OECD's leadership in this regard is so important. I mentioned earlier that the OAS is also involved, as are the United Nations.
I think leadership by example is important. Moving together is important, but there will always be some bad actors who act inappropriately. Obviously, collectively, particularly with the OECD, we want to work to tackle that.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, you said that RCMP officers work from embassies when they are investigating something. Does it happen often that they find it difficult in some places because they cannot completely rely on information they receive from local authorities, such as the police?
Mr. Baird: Absolutely.
Senator Robichaud: Does it happen often?
Mr. Baird: I do not have the precise numbers on hand, but in some foreign countries, corruption is part of life. When a government official from another country begins to ask questions, they are not always pleased. However, in my opinion, the vast majority of countries wish to join the fight against corruption. I was in Haiti on Monday, and we had a most productive meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Their government has made fighting corruption a priority.
From time to time, however, there are people lower down in the administration hierarchy. This is a priority for us, for our commitment, and especially for countries that need development.
[English]
When someone pays a million-dollar bribe to get a contract to build a public works project, that million dollars is coming from the people of that country. That is bad ethically, but it is also tremendously bad if they are a developing country where there is not enough money for education, health care and basic services, let alone acute poverty and famine.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Thank you, minister. I have one question for you.
[English]
However, I would like to address the chair. I agree with our critic that we will be cooperating and trying to get the legislation through as quickly as possible.
Mr. Baird: I have always found that from the Liberal Party.
Senator Dawson: In that haste, Mr. Minister, sometimes, in the other place, they have passed legislation that had flaws. First, I will ask the chair, do we have requests from other witnesses on this bill?
The Chair: Yes, we have one request, and we will attempt to accommodate them on Wednesday.
Senator Dawson: Sometimes these bills, no matter how well they are written, have flaws that are brought forward by witnesses. I remember the first time I heard you as a witness when you were President of the Treasury Board. We were supposed to hold our noses on a bill, but we presented 150 amendments in the Senate and 124 of them were accepted. We do a good job. The Senate has been known to look at bills with a different vision and arrive at amendments. I am hoping that if remarks are put forward, amendments will be acceptable, even though we want to cooperate on passing the bill.
Mr. Baird: If members of the committee have amendments that would make this a better bill, we would be very pleased to consider them. In the spirit of working together, if you could provide them to us ahead of time, we will give even more serious consideration to them.
Senator Dawson: I do not have any at this time, but we will be hearing witnesses. I would appreciate it, if it were to happen next week that we hear from your officials, if we could use our role as the chamber of sober second thought. I am a little jealous because, as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, I thought you would be happy to be Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Mr. Baird: I think I was scarred more from my time with the Department of the Environment.
Senator Dawson: We will try not to scar you today, minister.
The Chair: I will respond by saying that this committee works hard and has gained its reputation admirably, and I am sure that you are doing the same in yours.
Mr. Baird: I do mean that: If senators have advice or counsel that is brought forward in a nonpartisan way, we are pleased to hear it, in particular if you get it to us ahead of time so we can have a quick review.
Senator Robichaud: We need the boost.
Mr. Baird: I tried to give you a boost when I arrived, senator.
The Chair: We have circulated background material. The transparency issues have been raised, et cetera. We have our background briefings on that. Certainly, we will wait to see what all witnesses have to say.
Senator Wallin: The penalties that will be imposed are similar or equivalent to those imposed in domestic law.
Mr. Baird: Yes, they will be brought in line with domestic law.
Senator Wallin: As is generally the case in the U.S., they care more about citizenship and we seem to care more about residency than about citizenship as an approach. Does this apply to Canadians everywhere or just to people working here? Could you clarify that?
Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: This bill applies to Canadians, to residents, to companies and to Canadian members of those companies. If there were someone who was not Canadian, then the usual practice of a substantial link to Canada would be the process by which they would be caught under our law. We get the whole basket.
Senator Wallin: You believe it is encompassing and that people will not be able to escape the net.
Mr. Kessel: We are told by the Public Prosecution Service that this is what they need, and this is what they will get.
Mr. Baird: At the same time, if they are not a Canadian resident, they are not a Canadian citizen, and so it is very difficult for us to capture them. We are a sovereign country and if they are a citizen of another sovereign country, we would hope that their host country would share our commitment to combating corruption.
Senator Wallin: There would be communication amongst police forces, et cetera.
Senator Wells: I have a supplementary question to Senator Wallin's question on Canadians and residents. Businesses that are open to corruption in paying bribes or making facilitation payments are also likely very good at finding ways around laws. Would agents in other countries that are not Canadians and are not part of Canadian corporations be captured under this, or would the officers of the company be the ones responsible?
Mr. Baird: That is an excellent question.
Mr. Kessel: Yes, that issue was dealt with right upfront in this proposed legislation in that any agent directly or indirectly would be caught by this.
Mr. Baird: You cannot evade the law by simply hiring a consultant to do it for you.
Senator Wells: People will try.
Mr. Baird: With every law we pass, bad people try to find their way around it. That is why we are raising the bar from the first law in 1998. The facilitation payment was one loophole.
Senator Wells: Businesses need, almost more than anything else, clarity of rules. You mentioned in your opening statement about all bribes being covered by this. You went on to say of the facilitation payment — the younger brother of a bribe — that even further there would be things like gifts, which are common in other cultures and business cultures. How would that be captured? Some gifts can be quite obvious as a bribe and other gifts can be innocuous as part of the way business is done and a matter of courtesy in doing business with other countries. How is that bar assessed between what I might call gifts or something of a higher level?
Mr. Baird: It comes down to intent. From time to time, I will be given a baseball cap. It goes to intent.
Senator Wells: The intent of a gift in some cultures is to grease the wheel.
Mr. Baird: I would suggest that it is probably like art. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Senator Wells: I guess that would be for a court to decide as well.
Mr. Baird: Absolutely.
Senator Finley: I have quite a few questions, but most of them are irrelevant so I will not go there. The one I want to ask is purely hypothetical, I can assure you.
What might the OECD do if we do not pass the legislation? Would there be sanctions?
Mr. Baird: It would be, for the most part, name and shame.
Senator Finley: Is there nothing material that they could do?
Mr. Kessel: That is a very good question. We are parties to this convention and, as parties, we want to maintain our standing as leading the pack as opposed to following. With this legislation, we will definitely be very much leading the pack.
The OECD is a body of peer review and, exactly as the minister says, they will raise concerns, which they have done, and the government has responded. What we have put in this bill is in keeping with everything that has been concerning the OECD to date.
Mr. Baird: Morality and moral leadership are on one side of the equation. I just mentioned my visit to Haiti. Every dollar that goes to a bribe is a dollar that does not benefit the people who desperately need a new school, or a new hospital, or what have you. Particularly in developing countries, there is a strong development reason for this.
Senator Finley: Are charities and NGOs covered under this bill? It seems like a stupid question, because why would a charity have to give a bribe? I remember seeing distinctly a number of years ago in Indonesia a computer that had been donated by IBM sitting in a corner rotting after a number of years because there was no baksheesh in the deal to pay for its installation. I recall that a few years ago, the Canadian government supplied an African nation with a whole bunch of Massey Ferguson tractors. I remember seeing those tractors sitting on a dock or in a yard some years later because there had been no financial incentive to make use of them.
Mr. Baird: If they are for philanthropic reasons, it is one thing. I recall that in the summer of 2011, when there was famine in east Africa, al Shabaab wanted bribes or it would take control of aid shipments into Somalia. We were appalled. It caused us huge problems.
When you are dealing with international terrorists, pirates or whatever, that is a different matter because they are committing other crimes. It is a slippery slope. Where does it end?
Senator Lang: I want to go back to some comments made earlier by Mr. Kessel. He said that Canada would be leading the pack with the passage of this bill. The background information suggests that Canada can stand well in its place with the fact that we have a number of convictions and 35 investigations under way. Obviously, the investigative bodies are doing the work that we have asked them to do.
Minister, I want to go back to your comment that everyone has to play by the rules. You referred to the OECD, yet it is our understanding that some countries may not be quite as aggressive in pursuing the questions that come under this proposed legislation and the convention.
Also, you mentioned new OECD members or aspiring members. Would Canada's position be that those countries would be required to sign this convention as part of joining the OECD to ensure that those new countries have their companies follow the rules?
Mr. Baird: Our counsel and advice to countries aspiring to the OECD would be that if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound, and that they should look at the wide range of conventions and expectations under the OECD. That would be a key part of the decision as to whether they would be admitted.
I suspect that most countries that would be problematic would be well outside the OECD. Having said that, in coming forward with this bill we are saying that Canada is not as good as it can be or should be and that is why we are seeking to raise the bar.
Senator De Bané: Minister, as you know some countries oblige foreign firms to have a local agent. In some countries it is mandatory to have a local agent. Imagine a very important tender for a large project. The Canadian company that wants to bid for it is obliged to hire a local agent. The company will go to that country, try to identify the most influential person possible to be their agent and say, ``We would like you to be our agent for this contract.'' The guy says that it is no problem, it will be so much and he will take 5 per cent or 10 per cent or whatever.
It stands to reason that some of the money the agent receives will be for his cousin, or the king, or whomever. What about that?
Mr. Baird: Generally speaking, bribery is illegal in these countries. Obviously integrity is key. I would suggest that if anyone is told they have to hire an agent who would take a 10 per cent commission, it begins to look a lot like bribery.
Senator De Bané: It could be 1 per cent or 2 per cent or whatever. I will put it differently: According to Transparency International Canada, which is quite credible, we have the list of all countries from the most honest to the most corrupt. Do you not think that, if I were a Canadian businessman, then I should avoid the second half of that list of the most corrupt countries? Of the 180 countries, of all those that are among the most corrupt, let us say 50 per cent should be off my list of prospects.
Mr. Baird: That decision is for the private sector. Our message to them with this bill is the expectation that they act with integrity. In the newspapers you can read the examples of people who have not acted with integrity and obviously that is causing them problems after the fact.
We are saying that people should act with integrity in their international dealings. I would suggest that they not act in environments where they do not believe they can do so with integrity. However, you are right. It could be a low-level official expecting his palm to be greased, or it could be someone with a close attachment to the senior leadership in the country.
The Chair: As a supplementary question to that, in your definition of ``integrity,'' is due diligence one of the competencies you would expect?
Mr. Baird: Yes. Obviously, we are trying to change the culture of international commerce, and we have many people standing with Canada to do this. Every day, every year, Parliament passes many new laws, but every year people break them. After thoughtful reflection, we still believe it is important to change the culture and to set a standard.
Senator De Bané: Minister, as you know our income tax system in Canada is based on voluntary compliance and barely 1 per cent Canadians are audited. Every Canadian knows that his neighbour pays his income tax, so he has to pay also. There is one system for everyone; there are no exceptions.
In the area of bribes, 27 countries of the OECD have agreed among themselves about this policy that it is not only immoral but also against economic development. To what extent are other countries of the OECD as aggressive and determined as Canada to have a real compliance system and to have the RCMP watching everything? I know they have signed, but are they as determined as we are?
Mr. Baird: There would be a spectrum. Transparency International had said that Canada was wanting and could do a better job. Before we lecture others on doing a good job, we should perhaps raise our game. I will say, on your example of taxation, that there are two or three countries in the European Union where tax compliance is estimated to be in the range of 40 per cent to 50 per cent. Obviously, that is a major problem for the future of those countries.
Sometimes when I travel there are police escorts. When people in Canada come across a police escort in Canada, they immediately pull over to the side of the road. In the other countries, people beep the horn at the police officers and try to cut them off. We have a very different culture in Canada. With respect to corruption, we are trying to change the culture, particularly in the leading economies.
Senator Wallace: Minister, you have described the problem out there that we want to address with this bill. Can you say anything more to us from the information you have about the magnitude of the problem worldwide? Is this a very serious problem that needs to be addressed? With the steps that have been taken to date through the OECD, do you have any sense of whether progress is being made in addressing it? I realize this is a major initiative by us to move forward, take a leading position and take it another step. Do you have a sense of the magnitude and how much progress has been made to date to address it through the OECD?
Mr. Baird: Yes, there is a major problem. There are 35 different investigations and some high profile stories in the newspapers that underline that fact.
When I travel, in particular to some parts of the world, I see that the fight against corruption is real, important and a major challenge to social, economic and commercial development. Developed economies have to do more because more often than not, it is companies of these developed economies that are in these regions. If we just say that this is not the way one can do business, they can say, ``This is illegal. I am not allowed to do this even in your country.'' That sets a higher standard. This is a major problem and the extent of it would vary in most parts of the world.
Most countries, not all as Senator De Bané mentioned, are seeking to tackle this problem with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Many countries certainly want to work with Canada in this regard. For example, I mentioned a visit to Haiti. I found Haiti's Prime Minister very committed to wanting to tackle corruption. He outlined a series of measures that his government has taken in the last year to do that.
The overwhelming majority of Canadian companies act ethically and responsibly, if only for the sake of reputation issues and the Canada brand. We enjoy a very good brand around the world and we want to raise our game.
Senator Wallace: In preparing the bill to address that serious issue, did the department engage in consultations with groups or individuals with expertise in this area so you could have further assurance that it will, as best it can, address the issue?
Mr. Baird: We did that, and I would be pleased to provide that information. We had a workshop in January 2012 for two days. I would be pleased to leave with the committee a list of the people involved in those consultations. I would be happy to table that long list with the committee.
Senator Wallace: We would appreciate that.
The Chair: I have a technical question. We will have the extraterritoriality added to our bill. What will happen if there are competing investigations in another country? These are highly complex issues. No longer are we working in one place or another place. Companies are operating from about 20 places, with the accountant in one place, the bankers in another, et cetera. We are interconnected and complex. How do we handle competing cases?
Mr. Baird: As a policy, we are prepared to collaborate with countries. It would depend on the country — whether it is an independent judiciary or a rule of law, or whether there will be a fair process.
For example, we are dealing with a case in Libya where the International Criminal Court would like access to an individual and the Government of Libya would like to try them domestically. There will be a full spectrum of such issues.
Certainly, the government, the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service will have to collaborate and work together to be successful. Frankly, if people can be brought to justice in a fair and reasonable manner, we are pleased to work with the specific country. They may very well face justice in two countries.
The Chair: The bill will be enacted at a date later than the date of its passage through both houses, should that occur. I understand from the briefing that is to accommodate and inform companies and others of the new implications of this bill.
Could you tell us a bit about that information and at what level it will be? My concern throughout has been due diligence and that companies will have now have to act differently. That will occur at every level of a company and this bill will certainly impact them.
Mr. Baird: I am pleased to say that five of the six measures in the bill will come into effect on proclamation. First, the facilitation payment requires some engagement so that not only companies in Canada are clear, but their subsidiaries elsewhere are clear in terms of what this means.
The Chair: Good. The delay is simply to inform, adjust and gain the understanding.
Mr. Baird: That is the only significant part of it. Five of the six will go into effect right away — the fact of the RCMP having exclusive jurisdiction and any education for the business communities.
The Chair: We have exhausted all the questions and questioners on my list.
Thank you, minister, for coming. This is an important issue. It not only needs to be addressed through the OECD, but also the reputation of Canada can be enhanced by being very diligent in ensuring that best practices for all are employed in Canada and outside Canada.
We will continue to study this bill. I thank you for taking a fair chunk of your time today to come and answer all of our questions.
Mr. Baird: Madam Chair, our officials at the department are available to the clerk, the chair and members on both sides should they want to contemplate amendments or have questions or technical concerns. They will be available formally and informally.
The Chair: Minister, you have made my job simpler. I was going to turn to members and ask if they have questions for officials. Seeing no hands, I thank the officials for being present.
We will adjourn until Wednesday to hear other witnesses. Once we have completed the testimony, we will go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
(The committee adjourned.)