Canadian companies overseas

[eyeball]

The only thing I'd suggest to you is go swallow a bone.

[PIK]

''Till the last fish is caught'' Now that is a good one ,the biggest poachers and threat to fish and wild life is the natives and the wannabees.

[Argus]

So your fine with Canadian companies bribing officials in foreign countries to get what they want then? Hiring local people and paying them next to nothing to work in dirty, dangerous conditions then? Your fine with Canadian companies dumping poisons and pollutants into the local air and water then?

Isn't that what all the local companies in those countries do?

Seriously, why should Canadian companies act any differently than the locals do? When in Rome, you know...

Why is it when you go to work every day you expect to work in a safe, clean environment for decent income but when the company you work for has divisions in other countries they are free to operate as they please?

Because I'm special, and beloved of God.

[eyeball]

Isn't that what all the local companies in those countries do?

Seriously, why should Canadian companies act any differently than the locals do? When in Rome, you know...

Why should I behave better than the lowest common denominator? When in a race to the bottom, you know...

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Argus, I noticed your interests include "Good government", care to define that?

[jacee]

''Till the last fish is caught'' Now that is a good one ,the biggest poachers and threat to fish and wild life is the natives and the wannabees.

Cite?

Sounds like a generalized slam without foundation ... prejudice.

Can you prove me wrong ?

.

[jacee]

Isn't that what all the local companies in those countries do?

Seriously, why should Canadian companies act any differently than the locals do? When in Rome, you know....

When registered in Canada, companies are subject to Canadian law.

They are free to register elsewhere.

.

.

[PIK]

Netting pickerel by the truck load during spawning season? Shooting moose and deer during the off season. Cleaning out lakes with nets. And why because they can and nothing will happen and I have seen it with my own eyes.

[Argus]

Argus, I noticed your interests include "Good government", care to define that?

That would be a government which, for the minimum cost, and with the maximum of efficiency, does what needs to be done to ensure the well-being, stability and health of the community which they were elected to serve.

[Argus]

When registered in Canada, companies are subject to Canadian law.

They are free to register elsewhere.

.

.

Yes, exactly, and they will if we make it unprofitable here.

[jacee]

Yes, exactly, and they will if we make it unprofitable here.

If they conduct business in a corrupt and irresponsible way, then it would be best if they were not doing it as 'Canadian' companies.

.

[Moonbox]

The only thing I'd suggest to you is go swallow a bone.

You've been suggesting all sorts of literally insane things in this thread:

Let's arrest the shareholders (numbering in the tens/hundreds of thousands) of huge international mining corporations who may not be great corporate citizens abroad! Each and every shareholder is accountable! Obviously they all have the time and resources required to get an executive-level understanding of each company they invest in, and to know what each of their thousands of employees are doing!

Then. if someone takes issue with your 13-year old logic and you suggest they attempt suicide!?!?

Edited November 26, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

If they conduct business in a corrupt and irresponsible way, then it would be best if they were not doing it as 'Canadian' companies.

.

The conduct of their business is the norm in those countries. If they can't conduct it like that they won't be allowed to conduct business there by those governments. That's the reality. It's not like they're seducing honest bureaucrats or government officials who were otherwise honest, you know.

[jacee]

The conduct of their business is the norm in those countries. If they can't conduct it like that they won't be allowed to conduct business there by those governments. That's the reality. It's not like they're seducing honest bureaucrats or government officials who were otherwise honest, you know.

Whether you agree or not, it is illegal for Canadian companies operating overseas to pay bribes to government officials of that country:

Penalties

Both the offence of bribing a foreign government official and the books and records offence are punishable by up to 14 years in jail. Corporations are liable to a fine in the discretion of the court. To date, the largest fine imposed on a corporation under the CFPOA is $10.3 million. In that case, the corporation self -reported.In addition to criminal penalties, companies that breach the CFPOA may be liable to debarment from bidding on public sector contracts in Canada, and potentially, abroad.

[eyeball]

You've been suggesting all sorts of literally insane things in this thread:

Let's arrest the shareholders (numbering in the tens/hundreds of thousands) of huge international mining corporations who may not be great corporate citizens abroad! Each and every shareholder is accountable! Obviously they all have the time and resources required to get an executive-level understanding of each company they invest in, and to know what each of their thousands of employees are doing!

I place dictators on the same level that terrorist organizations are. So for that reason I suggest we go after the networks of support that dictators enjoy, including corporate sponsors, for the same reason we go after the networks of support that benefit terrorists.

Then. if someone takes issue with your 13-year old logic and you suggest they attempt suicide!?!?

I took issue with your dismissal of traceability and a process of transparency and accountability that actually exists. Those who say it can't be done shouldn't sneer down their noses at those who are doing it.

If we can follow the trail a fish leaves from where it's eaten to where it was caught then we can follow the profit from a CEO's crime scene to a shareholder's investment portfolio.

Edited November 27, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

I place dictators on the same level that terrorist organizations are. So for that reason I suggest we go after the networks of support that dictators enjoy, including corporate sponsors, for the same reason we go after the networks of support that benefit terrorists.

I'm not surprised you'd equate dictators to terrorists given your oversimplified and childlike perception of the world and how it works. Equally unsurprising is how you've lumped corporate participation in dictator-controlled economies with terrorist financing. Both your judgement and your moral compass need adjustments.

I took issue with your dismissal of traceability and a process of transparency and accountability that actually exists. Those who say it can't be done shouldn't sneer down their noses at those who are doing it.

Wow. You're actually making me laugh now. At no point did I say that food on the grocery store shelves isn't traceable or monitored. I asked you how the end consumer could be reasonably expected to acquire this sort of detailed information before consuming a purchase. If I bought a fish at the grocery store, I wouldn't be expected to trace its handling back to the fisherman who caught it before serving it, would I?

Extend this logic to the stock market now (if you can) and explain to us all how the average ma & pa investor dropping a few thousand dollars down on a stock would be expected to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the inner circle workings of the corporation and all of its conduct abroad? The answer to this question is identical to the to the one in the paragraph above.

When you suggest things like individual shareholders (which often number in the 100,000-1,000,000 or more range) are all complicit in potential corruption abroad, you make it painfully clear how tragically ignorant you are about the world. Your vague understanding of words like shareholder and corporation and the near-mythical villainy you attribute to them extend no further than the average goofball conspiracy theorist's.

[The_Squid]

We hold individuals responsible for crimes in other countries at our border all the time. Commit a crime in another country that is a crime here? You are not allowed in to Canada.

We should be holding corporations to, at minimum, that same standard.

[Moonbox]

We hold individuals responsible for crimes in other countries at our border all the time. Commit a crime in another country that is a crime here? You are not allowed in to Canada.

We should be holding corporations to, at minimum, that same standard.

You can hold people/corporations accountable insofar as they were complicit to the crime. You cannot hold the average shareholder accountable. There may be cases where a large or institutional shareholder is directly involved in or indirectly encouraging a crime, but the average shareholder is so far removed from the actual running of the company that they're no more culpable than a non-shareholder.

[guyser]

It s up to the countries to catch a prosecute them. Cansda should do nothing.

No, Canada does catch and prosecute them. Did you think they dont?

[guyser]

Maybe reread what I wrote.

Oh ok I did.

Heres my reply, Canada does catch and prosecute them. Did you think they dont?

[Moonbox]

Oh ok I did.

Heres my reply, Canada does catch and prosecute them. Did you think they dont?

Try reading it a third time, because you failed again to understand the second time.

[jacee]

You can hold people/corporations accountable insofar as they were complicit to the crime. You cannot hold the average shareholder accountable. There may be cases where a large or institutional shareholder is directly involved in or indirectly encouraging a crime, but the average shareholder is so far removed from the actual running of the company that they're no more culpable than a non-shareholder.

http://www.thelitigator.ca/2014/03/canadas-foreign-anti-bribery-law/

A corporation will be guilty of an offence under the CFPOA if one of its senior officers, acting within the scope of his or her authority commits the offence or, knowing that a representative of the corporation is about to commit the offence, fails to take all reasonable measures to stop the representative from committing the offence.

Senior officer is defined to include anyone who plays an important role in the establishment of the corporations policies or who manages an important aspect of the corporations activities.

I don't see shareholders there.

[jacee]

It s up to the countries to catch a prosecute them. Cansda should do nothing.

Oh well, too late:

The first prison term for an individual convicted under Canada's anti-bribery law. -

Canadian registered company, Canadian charges, even if operating overseas and the guilty 'senior officers' are not Canadian:

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2014/5/28/karigar-jailed-three-years-for-canada-overseas-bribery-convi.html#sthash.ibDBfWpm.dpuf

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2014/6/5/canada-charges-two-americans-and-a-brit-with-overseas-briber.html

[guyser]

Try reading it a third time, because you failed again to understand the second time.

Ok, please tell me what I missed. Thanks

[eyeball]

I'm not surprised you'd equate dictators to terrorists given your oversimplified and childlike perception of the world and how it works. Equally unsurprising is how you've lumped corporate participation in dictator-controlled economies with terrorist financing.

You don't think it would be terrifying to live under a dictator that was being supported by powerful countries and interests located half way around the other side of the planet, you can't encompass that within the definition of terrorism, given all the other things the term is applied to?

Both your judgement and your moral compass need adjustments.

Really. So what do you think Jesus would do?

Wow. You're actually making me laugh now. At no point did I say that food on the grocery store shelves isn't traceable or monitored. I asked you how the end consumer could be reasonably expected to acquire this sort of detailed information before consuming a purchase.

By acquiring it indirectly, when purchasing a fish with a sustainable seafood certificate, you'll find it on the label or see it as identified as such in the store if you know what you're looking for. And yes if you really wanted to you could follow the data in the bar-code and find answers to all the other little details you asked about.

The certification is something consumers are increasingly demanding and in which many markets it is becoming difficult to sell without. The process can be intrusive and expensive including monitoring cameras, human observers, validators and auditors.

Extend this logic to the stock market now (if you can) and explain to us all how the average ma & pa investor dropping a few thousand dollars down on a stock would be expected to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the inner circle workings of the corporation and all of its conduct abroad? The answer to this question is identical to the to the one in the paragraph above.

Like I said, if you know it's entirely possible to trace a fish you consume all the way back to the time, location and depth it was caught then you know can trace an investment you profit from, through a similar step-wise certification process that is mandatory. I can't, for example so much as dip a hook in the water without getting clearance from an official and putting the process of accountability in motion.

When you suggest things like individual shareholders (which often number in the 100,000-1,000,000 or more range) are all complicit in potential corruption abroad, you make it painfully clear how tragically ignorant you are about the world. Your vague understanding of words like shareholder and corporation and the near-mythical villainy you attribute to them extend no further than the average goofball conspiracy theorist's.

Well, as you probably know, I think citizens in democracies are complicit in the crimes committed by dictators they support so why should I regard shareholders of similarly complicit corporations any differently?

Your tepid regard for accountability is about on par with what I'd expect from a shareholder. I remember when fishermen were told to take it or stay tied up.

Edited November 28, 2014 by eyeball