Evidence of meeting #27 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
To add a bit, Stéphane, I think Bill S-204 is the bill you're looking for, sponsored by Senator Leo Housakos. I think it was referenced by Mr. Genuis.
To circle back to your question, they want to move out of the country. What country are they going to move to? That's the obvious question. I imagine both Russia and China are open to it, but beyond that, it's a limited pool of countries.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I see that you've done your homework and checked on laws in effect in other countries. In Germany, for example, checks are also required for measures or operations that could result in environmental degradation. Checks are also required in relation to inequality in employment based on ethnic origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, age and other such grounds.
Was that something that you considered for this bill?
Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG
First, I'd like to say that, in Germany, the due diligence law related to supply chains is very progressive. It initially applies to companies with over 3,000 employees. In the case of Bill S‑211, we're targeting companies with at least 250 employees. Yes, then, comparisons can be made, but that applies to a very small group of companies.
Basically, your questions is about whether we could have included all human rights in the bill instead of just issues related to forced labour and child labour. Without a doubt, but remember that it's a private member's bill, which, for a range of reasons, must be targeted, have a very specific purpose and not seek to be too broad. It's a matter of small but important steps. It was John McKay who introduced this bill for the first time in 2018, before I did. Unfortunately, you were unable to debate it. He determined that the bill had be targeted so that it could be properly explained and understood by companies, and I fully agree with him in that respect.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I would say that it's a series of trade-offs. If you want to load up on the whole panoply of human rights, you're going to have to load up the size of the companies, because the obligations that flow from that are quite substantial and are not within the purview of a lot of the other companies we have targeted.
We've lowered the threshold of the companies and made the net wider to catch the companies that are doing it. It enabled us to have—if you will—a first start on supply chain legislation. If, in fact, others wish to put other obligations on those companies, they can work their way through the parliamentary process at the same time, as we have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Monsieur Bergeron.
We'll now go for the last six-minute spot with Ms. McPherson.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne and Mr. McKay for their work on this.
This is very important work. It's vital that we get this right. I have to say that I have some deep concerns about this legislation. Part of my concern stems from the fact that it makes it look like we are checking all the boxes, when this legislation is perhaps checking the first box.
I worry about the lack of next steps. We're being asked to accept that next steps will be coming.
I have to say that I've spent most of my career working on the CORE ombudsperson situation. We know what happens when we are given an initial step that is not sufficient and how it does not result in further steps. It results in an ombudsperson who can't do their job.
I have a few questions for you. First, while this bill creates a reporting requirement for some companies, it does not adequately address preventing and remedying harm. It doesn't require companies to change their behaviour and practice, other than producing a report. The only penalties in this bill are for companies that don't report or make misleading or false claims, but not for companies that are actually using forced labour.
Can you explain why that's the case?
Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG
We won't magically eliminate all forced labour in our supply chain. The idea is to give companies a bit of time to truly understand what's happening in their supply chain and resolve it.
You say the bill has no real consequences. On the contrary, the fact that companies must report publicly on what they're doing and not doing becomes a tool for public review. This comes at a time when, as you know, society is a lot more demanding of companies. They're not just there to make profits; they must also have responsibilities.
You're right in saying that companies aren't being required to show results. They're nonetheless being asked to do an exercise. Since the reports will be public, they can be compared. That's what's done in England and Australia. Facing a penalty is something.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Senator, I would add that, if this bill passes, there are seven obligations on a company that don't exist right now. They have to report on the structure and activities in their supply chain; they have to report on their policies and due diligence processes; they have to report on what risk there is of forced labour in their supply chain; they have to talk about measures taken to remediate.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
John, I'm going to interrupt you; I'm going to run out of time. I'm sorry to be rude, but I do have more questions for you.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I understand what you're saying, that we have to take this slowly for companies' sake, but you've also said that we are well behind what other countries are doing, so we're saying both that we need to go more slowly and also that we are well behind. That's really not the ticket to getting us to catch up.
The other thing I would also want to point out, too, is that, if we are looking at, as Mr. Bergeron has brought forward, where companies will go to hide if they don't want to act responsibly, is Canada not becoming one of those countries where they can go to hide if they don't want to act responsibly?
What have you heard from the government on possible amendments so far?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
We've had discussions, although I haven't seen anything on paper. I don't know; I can't give you a straight answer on that question.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You haven't heard whether or not they will be amending or any details on that.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The minister has said directly to me—he said it on the public record as well—that they're very supportive of the bill and want to improve it. I don't know what improving means. I've asked for the amendments, but thus far they have not been forthcoming.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That, of course, is a bit of a problem for parliamentarians because, as you can imagine, those who are not part of your government are suspect of things like “It's coming”.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I know. I imagine.
I've put forward a bill. It's C‑263. It's on the CORE ombudsperson. There are some things that we put in that bill that would make that position more robust. Would you be open to some of the amendments of this bill coming from C‑263? Have you read it? I guess that's the key question.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'm hard pressed to respond to that. You and I are fellow travellers on this particular issue of the ombudsperson.
I do take slight issue with the characterization of ineffective. I think she's doing a pretty fair job.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's been very expensive with very few findings of fault.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The other thing is that, if this bill does pass, I think we leap ahead of Australia. I think we'll leap ahead of U.K. I'm not sure that we'll ever leap ahead of the Americans. France and Germany live on different planets. They've decided to go big or go home, if you will, and go big or go home has meant that there's a lot of stuff going on that doesn't get home.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Wouldn't it be nice if Canada had that kind of ambition?