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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Julie Miville-Dechêne  Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG

4:30 p.m.

Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG

Julie Miville-Dechêne

We've had a lot of support, but I must say that we saw how polarizing the debate has been. The chamber of commerce told us it agreed with the objectives of the bill, while asking that we amend about ten sections to make them less onerous.

For instance, the concept of control mechanisms was impossible. To change that, Senator Amina Gerba put forward an amendment that, in my opinion, was relatively important from a symbolic standpoint. Originally from Cameroon, Senator Gerba, herself, worked as a child in her home country. One of the elements that the bill says companies must address in their report is remediation. During the meeting, concerns were often raised that, if the legislative measure works well and companies lay off employees, most often children, what will happen to their families? Indeed, those children are often the only breadwinners in the family.

Adding the remediation element means that there will be consequences and that there must be an attempt to encourage companies to do something outside the business. That's something that's already being done. For instance, Lululemon, a company that's making a lot of effort, discusses remediation in its reports.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

To be perfectly fair, though, how many aren't? I mean, that's the problem when we leave corporations the will to act appropriately. We can't always be certain that it's the case. Can I just ask—

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

Ms. McPherson, I'm afraid we're out of time.

Mr. Aboultaif, you have three minutes remaining.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Thank you.

Thanks for putting forward this bill. I think it's a very important bill.

In 1999, there was an American CEO who refused to take her job to lead a factory in Asia because of just these conditions or just these same reasons that you're addressing here on child labour. I went through the bill, and there are two things I'd like to ask you.

The first thing is that I don't see any actual mechanism in the bill that would really meaningfully address this situation to prevent any of the child labour abuses from taking place where we buy our products, which is something that I believe can be done through a part of the ISO 9000 quality and safety features. There is something there just to make sure that every company complies with all the child labour conditions.

The second thing is the threshold. I would love for you to also explain to us why this threshold. It seems like it doesn't really cover a lot of ground, which really allows a lot of leaks into the system, into the supply chain, and therefore we will be basically doomed for the same thing that we're trying to fight.

4:30 p.m.

Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG

Julie Miville-Dechêne

Thank you.

I will answer the second part of your question, the one on the threshold.

You are asking why we chose $40 million?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Yes.

4:30 p.m.

Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG

Julie Miville-Dechêne

Well, it's not an easy choice.

You should know that in Britain, it's about $64 million for the threshold, and in Australia, it's about $100 million. Australia just goes for bigger enterprises. We go for the big and the middle-sized enterprises. This was the reasoning, because experts say that there's more forced labour in middle-sized enterprises. We didn't want to go higher in terms of threshold.

Why not go lower? Because if we catch too many small enterprises.... This writing of a report is not that easy. How do you want them to have enough expertise, time and money to do that? We tried to find a balance.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

We're casting it similar to an audit. The statements will have to be signed by the relevant corporate director, and they'll have to be signed off by the board. The statements are going to have to be substantive and verifiable, and give you the same category as a false statement under an audit.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Back on the enforcement of this whole bill, I think the biggest issue is that you lay out so many conditions and a lot of good planning within the bill but—I think Mr. Chong said the same thing—where is the enforcement part of it and why not? Why is there no enforcement mechanism within the bill?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

There is an enforcement mechanism in the bill. You first of all have to file a report. If you don't file a report, in theory the Minister of Public Safety will come down on you with both boots. The powers of the Minister of Public Safety, which are set out in section 15, include the power to enter your home, examine your documents, examine your computer system, issue a warrant and ultimately a fine of $250,000.

Others have said that $250,000 is hardly anything at all, that it's a rounding error. We agree. For some companies like a Walmart that's a rounding error. But for some companies it's a serious amount of money, and the symbolism of it is pretty significant.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

The last question goes to Mr. Oliphant.

You have three minutes, please.

September 26th, 2022 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was vintage McKay several times. And I'm just getting to know the senator. Maybe it is vintage Madame la Sénatrice.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Are you saying I get better with age?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

You're getting better with age. You're learning.

I want to congratulate you on the bill, because you haven't let perfection get in the way of doing good. I think it is noted, for me at least as a member of this committee, that with every piece of legislation it's not perfect. And I think it needs to be part of a continuum of legislation.

I want to go back a little bit to the scope of the bill. I just want to echo the concern you had that certain amendments could be outside the scope and ruled outside the scope, sending the bill back. At second reading we got a certain understanding of the scope of the bill and it was approved. I'm not against moving into geographic things and I'm not against doing something else, but I am very much in favour of getting something done.

I just wanted to give you a chance if you wanted to say anything else about the kinds of amendments you could see as helpful that could strengthen... again, not letting perfection get in the way of doing something really important and really good.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Thank you, Rob.

It's hard to react to, say, Mr. Chong's or Mr. Genuis' initiatives or even Ms. McPherson's initiative unless you see it on paper and see where it fits in the bill. Once you see that you can figure out whether it is or is not within the scope of the bill.

If it's within the scope of the bill is it worth the ping-pong match that it inevitably will be? If it's of significance it will inevitably go back to the Senate. I have nothing but faith in our Senate colleagues, but they have their own agendas and their own way of proceeding.

4:40 p.m.

Senateur, Quebec (Inkerman), ISG

Julie Miville-Dechêne

And they're independent.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

And they're very independent, I've noticed—yes. Sometimes the government can't even get them to do what they want them to do. So these are real considerations.

The third thing I would say is that Bill S-204 will be coming before this committee at some point, I think, and the committee will be able to look at whether that is an appropriate bill to pass on, assuming Bill S-204 gets out of the Senate.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

One thing I would maybe push our government on a little bit is that hand-in-hand with this legislation would need to go money not only for enforcement but for public education. I think a big part of anything that involves changing consumer patterns requires some education, and I don't think we can put that all on the burden of just companies. I think that also the Canadian public would need to know that. So I would be finding a way for this committee perhaps to recommend something like that to the government.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Yes, that's an interesting thought.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi

At this point, allow me to thank the senator and MP McKay for appearing before us. I'm sure we all very much benefited from your explanations, and we're very grateful that you chose to appear before us, especially since it was on such short notice.

We will suspend for a few minutes so that we can go in camera and turn our attention to committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]