Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2022

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Ms. Dwyer.

I understand that there are amendments you're seeking in terms of changes to this bill. It would seem to me that regardless of those other proposals, taking what most people recognize as a step in terms of exposing awareness, encouraging companies to be reporting on this, would be a constructive step at least in bringing more attention to this, and that's generally what we've heard from witnesses.

I know your network feels differently. Help us understand why it wouldn't be worthwhile to still take this step. I'd love to hear your feedback.

[Emily Dwyer]

The evidence in other jurisdictions where this kind of modern slavery reporting law has been brought forward is that it hasn't had an impact in changing corporate behaviour. It hasn't had an impact in helping to root out or deal with forced labour abuses. So it doesn't help solve the problem, and at the same time it has also quashed momentum towards more effective laws.

If you look at the situation in the United Kingdom or in Australia, their civil society space to move forward other laws closed. The time for Parliament to speak about those issues closed. So by making it look like the government is doing something, because there's a law on the table, the momentum towards more effective legislation gets pushed back.

I think there's a parallel that we can put in place with the situation in Canada. It's almost five years since the Government of Canada announced the creation of an ombudsperson's office to independently investigate, and we're still waiting for that to happen.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would just say that this isn't a government bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid, Mr. Genuis, that we're well over the allotted time.

We now go to Ms. Bendayan.

You have four minutes, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd be pleased to ask the RRSE representative some questions, but I'd like to give notice of a motion first.

The motion is this:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the chair be instructed to schedule the first meeting of the study on women's sexual and reproductive health and rights no later than Monday, December 5, 2022.

I give notice of the motion. I am not moving the motion at this time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your opening remarks, Ms. Chipot. I really liked how you expressed your concerns. You made it very clear that reporting isn't enough, and I quite agree with you.

You mentioned the examples of France and Germany, which have due diligence mechanisms. Should we focus more on such mechanisms?

If so, can you give us an idea of which organizations would be covered by the due diligence requirement? Are we talking about using the same definition as Germany? What would you suggest to our committee?

[Alice Chipot]

I'll refer the question on the definition proposals to Ms. Dwyer from CNCA because I know they've done a lot of work on this.

We certainly need to broaden our understanding of human rights and social and environmental consequences. We shouldn't be segmenting things as we are doing now with a bill that specifically targets modern slavery. We need to look at things more broadly.

The strength of the German and French bills, for example, is that they are broader in scope, meaning that there are more types of organizations and companies targeted, while at the same time providing for sanctions and the possibility of going to court, before a common law judge, to obtain a conviction.

If you want further clarification, Ms. Dwyer will tell you exactly what the definition should be.

Have I answered your question?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Yes, thank you.

I don't have a lot of time, so I'd ask Ms. Dwyer to continue.

[Emily Dwyer]

Would you prefer that I answer in French?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Answer in either English or French, as you wish.

[Emily Dwyer]

Because of the time, I'll be faster in English.

In terms of the laws that you put forward, both Germany and France.... Just to put it out there, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability put out a model law in May 2021 that studied the legislation that has advanced across Europe, consulting with other partners—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm sorry, but with the limited time that I have.... Who are you proposing that this apply to, the due diligence that you have suggested?

[Emily Dwyer]

It should apply to Canadian companies and those importing into Canada—those who are doing business here.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Is it all Canadian companies?

[Emily Dwyer]

The obligation to respect human rights according to the UN guiding principles and the OECD guidelines that Canada has signed on to applies to companies of all sizes.

We have recommended that this obligation be placed squarely on all companies, and if there are going to be exclusions for companies of smaller sizes, that it be done via regulation in low-risk sectors, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. Dwyer and Ms. Bendayan.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have four minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us and for their remarks.

My question is for Ms. Dwyer and Ms. Chipot.

I imagine that you realize how counter-intuitive what you are asking for is, in that no one can be against apple pie and virtue. Consequently, what is being proposed is really in line with what everyone wants, but it may not go far enough.

Don't you see this as a first step toward something that would be more elaborate?

[Alice Chipot]

I would like to seize this opportunity, after the comment that was made to your colleague a few minutes ago.

There is currently a movement building around this issue. However, there is a risk of slowing this momentum by implementing ineffective legislative mechanisms. The European Union has adopted directives. Canada could also have more effective and efficient rules.

Ms. Dwyer, would you like to round out my answer?

[Emily Dwyer]

In fact, we must recognize that our basic mission is to ask parliamentarians to put in place legislative mechanisms to hold companies accountable. So it's difficult for us, as a network and as a civil society, to do otherwise; we have to ask you to support and implement such legislation. It is urgent that Canada act. However, we want the proposed legislation to address the problem. We don't want legislation that won't address the abuses.

I think we've been very clear about the three elements we think are essential for this legislation to be effective. First, it must require companies to prevent human rights violations. Second, it must help victims access remedies. Third, it must apply to all human rights, not just one.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I understand from your remarks that you favour Bill C‑262 over Bill S‑211.

How would passing Bill S‑211 prevent the subsequent passing of Bill C‑262?

[Emily Dwyer]

The two pieces of legislation that would be enacted could be complementary. Just because a piece of legislation exists doesn't mean that another can't be passed.

International experience to date has shown us that none of the countries that have passed legislation requiring reporting on modern slavery have taken the second step of passing due diligence legislation or legislation that requires companies to respect human rights and provides access to remedies. That's why we're urging the government not stop at legislation that only requires companies to report.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The Minister of Labour's mandate letter instructs him to “introduce legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses”.

The two bills before us, Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262, are parliamentary initiatives.

Do you expect anything from the government in addition to these parliamentary initiatives?

[Emily Dwyer]

As you said, the Minister of Labour's mandate letter is clear. His parliamentary secretary is here with us today, so I think the minister is very interested in our discussions to come up with something fairly ambitious and robust in Canada as well. We hope that will be the case.

The Canadian government hasn't taken a position on whether new legislation will be introduced or whether it would use a bill that has already been introduced in Parliament. We don't think it's important if it's done through a bill—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Dwyer, we are considerably over the time for this slot.

[Emily Dwyer]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We will now go to Ms. McPherson.

You have four minutes, Ms. McPherson.