Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will oppose all the amendments, both on substantive and on procedural grounds. Let me start with substantive grounds as opposed to simply procedural grounds. In some respects, NDP-1 encapsulates why these amendments cannot be supported by this committee.
I want to acknowledge the presence of Senator Miville-Dechêne here. She and I talked about what the thresholds should be for companies to be captured by this legislation, because this legislation is quite onerous. It is a considerable burden on Canadian companies as it currently exists, let alone as Ms. McPherson wishes it to exist.
Think about that for a moment. That means that small companies up and down Bank Street, out in the suburbs of Scarborough or anywhere else, will be captured by this legislation and then, as you go through the amendments, the burdens of the legislation will start to get layered on those companies. After that, the proposal is to assign the enforcement mechanism onto the ombudsperson. I take note that this committee has not heard from the ombudsperson as to whether she would be capable of handling the burdens of this legislation, were it amended.
I point out to you, Mr. Chair, that my friend wishes to turn what is supply chain transparency legislation into due diligence legislation. There are two regimes that have due diligence legislation: France and Germany. The threshold for French companies is 5,000 employees domestically and 10,000 employees internationally. The threshold for Germany is 3,000 employees. My friend is proposing that there be no threshold, not even modest thresholds for transparency legislation.
Then, in addition, she eliminates from the burdens of the legislation non-profit organizations and labour unions. That's curious, since many labour unions are substantially bigger than a lot of for-profit companies, and it's not as if they don't use goods and services that may have supply chains that are infected by slavery.
I will continue to expand these thoughts over the course of the presentation of these amendments. I urge colleagues to look at this from the lens of the proprietor of a small business that does $50,000 a year or maybe $100,000 a year. You're capturing massive numbers of companies with this. No legislation in the world covers this number of companies, whether it's transparency or due diligence.
I just don't know how we could even consider supporting this, especially in light of the limited evidence that is before this committee. This committee has heard one day, two hours, of evidence from four or five witnesses total. That's it since May.
I do not support this amendment, and I urge colleagues not to support the amendment.
I have not even gotten into the procedural reasons why we won't support this amendment. If there's any one amendment, it will go back to the Senate and, if it goes back to the Senate, this legislation may be lost for the balance of this Parliament, because none of us will have any ability to influence the senators.
With that, I will end my remarks. They do apply to the other amendments proposed by my friend, who I hope will still be my friend at the end of this hearing.
I just urge colleagues to look at this from, I would say, the almost impossible burden that these amendments put upon all corporations—any entity, whether it's incorporated or not incorporated, that “has a place of business in Canada, does business in Canada or has assets in Canada”. Read it on its face—anything is captured. That would be a very difficult burden.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.