Thank you.
NDP-2 and NDP-3 should probably be read together because it is a layering on of the expectations that one would have on due diligence. It's an attempt to insert a due diligence regime into what is essentially a transparency bill. A transparency bill is a different beast altogether.
Ms. McPherson, to her credit, has outlined what the obligations of a due diligence bill would be. You would have to have a code of conduct. You would have to say what steps you've taken to assess and eliminate the risk. You'd have to consult “with communities affected by forced labour or child labour”. Then you just carry on with other consultations with third parties and with stakeholders on what you've done to prevent and mitigate the risk of forced labour and—now I'm on to NDP-3—“any other risks relating to human rights”.
You've added again. You've gone from the problems that you might find in your supply chain with respect to slave labour and you are now adding on a whole regime of human rights that you have identified. What those things might be is anybody's guess.
You have to put in mechanisms that you've “put in place for the efficient and expeditious handling of the information”. Then you have to summarize all of the complaints and grievances. You have to ensure that there's no reprisal taken against any employee, for instance, or a whistle-blower. Then at the end, you include the “outcomes of its due diligence processes, relevant key performance indicators”.
Even on the threshold that's established in this bill and that's just been passed by this committee, this is an enormous obligation of due diligence.
As I said in earlier remarks, the only two countries that have adopted this style of legislation have been Germany, with a threshold of 3,000 employees, and France, with a threshold of 5,000 employees domestically and 10,000 internationally.
In a perfect world, these are not unsupportable obligations, but we live in a reality where a company that has $40 million in sales and $20 million in assets can't possibly meet the obligations that Ms. McPherson and her colleagues are proposing.
I again urge defeat of NDP-2. I'm assuming—I'll defer to legislative counsel—that if NDP-2 is defeated, NDP-3 may be defeated.
I'll just end on the note of World Vision. Of course, World Vision has been at this for quite a number of years—more years than I've been at it; I've been at it for four years now. They support the legislation moving forward as is. They have come to the reality that this is a good piece of legislation that will move us forward in the space. It will start to address what is an odious scourge on our business climate here in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.