44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 6, 2022 02:00PM
- Apr/6/22 2:08:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week, Pope Francis met an indigenous delegation and offered a clear, public apology for the role played by certain Catholic entities in the implementation of the federal government's residential school policy. The Pope also expressed his desire to come to Canada soon.
This critical step happened because of sincere engagement between indigenous peoples and the church. Many indigenous peoples are active members of the Catholic church. Indigenous Catholics, such as Saint Kateri, lived out church teachings on love, forgiveness, universal human dignity and subsidiarity. These ideas provide the clear basis for rejecting any project of cultural assimilation or state domination of the family.
Christianity is about following the teachings of Jesus regardless of the spirit of the age or the consequences. History is full of examples of Christians who failed to fully live out these teachings, and I am one of them.
The call of Jesus to sacrificial love and to the affirmation of human dignity is always radical, and in an age when colonialism was widely accepted, many church organizations were simply not radical enough. Some here wish to use these failures to attack the church and further subvert it to state power, but that is the wrong direction and would enable other abuses. The failures of the residential school era should point to the need for the church to be an authentic moral witness for Christian teachings on truth and justice, regardless of government policy or the spirit of the age.
247 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is seeking to bring more attention to the situation of Mr. Huseyin Celil. He is a Canadian citizen who has been detained in China for well over a decade now. The petitioners note, and are pleased by, the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They want to see the government really confront the Huseyin Celil case at the same level, and with the same level of energy and intensity, as was brought to the discussion around the detention of the two Michaels.
The petitioners demand that the Chinese government recognize Huseyin Celil's Canadian citizenship and provide him with consular and legal services, in accordance with international law; they want to the government to formally state that the release of Huseyin Celil from Chinese detention, and his return to Canada, is a priority for the Government of Canada that is of equal concern as the unjust detention of the two Michaels; and they want the government to appoint a special envoy to work on securing Mr. Celil's release, as well as to seek the assistance of international partners, such as the Biden administration. The government had been active on the case of the two Michaels and seeking the support of international partners on that, and the petitioners want to see the government do the same with respect to the case of Mr. Celil.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition specifically highlights the situation of the Hazara ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Hazaras are a minority community, specifically a religious minority as well as an ethnic minority. They come from the Shia Muslim community, as opposed to Sunni, and they faced various challenges and various violations of human rights even prior to the Taliban takeover. Of course, the situation has gotten substantially worse. The petitioners want to see the government actively speak out in order to defend the Hazara community in particular, to recognize that the Hazara community have been victims of various genocides, and also to designate September 25 as Hazara genocide memorial day.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table today.
The first petition is in support of Bill S-223, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. I want to assure members that there will be no more petitions tabled on the bill as soon as it is passed. Maybe that will help light a fire under some members to support the speedy passage of this important piece of human rights legislation.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling is in support of the energy sector, which is very important in my constituency. Petitioners note that there is a great need for oil and gas from Canada, that Alberta and western Canada produce the most environmental oil and gas with high labour standards compared with other countries, and that Canada should only be using oil and gas from Canada rather than importing it from other countries. The issue of energy security is so important now, given the Putin regime's reliance on gas exports to fund its war machine. The petitioners are calling on the government and the House of Commons to work to eliminate all importation of foreign oil and gas into Canada within the next five years.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is about a Liberal Party election platform commitment. In the 2021 election platform, the Liberals committed to politicizing charitable status and removing charitable status from organizations that do not share the government's views with respect to abortion.
This politicization of charitable status could jeopardize the status and the good work being done by hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations. This is another values test reminiscent of the Liberals' attack on conscience that we saw as part of the Canada summer jobs program.
Petitioners want to see the government and the House work to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and also to affirm the right of Canadians to free expression.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is about the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically drawing the attention of the House to the various evidence and scientific literature about the connection between low vitamin D levels and higher risk of COVID-19. The petitioners cite various medical analyses that have been done and note further that people get vitamin D from sunlight exposure. Increased awareness about the way they get vitamin D, and the benefits of it, are important, especially in a cold climate where people spend relatively less time outside. The petitioners want the government to recognize the emerging scientific evidence that low levels of vitamin D are associated with poor outcomes from COVID-19, and work to increase public awareness of the importance of maintaining recommended vitamin D levels.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition highlights the ongoing human rights and humanitarian challenges in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. The petitioners note various credible reports that war crimes have occurred including extrajudicial killings, large-scale massacres, looting and sexual violence. The petitioners want to see increased engagement from the House and the government with respect to the situation in Tigray and challenges in Ethiopia overall. They call for that engagement from the government.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:51:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is with respect to the continuing detention of Armenian prisoners of war in Azeri custody following the end of hostilities. The petitioners note that this continuing detention is a violation of international law, and petitioners are concerned by recent events. Petitioners would like to see the Azeri government abide by the 2020 ceasefire commitment and also ensure that supplies of gas are not disrupted to critical areas.
Petitioners want to see the government do all it can to advance peace in the region and also call for the release of these prisoners of war.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my read of the bill is that it advances a form of stakeholder capitalism. It is the idea that government should seek to promote the idea of corporations advancing green or other sorts of non-economic objectives through the marketplace.
I wonder, as a matter of description, if the member agrees that the bill is advancing a form of stakeholder capitalism and if she believes that we should be advancing stakeholder capitalism as a model.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this debate provides to discuss the important issue of stakeholder capitalism.
Fundamental to our current economic system has been the idea of shareholder capitalism, the idea that corporations exist for the specific and narrow purpose of maximizing value for their shareholders. I think it is important to acknowledge that there are legitimate criticisms of this shareholder capitalism model.
When companies only consider the interests of their shareholders, they may end up doing harm to non-shareholders. Questions of morality and long-term sustainability are part of the equation in shareholder capitalism insofar as they impact a company's reputation and bottom line, but insofar as they do not impact the bottom line, they are excluded from consideration. Maybe that presents a problem.
Historically, we have tried to address these harms associated with shareholder capitalism through law, regulation and tax policy, which force companies to internalize social costs. Needless to say, those efforts are never perfect. One increasingly popular response to the potential problems with shareholder capitalism is the proposed alternative model of stakeholder capitalism. I will argue today that stakeholder capitalism is dangerous. It exacerbates the problems of shareholder capitalism and creates new problems of its own.
Stakeholder capitalism is the idea that we should pursue an economic system in which companies seek to maximize value for all stakeholders instead of just their own shareholders. On the face of it, the idea that companies should concern themselves with the social good instead of their own bottom line is obviously intuitively appealing to many people, but we need to go beyond the superficial, nice-sounding platitudes that usually shape the defence of stakeholder capitalism to understand the substantive implications of this radical shift in thinking.
To start with, it is important to understand the history of the idea. Stakeholder capitalism is a new name, but not a new model. In fact, the process of early European colonization was generally affected through large monopolistic companies that were granted charters to trade exclusively in certain areas, partially in exchange for commitments to undertake certain other non-economic actions that were perceived to be in the interests of the home state.
The Hudson's Bay Company and the East India Company were early examples of stakeholder capitalism at work. These companies acted like governments when they were in the field, and they were protected in their undemocratic exercise of political authority by the fact that they took into consideration the interests of their chosen or assigned stakeholders. Of course, they did not take into consideration the interests of all stakeholders, but neither do their modern equivalents.
Today one of the most prominent proponents of stakeholder capitalism is the World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab. Stakeholder Capitalism is his most recent book, and it is explicitly endorsed in the Davos Manifesto. Here in Canada, Mark Carney is a leading advocate and his book Values makes similar arguments to those made by Schwab. Schwab, Carney and the NDP member proposing this bill today have every right to advance a particular set of proposals about how they believe our economy should change, but we should talk about the fact that these ideas have significant unseen consequences.
Generally speaking, though not always, the proponents of stakeholder capitalism come from the political left. The political left has a long track record of critiquing shareholder capitalism, but has generally done so in the context of a broader critique of corporate power. That critique has been that corporations should not be too powerful because they can use their position of power to exploit workers and to push agendas that may be contrary to the democratic will of the people. This is actually a potentially good critique, and many modern conservatives would embrace it, adding as well that too powerful corporations can often use their power to subvert and undermine the market itself.
Conservatives and past versions of left-wing parties have both critiqued powerful monopolistic corporations, but have disagreed about solutions. Left-wing parties have critiqued capitalism itself and pushed for greater state ownership, while conservatives have sought pro-competition and other forms of regulation to ensure that private enterprise can do its job without any single private company having enough power to distort the market or undermine the common good.
Today the parameters of the economic debate have dramatically changed. Today many on the left no longer critique corporate power itself, but simply argue that corporations should be asked to champion progressive or woke causes. The political left now seems fine with large and powerful corporations as long as those corporations are talking about climate change, racial inequality, and trans rights. The left is no longer talking about the problems of corporate power, but about how to use corporate power.
It is very telling that Bill C-245, the bill we are debating tonight and a bill proposed by someone who is arguably one of the most left-wing members of this chamber, is about using corporate power instead of limiting corporate power. She is demonstrating that shift in the thinking of left-wing parties. In particular, Bill C-245 proposes to use the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Crown corporation, as an ideological tool to shape the kinds of investments that are made in the private sector and to do so with non-economic objectives in minds. This is what stakeholder capitalism has been all about since the colonial era, the use of corporate power to advance ideological objectives that are distinct from shareholder interests.
I believe that modern conservatism must strongly make the case against the kind of stakeholder capitalism championed by this bill and others.
Modern conservatism must take up the arguments against corporate power and recognize that centralized corporate power can be just as dangerous when wielded on behalf of stakeholders as it can be when wielded on behalf of shareholders. We have to defend workers and defend one person, one vote democracy against the idea that corporate power brokers should be the ones defining collective values. This is not an unquestioning defence of shareholder capitalism, which requires appropriate control. It is simply a recognition that the prevailing concept of stakeholder capitalism is worse.
Broadly speaking, I would make three arguments against stakeholder capitalism.
First, an emphasis on stakeholder values is often done insincerely as a branding exercise to mask a lack of real and substantive action on genuinely important issues. It could be used as a basis for claiming that public interest or anti-monopoly regulation is not necessary, even while not moving substantially on the values that are claimed. On this point, I would like to challenge all corporations that have said Black lives matter to say the same about Uighur lives. The NBA, among many others, has figured out that campaigning for racial justice in America is good for their bottom line and campaigning for racial justice in China is bad for their bottom line. However, those who only campaign for racial justice when it is good for their bottom line are not really for racial justice.
Mark Carney, whom I referred to earlier, got himself into hot water for making and then walking back the dubious claim that the half-trillion dollar asset management firm where he works is net zero. I think some members of the House would call that greenwashing. The prevalence of hypocrisy and its potential to distract from real action is one important critique of stakeholder capitalism.
The second critique is that, even when corporations are sincere about championing certain values, encouraging them to identify and then act in the best interests of stakeholders gives companies too much power to make decisions about the common good that they do not have the mandate to make and that are outside of their expertise.
The House decided at one point to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. Why? It was because we determined that corporations should not have a privileged ability to shape public conversations about the common good by funding certain candidates over others. It was recognized that corporations' being able to throw their weight around in politics has a distorting effect on decision-making. However, what is the point of banning corporate and union donations to political parties if we then allow and even encourage those same corporations to use their unique privileges to advance political positions in other ways, by requiring their employees to take courses on progressive ideology, pushing investments toward certain kinds of enterprises or enjoying the privilege of limited liability while participating in explicitly political activity?
I believe that decisions about the goods that a society pursues should be made through democratic competition and debate, not through corporate-directed stakeholder consultations that perpetuate corporate interests and power, even when well intended. The goods that a society prioritizes should be selected on a one person, one vote basis, not on a one share, one vote basis. Even the most generous-hearted corporations necessarily reflect the power of shareholders and management to aggregate feedback from their chosen stakeholders as they make decisions.
A society in which large corporations identify stakeholder values and then push those values is functionally much less democratic than a society in which collective social priorities are identified through open and transparent democratic debate. Again, the corporatized nature of European colonialism should point us to the risks of excessive and unconstrained corporate power, even when corporations are supposed to be responding to certain non-economic, stakeholder-driven imperatives.
My final concern with the stakeholder capitalism model is about the way that it enables government to use corporate action to advance its objective, which is very clear in this bill. Those with regulatory power over corporations can achieve a great deal through the power of suggestion. Corporations understand that they are less likely to face hostile regulation if they are on the same page as governments when it comes to non-economic matters.
If the government tells social media companies to regulate speech or tells banks to deny banking services to certain kinds of people, then it is very much in the interest of those corporations to be helpful. Governments are doing this sort of thing more and more. Stakeholder capitalism provides the intellectual tool kit for governments to ask corporations to use their corporate power in a particular preferred way. In the process, by using corporate power to their advantage, governments can exercise far more power over people's lives than they would otherwise. When the government acts directly, it is subject to scrutiny and accountability mechanisms that do not apply to private corporations. By acting through corporations and using the power of suggestion, governments can achieve preferred outcomes with less scrutiny and accountability.
In general, a world in which political and corporate leaders establish common values and use corporate power alongside state power to push them is less democratic than one in which business sticks to business and common values are identified through democratic debate and advanced by regulators through transparent regulation. In the process, we must preserve a healthy skepticism of corporate power and recognize that a functioning capital system is one in which no single player dominates the field.
Instead of using the Canada Infrastructure Bank to push so-called stakeholder values, Conservative believe that we should eliminate the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has been a failure by any standard. This so-called bank already represents a perverse structure for combining government and corporate interests because it involves the taxpayer assuming the risk associated with private investments.
The genius of a market system is that private actors must bear risk in proportion to their potential gains. The only thing worse than socialism is a policy that privatizes gains while still socializing losses—
1960 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
