SoVote

Mr. Matt Friedman (Chief Executive Officer, Mekong Club)

03:52:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Matt Friedman. I have been working on the issue of addressing modern slavery for over 35 years in over 40 countries. I now run an organization that works with the private sector in a positive, supportive and non-naming and shaming way. I can't emphasize the urgency of the fact that we really need to do more to address the issue of modern slavery. According to the slavery index and ILO, the new number is 50 million people, up from 40 million people, as a result of COVID and many other things that are going on around the world. That translates to about 25,200 people entering per day. With a $150-billion industry and with all of the collective work of all the organizations only resulting in 100,000 people being rescued each year, which is about 0.2%, we really have to do much more in order to address this issue. As we have seen from the statistics, 75% of what we're dealing with is forced labour. Of that, 60% is associated with supply chains, which basically brings the private sector into this fight. As a result of that, it's very appropriate that we are moving in the direction of talking about legislation that basically brings the private sector into addressing modern slavery. Transparency legislation has been around since 2012. The first legislation was the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act. It basically just said that if you're a big company, you have to put on your website what you're doing to address modern slavery. That's all it said. The U.K.'s Modern Slavery Act came and added more bells and whistles, which basically said you have to have an annual report that you submit that addresses a number of things. As a result of that, you will have to have that signed by the board of directors. With each incarnation of this transparency legislation, you see more things being added. This is important because it helps to sensitize the private sector to what they need to know, not only in Canada but in their supply chains around the world. It also allows for consumers to get a general sense of what companies are doing or not doing. This is a very relevant and important part of what needs to be done in order to offer the transparency that this legislation is proposing. Why is this bill needed? It will help to educate and inform the companies as well as the government. What's interesting about this legislation is that it includes procurement for government agencies as well, which is a twist that we haven't really seen in a lot of the other legislation. This will increase the basic understanding. I know this is needed and essential, because I recently did a presentation tour across Canada for three weeks. I was going to Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa. I was hearing from a lot of companies that they didn't really know much about this issue. They recognized the importance, but they didn't really have the basic information. This bill will allow for that to happen. It will allow companies to submit their basic submissions. If they don't, fines and penalties will be in place. A lot of the other transparency legislation implies that this happens, but they don't actually have that in place. This is really encouraging because it will ensure that companies take this seriously. It will encourage other countries to add the public sector element to this because with each incarnation of transparency legislation, the other countries go back and try to revise and add things so it's consistent with the global norm. This will create peer pressure because the companies that are submitting will be able to look at the public inventory that's online to compare themselves to other organizations. That's an amazing increase. Lastly, the kind of emphasis on forced labour and the child labour clause that focuses on customs and border protection is essential. I think a lot more clarity is needed in order to identify exactly what that means, but in reality that's a plus. My advice is that if this legislation gets enacted, it should actually get operationalized. We have seen in other countries that they have it on paper and things are done, but a lot of organizations don't necessarily comply with what is required of them. I think it's important to get feedback from the private sector. The private sector has a lot to offer when it comes to helping to understand the complexity and the range of supply chains around the world. The people who are actually overseeing this and who will be managing the process really need some training to understand what's needed. I say this because I have met with customs and border protection organizations that have similar types of oversight. Many of them just don't have the kind of experience that's needed to really address this. I think it's important that we not reinvent the wheel. A lot of these companies really don't know where to start. They are willing to be in compliance. We have tools available. We have organizations that know how to address this issue and we have, basically, consultation series and procedures. Add something in there that ensures there are resources to ensure that the private sector can get up to speed. We saw this with the U.K.'s Modern Slavery Act. Initially, there was some grumbling from the private sector, but once it crossed over the line, they asked, “What do we need to do?” When it comes to that, what you need to do, there are organizations such as mine and others that are able to help, and, within a fairly short period of time, a lot of these organizations could be brought up to speed. With that, I'm done. Thank you very much.

1011 words

All Tags

Context: Bill S-211 (FAAE) - Nov/21/22

Mr. Matt Friedman

04:11:57 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Basically, what you have with this legislation is many of the same components that you would find in Australia, the U.K., and the California act. As I mentioned, there is a progression over time. California was simple; the U.K. and Australia were a little bit more. What you have added that's different is the procurement emphasis of the public sector, which is extremely relevant and important. There is more of a benchmarking of the fact that if a company does not comply, there will be fines and penalties associated with this. As I indicated, the other acts imply that some type of punishment will occur if compliance doesn't take place, but it's really not spelled out and we really haven't seen that applied in the other transparency legislation component. As a result of that, there are a lot of companies that simply don't submit anything at all. What makes this different is that you have criteria that are a little bit different in terms of the revenue, the assets, and the number of employees related to companies, and so on. This emphasis on ensuring that companies submit and go into a public registry is what puts this further along in the transformation of transparency legislation. What will happen over time, as I said, is that other countries will catch up to where you guys are, so you're setting the bar up higher than what we've seen in other legislative presentations.

249 words

All Tags

Context: Bill S-211 (FAAE) - Nov/21/22

Mr. Matt Friedman

04:13:41 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Many of the companies are already doing this for other transparency legislation. If you have products in the U.K., you're already submitting. I think corporate sector inputs are essential in helping to clarify the direction of this, but the writing is on the wall. This needs to happen. It's going to happen in many other countries as well, so let's go ahead and get this legislation across the line. I really don't think it's going to be a burden or a problem. What it does is sensitize the corporate sector to what they need to do. It educates them, informs them, and the peer pressure will get them to actually be involved.

118 words

All Tags