SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Committee

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2022
Context: Bill S-211 (FAAE) - Nov/21/22
The Chair
  • 03:40:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
That's fair enough. The clerk is pointing out that the chair does have the power to move it around to make sure that we proceed in the most expeditious fashion and to make sure that all those issues that are being considered are considered. That said, we will go to Ms. Bendayan.
53 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Rachel Bendayan
  • 03:40:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I simply wanted to see, Mr. Chair, if we could get to our witnesses. I would like to respond to my colleague, and we can discuss the schedule, but given that witnesses are waiting, perhaps there is a better time for this.
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:41:12 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
For sure. My apologies to the witnesses. Can we proceed with the witnesses?
13 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • 03:41:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes. Let's proceed according to the agreed-upon calendar for the rest of the month, and let's hear from the witnesses.
23 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:41:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
No. We've moved it around just to make it more efficient.
12 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • 03:41:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
We can hash it out on Wednesday if we want, but we're going to have a problem on Wednesday if we are not proceeding in accordance with the agreed-upon calendar. That's my only point.
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:41:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
How is that a problem, Mr. Genuis?
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • 03:41:38 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
It's because we have an agreed-upon calendar. I mean, we're supposed to—
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:41:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes, but a chair can also make sure that we move along apace to make sure that all those issues that are of concern to the members are actually dealt with.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)
  • 03:41:50 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • 03:41:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but I don't think the chair can just change the calendar if it's been unanimously agreed on. I'll leave my comments there. I won't have anything to add. I've made my point. Thank you.
45 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:42:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Genuis. Yes, Mr. Bergeron.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
  • 03:42:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Mr. Chair, I certainly would not want to question the clerk advising you that you can change the calendar at your leisure to render committee business as efficient as possible. However, to avoid this kind of issue, it might be useful for you to consult with the two vice-chairs of the committee, who, along with you and another member from the Liberal Party, make up the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It would be more legitimate if you go through the subcommittee to make these kinds of changes. I understand very well that sometimes changes have to be made to the agreed upon calendar to make committee business more efficient. However, look at the trouble it puts you and the committee in when we have witnesses present. Mr. Chair, I simply and respectfully suggest that you go through the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure in the future, which should prevent these kinds of situations.
157 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:43:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. We'll certainly consider that. If we could now go back to our study—
19 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)
  • 03:43:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:43:55 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes, Mr. Zuberi.
3 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Sameer Zuberi
  • 03:43:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I'd like to say that I respect the fact that you as chair have the prerogative to make swift decisions that reflect the overall will of the committee. I would ask that all members also respect that fact, that it is your prerogative to do exactly what you are doing. The decisions you have taken thus far are right and appropriate. I hope we can get into what we need to study right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
79 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:44:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Zuberi. I think that in the terminology Mr. Bergeron used, he said it was to add to the legitimacy of the process. I wasn't bringing up anything new. This was something that all members of the committee had agreed to consider, and I simply moved around an hour, but going forward perhaps that would be a better approach. Now, if we could go back to the study at hand, allow me to say that concerning the drafting of amendments, I'd like to remind all the members to contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, should there be any amendments of the draft. All that having been said, it is now my pleasure to welcome our witnesses today. We have with us Mr. Martin Dumas, a lawyer and a professor of industrial relations at Université Laval; Mr. Matt Friedman from The Mekong Club, who acts and serves as chief executive officer; Mr. Stephen Brown, from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, who serves as chief executive officer, with Ms. Fatema Abdalla, the advocacy officer; and finally, from the Shareholder Association for Research and Education, we're happy to have Mr. Kevin Thomas, who serves as chief executive officer. Each of our four witnesses will be provided five minutes for their opening remarks, after which we will open the floor to questions by the members. Mr. Dumas, you have five minutes. Once you are down to 30 seconds, before you hit that target, I will put up a paper to guide you so you have a sense that you should be wrapping it up soon. Thank you, Mr. Dumas. Please do proceed.
275 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Martin Dumas (Lawyer and Professor, Industrial Relations Department, As an Individual)
  • 03:46:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make it clear to committee members that my English is good enough that I can answer any questions they ask in English after my presentation. I'm appearing before the committee today not only as a lawyer and professor, but more importantly as a researcher. I completed my doctoral studies in labour law at the London School of Economics. My field of study was specifically child labour in countries or regions that are not as developed as Canada, and specifically in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and in Africa. I'd like to summarize my three comments on Bill S‑211. My first comment is about the preamble. The first whereas of the bill's preamble suggests that forced labour and child labour are forms of modern slavery. I agree wholeheartedly that forced labour constitutes a form of modern slavery, but I wouldn't say that all forms of child labour constitute modern slavery. In my opinion, the definition of what constitutes slavery is problematic. Many forms of child labour do not constitute slavery. For terminological reasons, it would be important to correct that, in my view. My second, more substantive comment concerns the very definition of child labour found in the “Definitions” section of the bill. This definition should not be used. Let me elaborate. It seems to me that two paragraphs in the proposed definition are somewhat inappropriate for an initiative aiming to realistically reduce child labour. I'm referring to paragraphs (a) and (c). Paragraph (a) refers to work or services that are “provided or offered to be provided in Canada under circumstances that are contrary to the laws applicable in Canada”. Paragraph (c) refers to work or services provided or offered by persons under the age of 18 years that “interfere with their schooling by depriving them of the opportunity to attend school, obliging them to leave school prematurely or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work”. In my opinion, these two paragraphs are problematic and I will quickly explain why. Based on the studies I've done in developing countries, I would say that the types of work some children are found to do are quite acceptable from the perspective of parents who are in absolutely dire straits. However, we don't always consider such dire straits when taking a critical look at child labour around the world. I will simply give you a typical example to clarify my opinion. Sometimes children find themselves in situations where, although their work forces them to postpone or suspend their schooling, it doesn't necessarily harm their health or safety and it's legitimized. When a ban on child labour is strictly enforced, situations arise where children are essentially forced to perform even more dangerous work, with their parents' permission. This is what we've observed on the ground. For example, children who were forbidden to weave carpets found themselves making bricks a few weeks later in even more dangerous circumstances that were detrimental to their health. We have seen situations where young girls who were forbidden to weave saris would later find themselves on the street working as prostitutes. I'll give you a very simple example—imagine a mother whose husband has died and must have her 13‑year‑old son work to support her family. That's the gist of what I wanted to tell you today. I'll save the rest of the time to answer your questions.
605 words
All Tags
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 03:52:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Dumas. You will have more time during the question period to conclude any remarks you may have. Now we go to Mr. Friedman. The floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
40 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border