Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to support Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at second reading.

My colleague Rosemary Moodie provided a comprehensive overview of the history of child care in this country and the principles contained in Bill C-35, including provisions that enable Indigenous peoples to define and direct their own early childhood services.

I won’t repeat what Senator Moodie said so well. Instead, I want to address some of the challenges of implementing this program, in light of Quebec’s experience with $8.85-per-day child care spaces.

To begin, it is clear that this framework legislation essentially seeks to ensure that the ambitious federal child care funding initiative in the provinces and territories becomes a permanent fixture. Minister Karina Gould said so openly during the committee study in the House of Commons on March 10, and I quote:

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments . . . are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

That’s why this bill is short and simply sets out general principles, such as long-term funding. All the details are in the hundreds of pages of bilateral agreements between Ottawa and the provinces. Ontario’s agreement is 140 pages long; Quebec’s agreements are 47 pages long. The agreements include amounts, funding formulas, specific rules and accountability measures.

I would note that the agreement with Quebec is asymmetrical. It reaffirms Quebec’s exclusive jurisdiction over child care and says that Quebec will have total flexibility to spend the money it gets on improving its network and creating new spaces.

I found two segments of Bill C-35 particularly interesting. The first is in paragraph 7(1)(b), which states that federal investments should aim to “enable families of all income levels, including low incomes, to benefit . . . .”

Helping low-income families is no doubt the most difficult goal for a universal child care program to achieve. Quebec’s experience is proof of that. That was actually one of the two major goals set out in Quebec’s Educational Childcare Act, which was passed 25 years ago.

Unfortunately, the legislation has not had the desired result. The idea was to make the service free for the poorest families to encourage them to register their children in early childhood centres, which are known as CPEs in Quebec. These are high-quality, non-profit child care services. The goal was for children to benefit from early stimulation and more equal opportunities in their schooling.

The fact remains that these families still need to register and spots have to be available. We know that 36% of Quebec children under the age of four do not attend a recognized child care facility. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family, explained to the House of Commons committee that very little is known about the systemic, economic and cultural barriers that impede families’ access to child care.

The 2020-21 report of the Auditor General of Quebec gave some striking examples of such disparities. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, particularly the borough of Montreal North, there are a lot more spaces available in private daycares than in CPEs, whereas the opposite is true in the wealthy neighbourhood of Westmount. In simple terms, richer families have greater access to high-quality CPEs at $8.85 a day than low- and modest-income families, who have greater access to commercial daycares that offer lower-quality services. Children living in families with an income of $50,000 or less are less likely to get a space at a CPE. I find that deeply disturbing.

[English]

The known difference of quality between private daycares and non-profit CPEs should make the province think. The Quebec government did not have the means to meet the full demand, so it turned to the private sector to offer more spots, either by subsidizing them directly or by offering a tax credit. It is more than time to raise quality standards and to enforce them.

Quebec has gone through different stages to try to refine the data and make its waiting list system fairer. Today, there is a single, regularly updated waiting list for all CPEs across Quebec. Right now, for example, we know there are 37,260 children waiting for a spot, a figure that has jumped by 3,700 in one year despite the addition of more than 20,000 subsidized spaces over the past two years. However, even the accuracy of this list is disputed by some.

Despite significant investments, there is a lack of spots for mothers who want to return to work. The reality is that it is the less fortunate families who are worse off. The labour shortage in child care services aggravates the problem.

When I was President of the Quebec Council for the Status of Women, I spent much time thinking about this supposed universal child care model. There is no easy answer.

[Translation]

Let me share a personal anecdote. When the child care program first started 25 years ago, I secured $5-a-day child care spaces for my two children. I was very lucky. It was a daycare at my workplace at Radio-Canada, and there was always a child care educator available in the evening for employees with atypical work schedules. That applied to me because I was covering the news. I simply added my name to a waiting list at the right time. The system was purely first-come, first-served.

That child care centre gave me seven years of peace of mind. I could see that my children were learning and that their tastes were developing thanks to healthy lunches. However, even back then, there were long waiting lists, and some of my lower-income colleagues were not as lucky as I was. The Quebec model is not equitable. That is a lesson Canada should learn from.

The same problem will arise in other provinces. I believe that until there are enough spaces for all children from all walks of life and all neighbourhoods, the principle of universality is unfair if it doesn’t take income into account. I think it’s essential to give priority to less fortunate families. As it stands, the system will provide a daycare space at $8.85 a day to a doctor earning $300,000 if she registers before an orderly who earns six or seven times less than that.

In 2015, the Quebec government abolished the flat rate and charged higher rates to parents with higher incomes, but that reform was later abandoned because of an election campaign. In short, we went back to square one.

The Quebec example illustrates the challenges and the adjustments that were needed along the way, just as they will definitely be needed elsewhere in Canada. Fortunately, the Quebec government has recognized the inequity of access to reduced-contribution spaces and is working to address it. The legislation was amended two years ago to ensure that priority for subsidized child care services is given to children in precarious socio-economic circumstances.

Despite these challenges, I would remind the chamber that the Quebec model has contributed to significant advances in Quebec society, particularly for the middle class.

In 2022, 88% of Quebec women between 25 and 54 years of age were active in the workforce, compared to an average of 84% in the other provinces. Over the years, mothers of young children have been returning to the workforce faster, due in part to good‑quality, affordable daycare. In 25 years, the number of daycare spaces has climbed from 79,000 to 307,000, including 237,000 subsidized spaces. That is a huge increase.

The second thing in the bill that struck me is the annual report that the federal government will be required to prepare. The report has to contain a summary of the progress made in the provincial systems and information about the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of child care services.

The federal public servants who answered our questions at a recent briefing on Bill C-35 were unequivocal: They are depending on the provinces to provide the evidence needed to carry out a real assessment. This evidence must show not only how many spaces costing $10 or less per day were created in each province, but also how many families are still on waiting lists.

Obviously, each province already has its own waiting list system. Some don’t even have a waiting list. With this in mind, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments?

I am going to end by sharing some words from the November 2021 brief prepared by the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, which identifies the primary shortcomings that should be corrected in Quebec’s model. To meet the needs of all women, child care services must take into account mothers with variable work schedules, women with precarious immigration status, and poorer and more vulnerable women.

These are equity issues that have no doubt already been identified in other provinces and territories, but they are difficult to resolve. I hope that other provinces can benefit from Quebec’s experience and that Canadian families — especially the less fortunate ones — can fully benefit from the new program put in place by Bill C-35.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is an excellent question, Senator Omidvar. I will answer in French, if you don’t mind, because the subject is rather technical.

I don’t think the federal government has the power to require that all those investments go toward public not-for-profit daycares. Even in Quebec, where significant amounts were spent and there was an overwhelming consensus between feminist ministers and all of civil society to implement this low-cost child care system, we were financially unable to absorb the costs and have only not-for-profit organizations, offer decent wages and, often, build child care centres.

That is why Quebec made use of private daycares. Had it not done so, the province would have been unable to meet the demand from the many women who were at home and wanted a space for their child. There were all sorts of systems. Now, there are just four or five remaining, including the non-profits and CPEs, subsidized and non-subsidized private daycares, and family daycares where a woman provides child care. Family daycares were extremely important in Quebec. Since the number of children changes from year to year, family daycares were a more flexible tool to accommodate that fluctuation. It is easier to open or close family daycares than CPEs or non-profits.

It’s remarkable that Quebec has managed to do this. The government had to keep its promises, but it didn’t have enough money to build the best not-for-profit daycares for everyone. Studies have shown that the best child care centres are not-for-profit CPEs, which have trained educators and decent budgets. These are the highest-quality child care centres.

Now, what can be done about this rather difficult situation? We need to set stricter standards for these private child care centres, whether they are subsidized or not, in order to keep our children safe.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are there any more questions?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: What I understand from the history of this type of bill, because this is not the first time that this section of the Criminal Code has been called into question, is that the education sector’s reaction has always been that, sometimes, it is necessary to go to those lengths.

I understand that the Supreme Court has said that educators have very little room to manœuvre when intervening. However, in that situation, just as for parents, what concerns me is the issue of restraining a child so they don’t hurt themselves. It is very difficult to have absolute and general legislation to govern human beings.

You’ve all seen your children have a temper tantrum or meltdown, and sometimes we don’t know how to deal with it. However, in my opinion, we should not confuse calming down a child, even clumsily, and using unreasonable force.

That is a good question. In reading up on this issue, I realized that it’s not as simple as it seems. Yes, we have a provision that talks about reasonable force. In 2023, it is symbolically very difficult to use words like that because people always think the worst. But if we eliminate that clause, what does that mean? Are we going to have to build up jurisprudence to determine what’s acceptable and what’s not? There will always be situations that will be a bit of a grey area.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That question sums up the very essence of the issue. Laws can do some of the work, and they can be a signal or a symbol. But society changes at its own pace. As you said yourself, sometimes it’s a generational issue, sometimes it’s a cultural issue, but certainly, every family has a different perspective on corporal punishment. How can we address that?

Obviously, this can also be taught in school. I know that in Quebec, new courses are being developed on these civic issues. There is no magic solution. You are asking me an extremely difficult question. The fact remains that children talk amongst themselves, and there can be all kinds of influences that make them realize that a situation isn’t normal. They might talk about it to friends or to a psychologist, and the parents themselves can evolve. It’s not 1960 anymore, like when I lived in France. Things have changed a great deal.

The point I was trying to make is that I agree with the principle of the bill, but it obviously won’t solve all the social issues surrounding it.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak in support of the principle of Bill S-251, which was introduced by Senator Kutcher.

At first glance, this appears to be a very simple, very short bill that should be very easy to support, regarding the use of reasonable force to correct a child. Who among us here advocates any form of child abuse? No one, obviously.

How could anyone object to sending a clear, albeit symbolic, message about our commitment to ending all forms of mistreatment, abuse and trauma for Canadian children? Again, no one.

On the other hand, this topic affects most of us personally, whether as a former child or as a parent.

Like many of my generation, I myself experienced physical correction when I was young. I have a vivid memory of the first spanking I received from my mother, at the age of seven or eight, when we lived in France. Even worse were the punishments at school. At that time, corporal punishment was frequently used to discipline children in elementary schools in Paris. I remember classmates being spanked in front of everyone and others being seized by the ear and pulled around the classroom by the teacher. For students, it could not have been more humiliating.

When I returned to Quebec in the 1970s, times had changed, at least at school. I may be a wise and patient senator now, but I was a rebellious teenager. I still remember the stinging slap my mother gave me after I insulted her. Let’s just say that it did nothing to improve our relationship.

I want to add that, although I remember being disciplined like that, it did not cause me any lasting trauma. In fact, like many other children, I’m sure, I was more hurt when my family yelled at me and criticized me. A slap hurts in the moment, but the damage words can do can last a long time. However, I doubt the government will ever be able to legislate what a parent can and can’t say to their children.

Bill S-251 proposes to eliminate the exception set out in section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows a parent, among others, to use “force by way of correction toward a . . . child . . . if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Although I am in favour of the principle of the bill, I still want to point out three problems worth thinking about.

The first is a political issue that comes up in many of our debates: How far can the government go in regulating private behaviour? Of course, there is no question that the government can criminalize violence against children, as it does for violence against any person, particularly the most vulnerable.

When it comes to “force [that] does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances,” however, we are also getting into the area of education, discipline and discretion in the exercise of parental authority. It’s clear that the government can and must protect children from violence, but it also can and must respect parents’ judgment.

[English]

It’s also important to remember that the exception provided at section 43 is already quite narrow. Here are excerpts from a March 2021 letter from Justice Minister Lametti to Heidi Illingworth, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime:

The issue of whether or not section 43 should be repealed raises differing and strongly held views across Canada. . . .

As you are likely aware, assault is broadly defined in Canadian criminal law to include any non consensual use of force against another person. This can also include non consensual touching that does not involve physical harm or marks. Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a limited defence to criminal liability for parents, persons standing in the place of parents, and teachers for the non-consensual application of reasonable force to a child. . . .

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada . . . held that section 43 is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also set out guidelines that significantly narrowed the application of the defence to reasonable corrective force that is transitory and trifling in nature. Moreover, the SCC’s decision provided that teachers cannot use force for physical punishment under any circumstances . . . .

[Translation]

There are many different parenting styles and approaches. I don’t believe that this grand, complex human adventure can be reduced to an exact science with definitive and universal answers that can be applied to any situation. That’s why we have to be careful not to target parenting approaches that we may not like, but that don’t necessarily deserve to be criminalized.

In a similar vein, I would point out that differences exist not only between individuals and families, but sometimes also between cultures. The way children are raised, the role of authority and discipline, and parenting approaches are often shaped by our personal or cultural history. Cultures and family backgrounds also influence the perception and impact of physical correction on children.

Again, I want to reiterate that we should not be condoning child abuse, mistreatment or violence in any way, but neither should we disproportionately target Canadians from minority cultures by removing the narrow exemption set out in section 43 of the Criminal Code. Some parenting styles may not match our own personal preferences. This does not necessarily mean that they are criminal.

[English]

Finally, I note something of a paradox. Many of the people who support this bill argue that we should not fear a wave of new prosecution of parents if we remove the exemption at section 43. This is because, while removing the exemption would technically make any non-consensual touching of children by their parents a criminal offence, everyone realizes this is an absurd situation. For this reason, proponents of the bill argue that if we remove the exemption at section 43, a new set of common-law defences and exemptions would apply, including an exception for minimal offences, rules about necessity, implied consent and others.

So are we really just removing one explicit, codified and narrowly interpreted exemption and replacing it with numerous vague and uncodified exemptions that would achieve the same purpose? In some ways, it could be argued that we are asked to make the Criminal Code less pragmatic and less realistic and that, as a result, courts will have to develop new workarounds. In other words, the change we are contemplating may be more symbolic than substantive.

All that being said, I recognize there is a global movement to remove these limited exemptions, even if it means developing new ones to replace them.

As of 2022, 65 countries have banned corporal punishment. Even in France, Article 371-1 of the Civil Code was amended in 2019.

[Translation]

That article states: “Parental authority is expressed without physical or psychological violence.”

[English]

If the French can make this commitment, perhaps we can as well.

Society evolves, and it’s normal that we adapt our legislation to reflect that change. Sometimes we update our laws to reflect the way we already live, and sometimes they reflect our aspirations. Just because things have always been one way doesn’t mean that we must continue forever.

I believe our laws play a role in setting the tone, and we must trust the institutions to behave reasonably in the circumstances. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: In a nutshell, we don’t know the value of this content shared on the internet.

As we speak, a lot of private deals are being struck between Google and certain Canadian media outlets. We don’t know the value of these contracts, but we do know that Google, faced with the “threat” of the coming law, is making deals with the media. The fact that Google is doing this means that it sees value in doing it. In our capitalist world, few private companies make deals if they don’t feel the need to do so.

In a way, the platforms are admitting that this journalistic content has value. Based on the rumours we’ve heard, we know that most of the agreements currently require the payment of 30% of the cost pertaining to journalists, based on the number of journalists on staff.

Still, you’re quite right in saying that there is too little transparency in this bill and a lot of unknowns. At some point, the hammer will fall. The government will want to know how many agreements there are and will wonder if that is enough for the law not to apply, as was the case in Australia. Then there will be a race because Google does not want legislation, does not want arbitration and does not want agreements to be imposed either. The government is betting on the platforms — and Facebook does not seem to be doing this — signing agreements before the law goes into force, because that way, the law will not apply. That is what the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada are betting on.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I will be brief. I admire your rather purist vision of journalism. You are right in saying that it is dangerous to take money from large, extremely powerful platforms, but I think we are already beyond that point since journalism in this country is receiving funding from the government. The government is no doubt the most heavily criticized entity in Canada, and now it is giving the media money.

As far as principles go, how is it any different to accept money from platforms that earn some money through journalism?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: To my knowledge, since this crisis began, the Copyright Act has not been enforced in relation to articles that are shared because, yes, links are often shared. I don’t think the Copyright Act is the appropriate mechanism to protect journalism. I know this mechanism is used in France. We’ve been much more inspired by the Australian model, which has been successful in mitigating the crisis to some extent. We noticed that in Australia —

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I can’t see into the future, but for now, the government is giving tax credits. These tax credits have helped the media outlets that survived the crisis stay afloat, but they are at their limit. Obviously, these agreements with platforms are welcome and are helping newspapers like Le Devoir prosper more than it would have otherwise. However, who says that Google will still be around in 20 years? I believe I am out of time.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading of Bill C-18, the online news bill. This bill is important to me personally because I spent many years in the world of journalism.

For starters, the crisis is real. Over the past 14 years, 469 newspapers and news organizations in Canada have closed up shop. The majority of the surviving media organizations have been through cuts that have eviscerated newsrooms. Bill C-18 is clearly not a solution in search of a problem. We really do have a big problem, and the government is right to tackle it.

There are many reasons for this crisis, but nearly all of them have to do with the internet revolution. Over the past 25 years, traditional media, which used to have a monopoly on broadcasting information, lost their exclusivity to multiple competitors: online ads, foreign media, government sites, streaming platforms, countless specialized sources for things like weather forecasts, sports scores and financial news, audio and video-sharing platforms, news and opinion blogs and, lastly, social media platforms, which pounded the last nail into the coffin.

Today, traditional media organizations are facing a profound crisis that affects both their profitability, now that advertisers have left, and the value they add, since so much content is available elsewhere.

Some say that the media has not been able to adapt and is simply a victim of technological change, similar to how the typewriter disappeared when computers became ubiquitous. Others add that the traditional media outlets are the victims of their own inertia and arrogance, and that they deserve their fate.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but there is some truth to that. Many didn’t see the threat coming, and for a long time, they believed that the competition from online media and social networks, sometimes called the “barbarian invasion,” had no value and would not interest anyone. Accustomed to the comfort of their monopoly, some media outlets looked down on new platforms, different models and alternative paths, and were unwilling to take a hard look at themselves, rethink their offerings and adapt.

However, that is not the whole story. Many Canadian media organizations, big and small, young and old, have been trying out innovative approaches for 20 years. In Quebec in particular, the media landscape changed dramatically with the emergence of not-for-profit agencies or cooperatives, as in the case of Les Coops de l’information. La Presse has gone exclusively digital, and the hybrid subscriber model is working for Le Devoir. Experts such as Sue Gardner and Jean-Hugues Roy have noted that a lot of experiments are under way, and even though there are no conclusive results yet, this could be the key to the solution.

However, we mustn’t confuse traditional media with journalism. We can criticize our media and also have legitimate concerns about the future of journalism. While some organizations have lost their aura and their influence, the importance of journalism has remained intact and is as big as ever.

Whether reports address the need to expose lies, scandals, corruption or cronyism, the essential character of journalism is no less great today than it was 25 years ago. In any free society, journalism is a public good that needs to be protected and supported. As the Washington Post‘s slogan goes, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

That being said, investigative work or analysis has the same public value regardless of whether it is done by CBC/Radio-Canada or by a new online journalism platform and whether it is broadcast on the radio, on television, on Twitter or on Facebook.

What is important to Canadian society is that organizations, no matter which ones, have the resources to deliver quality journalism and that the content reaches the public. In other words, Canada needs a robust and diverse news ecosystem that fulfills its role as the watchdog of democracy.

With Bill C-18, the government is proposing a response to the financial difficulties facing journalism in Canada. The government’s proposed solution is quite simple and is directly inspired by the Australian model. Given that the media have lost their advertising revenue to major platforms such as Facebook and Google, these companies should pay the media to publish their content. It is a pragmatic solution. Rich companies will support companies that have become poor.

[English]

For some, Bill C-18 is nonetheless on the wrong track because it is based on a fiction, namely, that Google and Facebook “hurt” the media by making their content available. Media expert Sue Gardner sums up this criticism well:

. . . that premise makes no sense. We know that because news publishers have always been able to opt out of appearing in Google search results, and they don’t. In fact they do the opposite: they vigorously compete to maximize their presences on Google and on Facebook. News publishers want to appear on those platforms, because that’s where people are finding news.

For these critics, the reality is that Google and Facebook offer their users a huge variety of content — of which the media is only a small portion — and the media profit more from the platforms’ referencing than the latter profits from news content. It is possible, but nobody knows. The figures are not public.

The solution for some media experts would be to tax Google and Facebook and set up an independent fund to support journalism.

In an ideal world, setting up a fund would be an easier option, but in reality this is not the avenue the government has chosen for reasons that have to do, apparently, with our trade agreements. As senators, we are called upon to vote on the bill before us. It is possible to improve it, but impossible to rewrite it in such a fundamental way.

I see a number of issues to be addressed in our review of Bill C-18.

First, there is a fundamental question of the expectations of the parties. For large digital platforms, negotiations should focus on the commercial value of the content and services exchanged. In other words, what is the value of news content for Google and Facebook, and how much revenue do those platforms generate for news organizations? For the media, on the other hand, the logic seems different. Some consider that the major platforms should finance up to 30% of their operating costs. This approach is more likely a subsidy than a commercial deal.

To align the expectations of the parties in future negotiations, it would be useful to clarify the objectives of the bill.

Then there is the issue of eligible media. Amendments in the House of Commons have already broadened the admissibility criteria to include small, non-profit community and Indigenous outlets, including those owned by journalists. These broadened criteria mean that we went from about 200 to more than 650 organizations potentially admissible under Bill C-18. This is a welcome expansion because the important thing is to support journalism no matter where it is practised, and not to support only mainstream media. On the other hand, we must ensure that by broadening the scope, we do not open the door to people who do not practise real journalism, but who focus instead on lobbying, fictional or intimate narratives, personal growth or entertainment.

Questions also arise regarding the platforms targeted by Bill C-18. Even though the definition of “digital news intermediary” in the law is very broad, we know that it only covers Facebook and Google at the moment. But we also have to think about the future. Already, Facebook is threatening to block the sharing of Canadian news on its platform if Bill C-18 is adopted. If Facebook carries out the threat, will the bill only target Google? In that case, will this new financing mechanism for Canadian media depend on only one foreign platform? This would be a peculiar situation.

It will also be important to consider the use of funds received by the media. This is a very delicate question, because the government does not want to interfere too much in what it presents as private negotiations. This is a consequence of the approach adopted. That said, the bill won’t be of great assistance to journalism as a public good if the amounts received from Google and Facebook are directed to shareholders or interest payments rather than to hiring journalists, upgrading platforms and to conduct investigations. Much more transparency is needed in this bill.

Questions also arise about the long-term viability of an approach that makes Canadian media partially dependent on foreign private companies that can change or disappear at any time.

[Translation]

In conclusion, Bill C-18 addresses an issue that has a real impact on the democratic health of our country.

Today, even innovative new platforms can’t be profitable without public support, with some exceptions. Excluding CBC/Radio-Canada, many newsrooms are hanging on by a thread.

The Transport and Communications Committee, of which I am a member, will have its work cut out for it. We will have to come to grips with the implications and its limitations of the bill, and perhaps suggest improvements. As with Bill C-11, Bill C-18 is a legislative foray into the ever-changing world of the internet. In the medium term, it is difficult to assess the impact of the measures being put forward. There will inevitably be a process of trial and error, and adjustments will be necessary. However, in my opinion, this effort is certainly more commendable than inaction.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, Senator Housakos, journalists do have a choice of whether or not to post their articles online.

I know that you believe very strongly in the principle of individual choice. However, we are talking here about a complete paradigm shift. That means that if media outlets don’t allow their articles to be shared, then they lose a lot of readers. It’s a bit of a paradox because the survival of journalism depends in part on really solid content, the kind of journalism that is different from what circulates on social media.

We know that stand-alone, isolated media outlets will not be able to reach enough people. They are therefore obligated, in this new universe, to make their content available by agreeing to share it. The real problem is that we don’t know how much that journalistic content is worth to a platform like Google. Of course, Google won’t give us its figures. As a result, it is extremely difficult to implement a bill like this one, which seeks to put a value on journalistic content, because we have no idea how much that content is worth to the platforms or what it brings to individual media outlets.

We know they no longer get any advertising revenues because the entire advertising market has been picked up by the platforms, but we don’t know whether that could make a difference in terms of traffic. For example, people from the daily newspaper La Presse told me that they were bringing in decent advertising revenues. It wasn’t a windfall, but they had what they needed to survive. That’s why everyone wants to be on social media. Did you have another question?

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Australia certainly isn’t a perfect model, but we noticed that journalists were hired there after the secret agreements that Google and Facebook unfortunately reached with media outlets. We also noticed that, according to some sources, larger media organizations have more money than small ones but that small community media organizations received some money.

As for the Uber that gets you to the restaurant, I tend to agree with Senator Harder because I’m not convinced that’s a good analogy for what’s really happening. There is an exchange, but we don’t really know if the value of journalism to these platforms is equal or unequal to the value journalists derive from being broadcast on these platforms.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is an excellent question, Senator Omidvar. Of course, as I’ve said many times, this bill is only a first step. It is absolutely true that a child working in a factory or a manufacturing plant somewhere in developing countries can feed an entire family.

Secondly, there is something called “remediation measures,” which could perhaps be discussed at committee and explored further. Under these measures, once the problem is discovered, once a child is found to be working for them, companies are required to do more than just send the child away and say they don’t want them working there anymore. There are scholarship programs for such children so they can return to school full time, while earning a small income for the family to survive.

There are all sorts of remediation measures, and that’s clearly the key. When we start doing these investigations, the idea is not to ban companies from our supply chain the minute a problem is found. The idea is to give them a chance to make things right. We know that banning a company or removing it from the supply chain can result in thousands of adults and children losing their jobs. Yes, companies have to do more. We also need to make sure there’s a social safety net in place around these companies. Non-profits can help for sure, but the solution to forced labour and child labour is obviously for rich countries like Canada to provide more international aid. We need to focus on education because that is what can change lives in the medium term. This measure alone is sure to get that conversation started within companies. I don’t claim to know how to solve the enormous problem of child labour. We’re talking 150 million children who work and 73 million who work in dangerous and difficult conditions. Not all of these children are in forced labour situations like those who work in mines, but we are talking about a huge number of human beings.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I will wrap up quickly. I spoke about this bill yesterday, and I will remind you that it is called the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. Briefly, it would require major companies with headquarters located in Canada to report once a year on the risk that forced labour or child labour is used in their supply chain, in an attempt to ultimately reduce the risk, ensure greater transparency and give consumers more tools to make their decisions.

I was getting to the conclusion. In closing, I would say that Bill S-211 seeks to make a modest contribution to a much broader and longer-term objective, which is the alignment of our trade and economic activities with the imperatives of social and environmental sustainability.

Canada has made many commitments internationally, but we have yet to include them in our domestic legislation. I will repeat that we are lagging behind.

Canada is a rich, free and modern society that respects the protection of human rights in principle. If we can’t act decisively to limit modern slavery practices in our supply chains, we run the risk of losing the moral authority that we cherish and being seen as hypocrites. That is not what I want.

That is not what some of our largest companies want either. One example would be Canadian Tire, a company that put robust systems in place to assess its foreign suppliers several years ago.

Other companies are setting an example, such as Canadian athletic wear company Lululemon, along with Adidas, Gap Inc. and others, according to a ranking by KnowTheChain.

Currently, responsible businesses like Canadian Tire and Lululemon are at a disadvantage compared with unscrupulous competitors who can sometimes pay less for products manufactured in inhumane conditions. Bill S-211 would help shed light on these practices and discourage them as much as possible, which would promote more honest competition that does not rely on slave labour. In doing so, we will stop punishing, through our own inaction, the many companies that want to do the right thing.

Canada would also catch up to its peers and would be in a position to act in accordance with its values.

Esteemed colleagues, I humbly suggest that Bill S-211 deserves to be studied in committee. I am obviously prepared to take questions, if you can remember the whole speech I gave 24 hours ago.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator, I would definitely say no regarding the specific question you are asking.

When we talk about modern slavery and forced labour, the terms are not synonyms for hard work. You can have hard work, and it doesn’t have to be modern slavery. In the definition of forced labour, you have the notion of constraints. It can be a debt bondage or a confiscation of your documents. Obviously, exploitation is part of it. It’s a definition that’s different from hard labour, which can happen in construction sites and in many places in Canada.

Honourable senators know that children working in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction and different provinces in Canada have different rules about it. In general, when a human being is not yet 18 years old, there are restrictions. They can work before the age of 18 on the condition that they go to school and work does not interfere with schooling. In Canada there are already laws that apply to children that will not be touched by this particular bill.

Now to the essence of your question, no, I don’t think that family farms will be touched. If you go back to the bill, we’re talking here about large enterprises. I will read the definition of what we’re talking about so that you know we’re not talking about your regular family farm.

The entity covered has at least $20 million in assets or has generated at least $40 million in revenue, and/or employs an average of at least 250 employees. This is not a family farm; however, it could be an agribusiness that, for example, imports tomatoes and transforms them. They would probably be touched if they are big, but not the family farm.